@Christian and @MR None of us are disagreeing; if you think you heard a denigration of the category “feminine” here, you missed the rest of this blog! What I DO object to is the relegation of Gray’s work to that category *only*.The important point is that Gray was not honoured in her own time not because her *work* was seen as feminine, but that *she* was a woman and was discriminated against accordingly.

@Christian That would be fine if Eileen Gray had been honoured in any other category – but “romantic buildings”? It’s a dumb category and also a form of ghettoization in the absence of any other honours. As you can see if you peruse this site there’s a strong interest in women designers, but I feel their work should be honoured as “design” or “architecture,” not romantic, or “design by women” or architecture by women.” Why not just “good architecture” or “good design”? It’s always second tier when qualified. You know? A very different thing. I am doing the opposite of denigrating women, but let’s remember that the “feminine” is itself largely a constructed category. “Humanity” is the province of both (or all) genders.

Corbusier knew Gray had created a masterpiece, but he tried to contain it, and contain it sexually (see the rather derivative sexualized/female nude murals he painted on the house without Gray’s permission) and in terms of gender and sexual attraction. The Australian Broadcasting Corp’s excellent radio segment on the house, in the show “By Design,” is great on this topic. Thanks for your other remarks! Lindsay
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bydesign/stories/2011/3301926.htm
and here, at 15:28:
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2011/08/bdn_20110831.mp3