The work has plenty of critics, some, the usual suspects, powerful
old men in high places who loudly declared that it was “pornographic,” but also
quite a few feminists. Some criticism has to do with the way certain famous
women are represented—for instance, frilly Victoria’s Secret pink might not have
been the best choice for the private, solitary Emily Dickinson. Perhaps the
inclusion of Georgia O’Keeffe, who declared that her flower paintings had
nothing to do with the vaginal, showed a disregard for her often stated opinion.
Perhaps Virginia Woolf, a writer who despised the public’s obsession with the
gender of authors, is another who should not have been included. Other female critics have said that it’s not
only vulgar, a tune with one note, but demeaning to women, reducing these
famous foremothers to a bad-joke common denominator.
I’m not a visual artist, but it seems to me that while you
might find fault with a part of the whole, The Dinner Party accomplishes its
purpose, both as a work of art and as a feminist statement. It is estimated that 15 million people on
three continents have seen it, pondered it, and argued about it. The installation
has been a taking off place for women to think about their obscured history and
about their accomplishments, about their historical and mythical power, their works
of art and their creativity. Not since
the Stone Age has such a shout-out been created for the central fact of femininity.
If the penis has been celebrated as the great ejaculator of ideas, why can’t
the vulva, too, be celebrated and honored as it once was in pagan times? This,
after all, is the joyous portal through which all creation emerges.
~~~Juliet Waldron
My historical novels:
~~~Juliet Waldron
My historical novels:
The Dinner Party may be seen at the Brooklyn Museum: https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/dinner_party/



