Bring on the Feminist Art!

I would have loved to see it. I'll be honest, this kind of plates is not something i like, i think it's a bit "too much", but the history behind all this means a lot to many people. I think it's great to see women work together like this and be able to share what they think or feel through art.. even if i think some went a bit too far :)

Patricia, a rose is a rose every day and every night.

My dinnerware and dishes ( http://www.dinnerwarenow.com ) page.

I am so glad that this has sparked such interesting discussion on art and sexuality. I love reading everyone's comments. I am with Alyssa - I don't like penis art any more than I like vulva art. Not that I think there is anything wrong with using various sexual organs in art. I think it does have an important function, just like everyone has pretty much already said. The work certainly has gotten us to engage in a great conversation. I just don't like it aesthetically.

Suzanne Reisman ( http://www.blogher.com/member/suzanne ), Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender ( http://www.blogher.com/topic/feminism-gender )
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com/ )

Okay, I bit my tongue 'til it bled.

You're both right, we all are. That's what's so cool. There is no one way to do this.

Personally, not a fan of the vulva as art. Not a fan of the penis as art either. (Though as play things, bring 'em both on!) I think, personally, that using them as symbols to define our genders is a bit shallow and demeaning. I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that my femininity - even my sexuality - resides in my vulva or my breasts is sadly mistaken. I have more of both between my ears, and even between my toes, than in my vulva.

I used to get all wrought up with my mother and her friends - who were the hairy, bra-less, protesters who brought us the last incarnation of the women's movement - because I, for whatever reason, loved shaving, wearing lipstick and high heels. Still do. I was accused then of not being a feminist because of it.

There is no ONE kind of woman, no ONE way to be female. As such, no way to say that someone is a bad feminist just because they don't agree with you.

I think that saying i can or can't do anything because of my sexual organs is offensive. I think that saying I don't appreciate feminists, art or political discourse because I do it differently than you is really, um, patriarchal? Parochial? I have felt more judged by other women who call themselves feminists than I have ever felt by a man or by society at large.

The intersection of sexuality and art has always been interesting to me. I love sex. I love art. And i LOVE being a woman.

I recently took part in a great art project, a series of photos that used bodies (male and female) to display fresh food. The photos were gorgeous, absolutely beautiful, and are hanging in our bathroom. A party guest was over recently and was disturbed by the juxtaposition of sexual organs and food.

The question was raised, "do you really want to be associated with your body as a serving platter off of which others will eat? do you really want to be served up like that."

I thought about it. When the photos were taken, it was really just about how strawberries looked on nipples and juice looked in navels. But I thought about their question and answered:

"Yes. I do. My body is nothing but a vessel, a way to get something much better, much sweeter, much richer. It contains me, but it is not the point." I thought that was pretty good. But then I added to it, "more than that, I love that I have the right to be seen this way if i want to."

And that right was hard fought by centuries of women (many many many before Judy Chicago, lest we forget countless strong women, many of whom died for our right to be strong.) I have to think that any or all of them would be proud as we each flaunt our femininity in any way we want.

But, I think they would also all agree that our vulvas (ae?) do NOT sum up who we are. Any more than penises sum up who men are. Way to much attention paid to our sexual organs. Way too much. They are not the point.

Of course, our largest sex organ is our brain - why do we not pay so much attention to that?
___________
Alyssa Royse
JUST CAUSE
make some good news!
www.JustCauseIt.com ( http://www.JustCauseIt.com )

Denise, we are not all that far apart -- what I like most about wearing that pendant is that people will get their faces right up to it, hold it and say, hmm..that is interesting..what is that? Then I tell 'em :-)

^5's!

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs relentlessly at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

I am happy to celebrate my vulva, and to have all women celebrate their vulva (ae?) but as a removed-from-the-body icon icon on a dinnerplate? Nuh uh.. I think there is a place for the vulva in art -- I have a lovely sterling pendant, small and discrete, that hangs from a slender chain. It is only on close investigation that one sees it is not just an abstract shape, but -- you guessed itr --a vulvic shape. One can make the case that our vulvas have beauty without using then as our sole definition.

And there's the difference between you and me... you want your vulva small and discrete, and hanging on a delicate chain. Not me. I want mine front and center, in your face so that you cannot ignore it or pretend it is something else or that you do not see it - or me.

And, who said the vulva should be "our sole definition"? Not Judy Chicago, and not me.

~Denise
Fast Times @ Homeschool High ( http://fasttimes.clubmom.com ) & Flamingo House Happenings ( http://www.flamingohouse.net )

Denise, I respect you and your opinion, but I have to disagree. On the one hand you are right-on that men have marginalized women by seeing us as sexually defined, -- T & A plus V. I would rather that feminist art made the point that we were all that and MORE -- rather than removing the vulva, dressing it up and slapping it on a plate to admire I would have the same reaction if some man created a counterpiece called Men's dinner party -- in which plates representing forgotten or undervalued men sported artsy renditions of penises and testicles on plates.

If I were fortunate enough to be memorialized in art, I would just sure hope the artist thought more of me than to just put some classy rendition (or some kitchy rendition) of my vulva on a piece of dinnerware, and assumed that summed me up

I am happy to celebrate my vulva, and to have all women celebrate their vulva (ae?) but as a removed-from-the-body icon icon on a dinnerplate? Nuh uh.. I think there is a place for the vulva in art -- I have a lovely sterling pendant, small and discrete, that hangs from a slender chain. It is only on close investigation that one sees it is not just an abstract shape, but -- you guessed itr --a vulvic shape. One can make the case that our vulvas have beauty without using then as our sole definition.

meanwhile, this sure is interesting dialogue...I don't mean to be a harpy about all this, but I've never really had a chance to express what I feel about this art in such a civilized forum.

. ~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs relentlessly at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

You stated : "As I get older, I have so little patience for younger "feminists" who don't know their feminist women's history well enough to understand how groundbreaking some feminist women artists in the 60's & 70's and 80"s were---and the fact that one can can pooh-pooh vulva art now--is only because these women did vulva art first--- 30 years ago!
viva la vulva! viva la women artists!"

My 57 year old vulva and I (vulvae?) are quite aware that Judy Chicago was not the first woman artist to use vulvic images. It would be unwise, therefore, to give her that credit.

It is not the image of a vulva that gives me pause. I assure you and anyone else who cares, that I am quite fond of my vulva. I even named my first Volvo (a 1967 model) , "Vulva la Volvo". That aside, what I found less than palatable, so to speak, was the notion that what summed up a woman's essence, her profound labyrinthian soul, her infinite creativity and unique contribution to the world, the heart of her power and identity --- was the image of her disembodied, stylized vulva on a plate.

To have a philosophical difference with a work of art is neither anti-feminist nor does it suggest ignorance of women's history. Heaven help us when our art becomes lockstep, or when we as feminists shy away from intellectual and candid discourse about a work of art simply because it was created by another feminist.

I don't want to sound snarky, but I cannot resist saying in the interest of historical accuracy, that by the time Judy Chicago launched her Dinner Party, vulvas were pretty much old news. We ancient feminists had lovingly figured them and the clitoris out decades earlier.

PS I have actually seen the Dinner Party (in the 80's in Atlanta): I have thumbed thru the book, and seen the documentary.

~ Contributing Editor, Mata H., ancient feminist, also blogs relentlessly at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

Hi--I just have to comment here--in the 1980's I "worked with" or "collaborated with" Judy Chicago on The Birth Project. I no way did I feel exploited or that I did not recieve proper credit for my work with her---she came to my home State (Alaska) where a friend and myself helped to organize a traveling show of The Birth Project--including the piece I worked on--and when Judy spoke she invited me on stage to speak, also. All the art always had the women who collaborated with her (ie--did the needlework) in all the exhibit's documentation for the Birth Project. Really you must check out the books published on both the Dinner Party and The Birth Project to see that she goes out of her way to give the needleworkers and others who helped her credit .Your statement that the "400 men & women who worked on the project were not luaded" is incorrect.

And although she is now a rather famous artist--she never made any money from either of these projects. I learned alot working with her---and was pleased to be part of such a big ground-breaking feminist art project. If nothing else, a whole generation of women artists learned from Judy that you could succeed in the art world doing "feminist" art.

Remember--this was groundbreaking art for its time!--back then no one did art with vulvas (much less talk about the fact women had them). As I get older, I have so little patience for younger "feminists" who don't know their feminist women's history well enough to understand how groundbreaking some feminist women artists in the 60's & 70's and 80"s were---and the fact that one can can pooh-pooh vulva art now--is only because these women did vulva art first--- 30 years ago!
viva la vulva! viva la women artists!

I have wanted to comment about this topic since the day Suzanne published the post but I haven't had time. I still don't have time but I can't NOT post at this point.

There are a couple of reasons, in my opinion, why vulvas are the BEST representation of feminist art and woman art.

First, there is power in the use of a piece of anatomy that the patriarchy has worked so hard to use to marginalize women. The vulva and the breast - both used by men to marginalize women. The use of vulva art, by women and by feminists in particular is about empowering women - owning our vulvas - not letting men dictate what the vulva is, or represents.

Next, the vulva is a representation of where the female spirit and the female power comes from. Some may be uncomfortable with that representation but it isn't a new concept to women or women's art.

Mata indicates "vulvas were old news" when Judy Chicago presented "The Dinner Party" - they weren't really. They still aren't. While some women may think "we figured them out decades ago", I do not think that we did or we have.

Men are still attempting to control women's bodies and marginalize women, because they are women - and have vulvas, vaginas, ovaries and breasts. And we as a society, we women, are still letting it happen. That's not an indication that we've "figured them out". The vulva was not old news in Judy Chicago's era and it isn't old news today, in my daughters' era.

~Denise
Fast Times @ Homeschool High ( http://fasttimes.clubmom.com ) & Flamingo House Happenings ( http://www.flamingohouse.net )

I'm so jealous! Ever since I learned about it in my women's studies class in college, I've wanted to see the Dinner Party. I found the history of it amazing. Whether or not plates with vulvas on them are your thing, how it came to be created is fascinating. I did see a really cool feminist art exhibit at Wellesley College last month.
A. Elliot, Formula Fed and Flexible Parenting ( http://www.flexibleparenting.com )

So much of our history is unrecorded, but we damn well know it exists. The voices, expressives, and representations by women have been set aside, as the work of men, the doings of men, were considered the voice of humanity.

When I read The Red Tent, for the first time my mind was opened to seeing how this history might have unfolded, through the lens of one person in one of the most blatant representations of patriarchy in existence. It was more than just that however... it made possible seeing - knowing - that a rich history exists, it was just shoved aside because things like the chronicles of war, the dates of war, the struggles of men... were deemed more significant.

I'd love to see The Dinner Party; I can imagine, given the above, how it would move me. The shapes of dinnerware, largely symbolic rather the utilitarian of an actual gathering, would bother me not.

I'm looking beyond, to the 10,000 years of missing history, all tied to one voice, one representation, in the hear and now.

nelle ( http://www.nelle2nelle.org/ )

I know the practice..I suppose Michaelangelo knew it too..sigh. And when the artist is physically capable of doing the work and does not -- yet takes credit for it -- it just seems cheesy to me.

But when I read this site's comments ( http://www.wildhunt.org/labels/goddess.html ), it gave me pause.

Along each side are 13 place settings, a reference to Christ and his 12 disciples at the Last Supper. Chicago said she wanted to reinterpret 'that all-male event from the point of view of those who had traditionally been expected to prepare the food, then silently disappear from the picture.

And the over FOUR hundred mean and women who worked on the project are not lauded. I guess they are "expected to prepare the food and silently disappear from the picture."

I just wish a feminist had done it better. ...and given more people more credit.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs relentlessly at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

Isn't that one of the primary points of the piece, that women have made massive contributions to society as we know it while credit has been given to a solitary player who is usually a man. i cherish the irony. She is accepting solitary billing for something that was created by hundreds of women. perhaps that irony is part of the piece. or is it hypocrisy?

I am not a fan of feminist art that relies on the two most obvious cliches: 1. I have a vulva and 2. I have been repressed. Given that they are both irrefutable truths, it seems pointless to dwell on them. They are givens, like in geometry, accept them and move on to solve the equation. I am inspired by the feminist artists - of all sorts - who leave those pedantic notions in the background and instead celebrate all that we have and can do, regardless of the mire from which we must rise. Power that comes from within ( far deeper than our vulvas) and doesn't need to stoop to the depths of those who have repressed us. Power that is unleashed, uncontainable, undefinable and beautiful without regard to the muck beneath.

I have a hard time taking any revolutionary voice seriously when it looks backwards. After all, our minds and bodies will follow where our souls and eyes look. Look back, stay back. Look onwards and upward, move onward and upward - that's where progress lies.

But that's just me.
___________
Alyssa Royse
JUST CAUSE
make some good news!
www.JustCauseIt.com ( http://www.JustCauseIt.com )

Mata,

Many popular big-name artists adopt the practice of having others do their work but putting their name on it because they designed and conceived it. Dale Chihuly no longer can blow glass; his works are still in his name.

Thomas Kinkade does little more than put one spot of paint on each work; others do the rest of the painting. He imagines the pieces, signs his name and take credit for the work.

While I dislike this practice, I won't hold it against Chicago when others find it acceptable. Besides, perfecting all those decorative arts before she could execute her vision? Just not as big a deal for me.

But the vulvar art? I'd pass.

Debra
A Stitch In Time ( http://astitchintime.blogspot.com )
Deb's Daily Distractions ( http://debsdistractions.blogspot.com )

So that no one else is subjected unwittingly to porn, the first link goes right to the Sackler Center for Feminist Art's description of The Dinner Party. If you click on "Components of "The Dinner Party," you can select what images you want to see.

Suzanne Reisman ( http://www.blogher.com/member/suzanne ), Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender ( http://www.blogher.com/topic/feminism-gender )
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com/ )

I also hate the vulva plates. As for the names of the women who contributed, I think that is an interesting point. My understanding is that Chicago designed the entire thing and the other women contributed their skills and talents to make the pieces according to the master plan, which is why Chicago's name gets the only billing. (Although the Brooklyn Museum does list all of the women who contributed to the work, which is good.) Maybe feminist art should challenge the manner of who gets credit for a work, but I think that traditionally, only the mastermind, not all the hands that go into, get credit in the same way that a fashion designer designs a garment and the people who actually make it never have their names associated with the final product. It is a very interesting point that you raise, though.

Suzanne Reisman ( http://www.blogher.com/member/suzanne ), Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender ( http://www.blogher.com/topic/feminism-gender )
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com/ )

So when I did a google image search for the dinner party, a close-up of a woman with a man's dick in her mouth appeared. I know that's not what Judy Chicago had in mind. (I did find it, btw)

Sigh..I so wanted to like it. But, no.

First I didn't agree with the implied thesis that the seat of my power and identity is vulvic. Second, I really didn't want to see a representation of dozens of labia on a dinner table.

But most importantly, I was bothered by the fact that Judy put her name to the work when actually it was the work of a whole collective of over 100 women.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs relentlessly at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )