Judy Chicago’s The Dinner Party is a very interesting piece that I recommend to everyone, feminist or not. The Dinner Party comprises of 39 plate settings, with detailed embroidered runners, each representing an important women from history. Each individual plate encompasses a motif of the women and her accomplishments. The table is set up in a triangle as a way to show there is no “head of the table” as there is in traditional dinner parties. Furthermore, it is noted that the Dinner Party is somewhat of a play on The Last Supper because there are thirteen plate settings on each side of the triangle. Although the Dinner Party was created nearly 40 years ago, it still generates many questions on art, feminism, and the role of women in society.
From an artists viewpoint the plates are visually stunning. The attention to detail is remarkable, and there is no doubt to the extend of work Judy Chicago and her team put into this piece. The film Right Out of History: The Making of Judy Chicago’s Dinner Party shows just how much planning and effort was put into the plates, design, runners, and tiles. As a matter of fact, what I liked most about viewing this piece was simply the cosmetics of each plate. The history behind each plate was also interesting, but I mainly enjoyed just viewing the artistic style that each plate had. One of my favorite plates that represented Emily Dickinson is a great example of how visually detailed and significant the Dinner Party is. Aside from looking at the conceptional aspects of the piece, I feel that Judy Chiago and her team assembled a visual masterpiece.
Each plate, with the exception of one (maybe depends how you see it) had some variation of vaginal “butterfly/ cunt” imagery which makes this piece so controversal. The general vaginal theme of each plate stirred up a lot of debate regarding the piece and where it should be shown because of its “inappropriateness”. When the dinner party was first published many museums would not allow it to be shown. However, man’s art throughout history that depicts naked women is shown everywhere with no problems. What makes this piece so different? Is it really because of the subjective vaginal imagery or is it because it was created by a team of feminists? Hilton Kramer argued that the piece served more as an advertising campaign than to a work of art”. Chicago’s meaning behind her work was to ultimately to reiterate the contributions of great women throughout history that are being erased.
Why Vaginas?
There are so many ways to answer this two word question. When first studying this piece in class, I immediately was thrown off because of the use of vaginal imagery. It was something I had never seen on literary a massive scale. I was initially shocked at the use of the woman’s reproductive organ. What changed my mind was really what my teacher told me. Throughout history male artists have painted, drawled, and sculpted naked women. These women almost always had there legs closed and the artist tends to focus on the female’s breast. Why was Hilton Kramer so offended by this art work? My own experience learning about this piece has made me feel as if the use of vaginal imagery in this piece has a “shock value effect”. Meaning, that at first glance one is drawn into this piece because of the use of vagina. At first shocked, and then integrated by the immense detail and meaning behind each piece. I feel that Chicago knew exactly what she was doing when she decided to represent each historical woman with a vagina. There are so many different views behind the conceptional use of the vagina. I feel that many of these views are over analysis of what Chicago actually wanted the viewer to experience.
There is no doubt that Chicago wanted the viewer to be stimulated by the piece both visually and conceptionally. I do feel that because this piece is so complex it is very easy to over think it, which takes away from the visual experience of the art. I suggest viewing this piece ALONE. I would also recommend reading nothing about it before seeing it. After going through the “kid in a candy store” type experience of seeing the Dinner Party then begin to research and understand the meaning. The visual experience in my view is the most important part of looking at an art piece. Visually exploring a piece of art allows the viewer to then build his or her ideas, and this is what every good artist wants. Do not be told about the significance behind each plate at The Dinner Party, create your own. This piece is the future of feminist art, Chicago’s mission was to create something that would “enter the cultural pool and will never be erased from history, as woman’s work has been erased before”. She has succeeded.
