Oh, no - Judy Chicago!

At the Art Educators conference I attended this past weekend, there was a silent auction for a fund-raiser. At a slow spot during the weekend, I took a leisurely stroll across the front of at least four tables loaded full of items donated by people attending this event. Most were original items, like bracelets and pottery, but there were also some items like books and art supplies. A very good range of things and I hoped it raised some cash for them.

As I got towards the end of the last table, I saw a large but shallow cardboard box standing on one short side so it displayed the contents in a "portrait" format (I hate that portrait/landscape choice in all computer software - have people really forgotten the difference between vertical and horizontal? We are really dumbing ourselves down.).

I wish I had taken a picture of the contents of the box. It was clearly and proudly labeled "Judy Chicago Place Setting".  Huh? Did she sell off reproductions of that awful feminist table piece she did? I stated in class that I thought The Dinner Party may be the worst use of art museum real estate I have ever seen. Not that I think it is a terrible piece, I just think it should have been conceived and installed along a long hallway in The Women's Studies Museum, not in any art gallery. Since then, I have had the chance to look at some more detailed photos of the piece. I stand by my original opinion. I actually have much stronger and vulgar opinions of the work, but I found another writer who took the words right out of my head, so I will let her take the stage:

http://www.maureenmullarkey.com/essays/dinnerparty.html


On the table at the silent auction was ... I'm not really sure what it was. I am guessing it was someones individual recreation of a single place setting of The Dinner Party, but it was done in paper plates, paper cup, and plastic tableware. Now that was funny. The choice of materials elevated this item to the status of kitsch, and I really liked it. How much more appropriate to make this out of very disposable substrates instead of the ceramic and china and silver and glass that the original piece is constructed of. I think the paper setting makes a much stronger statement - of our disposability as human beings. Even in the greater context of a feminist movement piece, it makes more sense to me. The uber formal settings in the "real" piece with embroidered place mats are just over the top, and not in a good way. Paper towels will do just fine.

The artist of the paper setting did get creative with the substrates - she (presumably it was a female artist) had used some construction paper, gluing on colored strips to the plates and cup. There was also some light painting and maybe colored pencil work on the surfaces of the napkins and paper towels. She did not use the "ready-made" decoration provided by Bounty or Viva, or whoever was the corporate sponsor of this lovely piece. There was some thought and some legitimate effort to this piece.

Was it an individuals project done at a Women's Artist Retreat? Was it an art therapy project done after the individual read a copy of Fearless Creating? Did the artist really created an homage to Judy Chicago, her favorite artist?

I think that whoever donated this desirable piece of collectible art history actually acquired it at a conference similar to this one, in a land far away. I think her friend made the piece because the theme of that particular conference was focusing on women artists in history, and since we have so few to emulate and honor, she chose a very obvious and recent subject. It was also very easy and inexpensive to manufacture. Unfortunately, as the auction time got closer and closer, she realized that no one had bid on her friend's project. Since she loved her friend, she put in a bid of $20. No one bid above her, so she brought home her friend's Judy Chicago paper place setting, and put it in her closet. A year later and a day before this conference, she saw it in her closet when she went to get her suitcase out to pack. On impulse, she brought it along and donated it.

If you did not visit the link above to read Maureen Mullarkey's opinion, I'll wait while you do that right now. It is important for you to realize how much bullshit went into the manufacture of The Dinner Party. It is not artistic. At least 75% of the actual manufacturing was by men. Seriously, the whole piece of work was just a very large piece of wool pulled over feminist's eyes.

My Facebook post right after I finish this blog will be this: Did anyone look in Judy Chicago's pants to see if she had a penis? Cuz I'm thinking she screwed everybody.