From Nina Yankowitz
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 23:39:52 +0000 having open dialogues and diverse opinions is what needs to be embraced here. Although many of us display passionate responses to material and it can sometimes feel inflammatory, I think it's important to keep our eyes on the prize of encouraging open discourse. After all, we 're in touch with the female parts of ourselves and are sometimes emotionally driven with our conceptual presentations. I have heard Cindy speak about the Sackler show and Judy Chicago's work and my interpretation is that her concern is that not all women/feminist artists want feminism defined as art about their genitalia. She spoke clearly about the problem of a feminist art museum exhibiting a permanent installation of only one kind of feminist art. This can erroneously persuade a public perception of thinking that this kind of vaginal work was the main issue and what feminist art history was about in the 1970s. Judy's work was an important contribution to the history, but by no means the only meaningful asset to our history during those early days. I hope that many will participate in a continuing dialogue and I know that Cindy wants that too. Nina
Bless you Nina,
I thank for nailing the problem perfectly. No we don't want women to be categorized totally by their genitalia. I do however disagree with you about the worth of Judy Chicago's art which I think is vulgar and demeaning to women artists. The lighting which was done by Moira Reilly was ethereal and enchanting and the stitching and embroidery was beautifully done by the exploited seamstress who were paid nothing for their labors. But the vaginal images on the plates were, for the most part, repulsive and totally kitchy. What a waste of a grand space that could hold really beautiful and truly up lifting art- like Audrey Flack's majestic goddesses or the art world's beauty Hannah Wilke's last show which shows her still recording her presence and creating great art even as she is being photographed in the last stages of cancer. There are many other women artists much more worthy of this space which is now claimed fore ver by a woman who bullied and conned everyone she could to satisfy her monstrous ego.
This is how I see the "Dinner Party," but you have a right to your own opinion. Let's keep the dialogue open.

Love
Cindy Nemser
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 23:39:52 +0000 having open dialogues and diverse opinions is what needs to be embraced here. Although many of us display passionate responses to material and it can sometimes feel inflammatory, I think it's important to keep our eyes on the prize of encouraging open discourse. After all, we 're in touch with the female parts of ourselves and are sometimes emotionally driven with our conceptual presentations. I have heard Cindy speak about the Sackler show and Judy Chicago's work and my interpretation is that her concern is that not all women/feminist artists want feminism defined as art about their genitalia. She spoke clearly about the problem of a feminist art museum exhibiting a permanent installation of only one kind of feminist art. This can erroneously persuade a public p erception of thinking that this kind of vaginal work was the main issue and what feminist art history was about in the 1970s. Judy's work was an important contribution to the history, but by no means the only meaningful asset to our history during those early days. I hope that many will participate in a continuing dialogue and I know that Cindy wants that too. Nina
Bless you Nina,

I thank for nailing the problem perfectly. No we don't want women to be categorized totally by their genitalia. I do however disagree with you about the worth of Judy Chicago's art which I think is vulgar and demeaning to women artists. The lighting which was done by Moira Reilly was ethereal and enchanting and the stitching and embroidery was beautifully done by the exploited seamstress who were paid nothing for their labors. But the vaginal images on the plates were, for the most part, repulsive and totally kitchy. What a waste of a grand space that could hold really beautiful and truly up lifting art- like Audrey Flack's majestic goddesses or the art world's beauty Hannah Wilke's last show which shows her still recording her presence and creating great art even as she is being photographed in the last stages of cancer. There are many other women artists much more worthy of this space which is now claimed fore ver by a woman who bullied and conned everyone she could to satisfy her monstrous ego.
This is how I see the "Dinner Party," But you have a right to your own opinion. Let's keep the dialogue open.

Love

Cindy Nemser