NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/feminism/3391

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-25 | 3.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!news.service.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: [e-mail] (Will Steeves)
Subject: The Dinner Party (was: Mythopoetic Ritual)
Nntp-Posting-Host: alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 66
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:47:45 GMT

[e-mail] (Paul Wallich) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> Will Steeves <[e-mail].
> writes:
>>[e-mail] (Karen van Hoek) writes...
>>KVH> Men have raised a Great Phallus farther up the river. ... I'd
>>KVH> show you, but it's off limits to the Women...."
>>
>>It seems, given this remark and some of the others you made later on
>>in this message, that you rather resent the exclusion of women.  To
>>this, I'd respond with an inquiry of sorts - Were men not also
>>excluded from Judy Chicago's notorious and celebrated exposition of
>>female-genitals-on-dinner-plates?  (I was under the impression that
>>men *had* been excluded, though I could be mistaken...).
>...
>>Indeed, perhaps the main reason why Judy Chicago excluded men from
>>her dinner gathering / exhibit, was because she was concerned that
>>men would "degrade" the exhibit by either gawking or what have you

>Huh? Double Huh? Well, I guess men were excluded from _The Dinner
>Party_ in the sense that there weren't any plates with men's names on
>them, or men's signatures on the tile floor under the table, but egad
>no, zillions of men have seen it. (And frankly,

Paul, I apologise for not explaining myself better, so please let me
explain.  What I *meant* to convery, was ask whether men had been
excluded from the original *SHOWING* of _The Dinner Party_, *not*
whether male genitals or signatures were excluded from it.   I was
*not* implying that men have *always* been barred ; I was only asking
if they had been barred from the introductory unveiling, as I recall
reading in _Time_, many years ago.

>"female-genitals-on-dinner-plates" is not a particularly clueful way
>of looking at the exhibit, sorta like describing Michelangelo's
>_David_ as "one of those nude- guy-standing-up sculptures")

It *IS* a "particularly clueful way" of looking at the exhibit,
especially when its purpose was to celebrate women's sexuality.  I
realise that many people may have considered it to be sarcastic, but I
was only attempting to describe the exhibit in terms of what appeared
in it.  I realise that this description does not capture the essential
attributes of the exhibit, and in its full symbolism, but remember, I
am not an arts student, and I would hope that people realise that my
attempts at description were not intended to be artistic, nor were
they intended to be demeaning.

However, the attempted analogy to Michelango's _David_ is not entirely
apt, as I recall that it was not intended to celebrate male sexuality.
Mind you, I'm no art student, but I *doubt* that its message was to
celebrate male sexuality!  Mind you, I could be wrong - Are there any
art students out there who might be able to clarify this for us?  Thanks.

---
Will Steeves, [e-mail]                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
[phone]

"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.

 * SLMR 2.1a * Data Compression:What one gets after squishing an android

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to [e-mail].
Questions and comments should be sent to [e-mail].  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.