yes-- but WHY?
A look into families that produced multiple prodigy talents is HIGHLY instructive there. Take a look at the Mozarts and the Mendelssohn siblings for a glimpse of what I'm getting at there. Fanny was widely considered to be (by contemporaries who knew both children well)
far more gifted than Felix. But she was not supported as a composer, and was discouraged from pursuing further training as a
composer more seriously. This pattern is not at all unusual in famous composers-- that is, that they may well have had a female sibling who gave every indication of being at least equally talented, but who remain(s/ed) unknown.
When one looks at cloistered populations, the gender difference is considerably less marked in terms of poetry, music, and writing. Environment clearly plays a pretty significant role.
It wasn't until painting became a more "respectable" and "proper" pastime for women (in the late 19th and early 20th century) that female artists began to attain something like parity in elite art circles, either. The art of the Renaissance is almost entirely male, for example-- the few examples which endure of female painters with that kind of prodigious ability were the products of QUITE unusual upbringings-- upbringings that treated them more as boys than as girls.
So no, I'm not at all convinced that the arts
historically represent natural occurrence of prodigy talents very well. They represent
nurture of such abilities, almost certainly. Contemporarily, they certainly do so more than at times in the past-- and it is probably no coincidence that CURRENTLY, this disparity is shrinking.
The Juilliard School is 54% male, and 46% female; a disparity which has been shrinking annually. It's certainly not because fewer female applicants are in the pool-- if anything it is the other way around. If you are male, the numbers suggest that your odds of admission are TWICE what they are if you're female. The pattern is repeated at other prestigious conservatories, I might add.
