# data[].attributes.body
First of all, I love the name of this website. The pictures on the site seem to be a play off of the parts of the house that a women is supposed to "own" or tend to. The work is somewhat eerie, but I think that is what makes it beautiful. I love the shoe closet picture. Shoes are something that many women have a lot of, but also something that can say a lot about a person. I think it's interesting that this is a photo of an entire closet dedicated to shoes. I have also heard that shoes are sometimes the part that stand out within an outfit or make the statement. I also just love shoes :)

I also LOVED the COCK-CUNT play. It was really interesting to see the roles being played. I liked that it was two women acting and one was the woman with the cunt and the other was the man with the cock. It was interesting to see how they changed their voices and their gestures to be more like a "woman" or a "man". The man had a lower voice and was demanding and telling the woman to wash the dishes. The woman had a much higher voice and was confused and just listened to the man the entire time. I really enjoyed watching it and seeing the connection between the sexual innuendos and the chore of washing dishes.

# data[].attributes.body
The ideas expressed in Barbara Rose’s “Vaginal Iconology” explain how during the 60’s the exposure of women artists enforcing the concept of women’s sexuality in the artwork. This made me feel inspired and happy that they brought out something that is seen as taboo to this male-dominated field at the time to acknowledge that women have their own sexuality as well. That they are not some delicate flower to just pet and groom and to make sure that they become young ladies that you can use to just reproduce and hopefully make more boys teach your ways on how to treat women. I feel that it was absolutely necessary that these female artists bring those to the reality that women have desires as well, and in a way to mock the stigma that men can only the erotic and women must be the submissive. Which to me makes me feel confused and offended that men fantasize and make women look erotic and something to obtain, but they are supposed to be trained to not be promiscuous and to try and keep their “purity” till marriage. That shows that for the men that have this mindset that they are being a hypocrite because in a sense you are asking women to not express their sexuality but then present these women as something the complete opposite. Bringing it back to these female artists I feel that from Barbara Rose’s acknowledgment of how they expressed their own sexuality I thought was very empowering and how important it was to bring power towards the feminist movement.

# data[].attributes.body
Chicago, Shapiro, and Barbara Rose all based their discussion of the representation of female reproductive organs in modern arts. In Chicago and Shapiro's article, they raised a good point that the fear of showing of vulnerability of male prevented them from getting into a wider realm of artistic creativity. And the claim that 'male artists are more creative than female artists' is invalidated from this point of view. Because femininity is despised if shown by a male, male artists are often appalled by the idea of  showing such vulnerability and emotions, and as a result male artists are prevented from the realm of showing too much emotions in their art works. However for female artists, they are unconstrained by showing different emotions, which is an important aspect of art, and thus make them creative. The article was concluded with the social treatment of femininity and female identity could influence all gender groups. For women it acts as an obstacle for female artists to be recognized, and for male it is an unhealthy insecurity to hide from.

Barbara Rose commented on the more contemporary feminism effort, she stated that the advancement in radical ideologies in modern art is the manifestation of "the displacement of revolutionary political aims to more acceptable targets" for a revolutionary force to survive. Using the art of several artists, Barbara Rose invalidated the sexism based on Freudian doctrines of superiority based on the existence of penises. She argued that the respect and artistic value that contemporary artists have given on non-penetrative objects, such as void darkness and vaginal symbolism, has shown the the pride and self respect that female should be giving to themselves.

Barbara Rose's comments on darkness, tunnels and vaginal symbolism reminded me of Mapplethorpe's photography of Lysa Lyon, whose eyes are deep and dark. Also he did a lot of close shots of orchid, showing the power, cleanness and reproductive power of femininity.

Lysa Lyon, Robert Mapplethorpe

Calla Lily, Robert Mapplethorpe

# data[].attributes.body
I enjoyed both the Rose and Schapiro/Chicago articles and how well they tied together. I found the women's revolution in art incredibly empowering. It's important to recognize how erotic art was once only "created by men for men" (Rose, 575). Men creating erotic artwork of women purely for their own pleasure is another way in which women's bodies were objectified. Therefore, I think Georgia O'Keeffe's artwork explores women's sexuality in a new light and reclaims women's bodies. O'Keeffe's artwork is more intimate and gentle while displaying women's genitals in a raw but beautiful and real way. Also, as Rose discusses, it is important to note the purpose of women's sexual artwork. She states, "it is designed to arouse women, but not sexually...allude to female genitalia as icons- as strong, clean, well made, and whole as the masculine totems to which we are accustomed" (Rose, 576). Moreover, this artwork attempts to shed light on women's sexuality and depict it in a strong way that was previously never seen. I think overall this artwork allows for women to be proud of their sexuality, to gain a better understanding of themselves, and to see a real portrayal of women's genitalia through the eyes of a woman. Rose also says, "if there was a revolution in the sixties, it was not political but sexual...erotic arguments do not fundamentally challenge the social structure as political disputes do" (Rose, 575). This is another example of how conservative feminists used artwork. Therefore, women used artwork as a "displacement of revolutionary political aims to more acceptable targets" (Rose, 575). Similar to women trying to win the vote, women tried to reclaim and introduce their blossoming sexuality in ways that were provocative, yet moderate. Overall, women gained an immense amount of knowledge and acceptance surrounding their sexuality. Art was a way of expressing a woman's sexual nature; by women, for everyone.

# data[].attributes.body
I really enjoyed this play so much! It was so incredibly great at depicting the terrible social values and gender roles that have been placed on men and women. The way in which the "man" approached the "woman" was eyeopening and reassuring of the sad reality of society and what it it meant/means to be a woman/man. For example, the play emphasized how men are portrayed to be the superior being in society. The play did so by using sharp diction, such as "hard", "long", "straight" to describe the cock; those words further elucidate how in society, men have always dominated since they are seen as these aggressive, strong individuals. While on the other hand, the women were portrayed as the soft, fragile beings in society. The woman or in this case the cunt, was being told to do the dishes because of it's "round" appearance and fragility. It is really sad for me to see the play because even today we see how men and women are still being affected by these demeaning labels. Men are considered to be aggressive and unemotional while women are considered to be the complete opposite. When it really should not be like that. Everyone should have the right to be whoever they want to be without worrying about other's judgement and the "what will they say?" Though, it is extremely wonderful to see that there are groups not only supporting women, but also men in today's society. Through continuous awareness is how we can help contribute to change in society.

# data[].attributes.body
Bovenschen highlights an important question in the feminist movement and in the discussion of women's art. Do we want the same thing as men? Do we want our vagina to become a counter penis, proving that we process the power of penetrating the canvas? Or we are going to do it our way.

While I was participating in the Vagina Monologues last year, we decided to use Georgia O'keeffe's flowers as the backgrounds for each show. I was surprised to discover how many diverse emotions, feelings, and stories her flowers or her vaginas can present. From Bosnian refugees to a dominatrix, we found the right flower for each of them. They are so distinct, but they also share something in common. It wasn't until I read Schapiro and Chicago's article that I noticed the commonality. They all took over the whole image and there was always a darkness fades from the middle, which is shared by all the other womb artists. Schapiro and Chicago said this shared darkness is a common exploration of infinity. Indeed, unlike a penis, always out in the open, you don't see the end of a vagina (well unless you are a gynecologist). It's something inside of you that you can't hold, can't look and can't describe, but for the majority of the world, it is the only thing that defines you. This contradiction is more explicitly manifested when Bovenschen mentioned the psycho-physical parallelism abused by chauvinist critics.

Ultimately, it becomes a question that if female artists should assert the connection between the vagina and their own existence or completely sever them. Is there any way for them reconcile with their body? Some artists took control and introduced their body from their perspective to the rest of the world. But where is this action taking us? Do we want to be described with all the praises art critics put on men? Do we desire to have all the masculine qualities which are deemed preferable in this patriarchal society? Do we want to create a completely different set of value by giving up the illusionary comfort we have in the patriarchal society?

Women artists are facing tremendous difficulties to advance in a male superior art world or world in general. Becuase their nature quality is not appreciated by the male standards. However, if female artists completely betray the traditional way of art, they lose half of the audience and the opportunities to gain the recognition from the mainstream art critics, which in this case, are men.

# data[].attributes.body
I found all the artwork and performances very intriguing.

“The Cock and Cunt” play exposed notions that were attached to women and their bodies. Even though it may sound absurd to associate gender roles with body parts, the play manifested the values of a patriarchal society where men considered a women’s lack of penetrating organ to justify her domestic role, as it did in the play when the “he” told “her” to do the “dishes” because of her reproductive organ.

“Waiting” revolves around a woman who sits on a rocking chair and reveals her everyday activities and how she spends days and days waiting for her husband to provide her with pleasure, for her to give birth, for her kids to grow up, for her kids to come and visit her when they are finally older, and waiting for her to have some time for herself. The play demonstrated how women used to dedicate their life to children, household, and efforts to please their husbands, so much that they forgot to focus on themselves.

# data[].attributes.body
This session’s readings opened my eyes to a new way of approaching women’s art, as well as women’s issues altogether. In their own unique ways, each author eluded to the importance of perceiving works of art produced by women as a ‘vehicle’ of liberation and empowerment. More specifically, I found Rose’s suggestion for female artists to emphasize the power of the female anatomy particularly intriguing because of its unconventional nature. I then began to question why I perceived this as an abnormality, and ultimately came to the conclusion that I, as a man, have indeed been conditioned to interpret such matters from a masculine point of view. Never had I thought about whether the vagina can be considered a symbol of female empowerment. However, her piece changed my line of thinking entirely. It makes complete sense that women utilize something sacred to their identity as a female to create a means by which they can “diminish the debilitating inferiority complex” imposed upon them by those who used the same means to oppress the entire sex. Chicago and Shapiro’s logic adds to this point in that we must value female exploration into art and interpret their realities through a new framework developed on the basis of equality. It is indeed true that work built on women’s identity have been treated as if they were dealing with a masculine experience. With this in mind, I cannot stress enough the importance of normalizing such body parts in order to gain access to the female mind. As suggested by Rose, “turning the tables is not the road to equality itself”. We must develop a line of thinking which emphasizes the human nature of interpretation as opposed to one defined by our preconceptions of sex and gender.