April 09, 2004
Judy Chicago - The Dinner Party
Since Judy Chicago's Dinner Party is considered one of the most significant art pieces of the 20th Century - and one of the few created by a woman, it seemed proper to revisit the work. The work was created in 1979 and reflects the first wave feminism of that era. It also is a work of the 70s - birth control pills, wife-swapping and disco; its a celebration of woman as represented by their genitalia. "Sometimes beautiful, sometimes provocative, sometimes downright ugly in design, the plates evoke or blatantly resemble vulvas, flowers and butterflies, sometimes in relief several inches high. Each is paired with an often sumptuously embellished cloth runner to form a symbol-laden portrait of a mythic, legendary or historical woman, beginning with a generic Primordial Goddess and ending with Georgia O'Keeffe"
It is interesting to me - and perhaps a bit contradictory that Ms Chicago supervised over 400 women in the making of this work, yet hers is the only name credited with the piece. Most of Chicago's works have the commonality of this nameless collaboration. Chicago has identified that woman's art is largely anonymous, but unfortunately, she has continued this tradition, using the labors of 'volunteers' to create her vision.
Judy Chicago should have put fiber art on the map. But what she has done instead seems to be an exploitation of the quilter, embroiderer, ceramicist to build her own reputation. The work is extraordinary. But it would be easier to celebrate if we were doing it with the creators themselves, not just the director.
Posted by sfenton at April 9, 2004 10:26 AMI wouldn't say that Judy Chicago's is one of the few created by a woman, merely that it is one of the more publicly known woman-made art pieces of the 20th century.
Posted by: Mary Beth at April 9, 2004 02:31 PMoops - I was referring to the other article for today. I guess I wasn't clear. In "100 Most Important Art Works of the Twentieth Century", I only saw a couple of women artists listed. I personally would count quite a few more - and remove some of the more trivial ones:
remove:
Vladimir Tatlin, "Monument to the Third International"
Richard Hamilton, "Just What Is It That Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing?"
Max Ernst, "Elephant of the Celebes"
Francis Picabia, "Amorous Parade"
I did spot a couple more women artists around the end of the list: Jenny Holzer (#98) and Dorothea Tanning (#96)
Who should we add?
Dorthea Lange
Sonia Delaunay
ALice Neel
Frida Kahlo
Louise Borgeois
Leonor Fini
Helen Frankenthaler
Yvonne Jacquette
Annie Liebovitz
Miriam Schapiro
Cindy Sherman
Janet Fish
How can I stop - those are just the women who have launched major changes in the art world! Who else???
Posted by: serena at April 9, 2004 02:59 PMYou got it exactly right, Serena. I crossed swords with one of Judy's friends, Millie Montverde, who was teaching here in Pueblo, CO. in the 70's. She was collecting "fresh meat" for Judy by using her (Millie's) personal position of power as professor of art history to encourage young campus women to drop out for a season or 2 and "volunteer". The young women were at their most "do good - join the movement" stage. And, incidently, the one's she recuited all had money enough to not just pay their own way, but to pay Chicogo for the "priviledge" of volunteering! Montverde was a fab grant writer & eventually fired for misuse of funds.
It was so blatant that it was like sending sheep to slaughter! I was older & it was clear what was going on. It took me and several over 30 influential women in town to bring it to a halt. When it was over, there was blood on the floor - but that time it was Millie Montverede's.
Actually it was a team of 3: Judy, Wanda Westcoast and Millie Monteverde. Great results, pretty ugly use of young women.
Posted by: Cheryl Rae at April 10, 2004 08:48 AMInteresting comments as well as commentary, Serena. Did you know that Miriam Schapiro was one of Chicago's co-workers?
The whole question of collaborative art is provocative -- there are people like Dale Chihuly, of course, where collaboration seems authentical and necessary, but lots of the artists of the late 90's have others fabricating their "ideas." (After all, who cut up those cows and made the vitrines??/) And of course there's always the machine quilters who stitch together the designs of others. I'm thinking that along with "slow" art something like "individual" art might be a good category. June
Posted by: June at April 11, 2004 11:52 PMLouise Nevelson
Emily Carr
Georgia O'Keefe
