16 thoughts on “Getting married?

  1. [I should have said – in case the discussion above is confusing – that I forgot to add the artist when I first put the post up, and was prompted to do so by anonymous. Thanks!]

  2. I’m sorry, but this thing gives me the heebejeebies when I look at it. I prefer to think of myself as being more than one particular anatomical region…. Our lives are not that one-dimensional, are they?

  3. I agree with j in the right above comment. My problem was that the philosophy of feminism is somehow diminished by the representation of feminine organs on a wedding dress as much as are the women themselves, except that it was a simple joke (though one that rather would please some men).

  4. Well I think its rather odd to see how traumatised all us ‘feminists’ are by the sight of the representation of a vulva. It clearly is a work of art, part of the shock art typified by unmade beds and animal foetus earrings etc. Judging by our reactions (mine was similar) it is a very good work of art of that genre, juxtaposing two incongruous items that are so also inextricably linked but by social consent, we don’t mention the war. The white of the wedding dress is supposed to symbolise ‘purity’ in the old fashioned sense of virgin; and yet the institution of marriage was all about sex, it was instituted to sanctify and control the woman’s sexuality and keep her reproductive power at the disposal of one man, or family.

    Its also very beautifully done. Its good to see art that takes some technical skill to realise (that’s just my horribly conservative opinion). What do you reckon, ‘feminists’.

  5. I think the dress is amazing. My jokey tone wasn’t supposed to indicate distaste of any sort – this was just supposed to be a lighthearted post. I think this sort of art has a feminist slant to it – a part of our anatomy that is supposed to be kept hidden and is often thought of as ugly, is brought out into the bright light of day. I see it as a reclaiming of the symbol of the vulva. I like the ‘shock’ value of it because I see it as linked to the fact that we find female power shocking. I also like the juxtaposition of the virginal wedding dress and the vulva that Hilary describes above. And yes, it’s beautifully executed.

  6. I think it’s totally feminist, beginning to end. The whole point is the suggestion that in marriage, women are reduced to their vaginas (well, vulvas, let’s get the terminology right, yeah?) – that their entire personhood is not understood as relevant. As Hilary Easton pointed out, the whiteness of the dress was supposed to signify purity; that is, not yet having had sex – in some ways, then, this dress is just calling out the patriarchal euphemism which has created a whole ritual of whiteness around the reduction of a woman’s worth to her marriagability, and that reduced to the state of her sexual organs (the presence or absence of the hymen, O ye Derrideans!). One can disagree with the critique, of course, but it’s profoundly feminist, imo.

    Also: it’s awesome. Thanks for posting! :-)

  7. My goodness! I agree that it is good as a commentary on marriage, or on having a white wedding. But I cannot say that I find it beautiful. I don’t think it reveals a distaste for womanhood in me, though – I’ve no problem finding some breasts and bums gorgeous – It’s just that some anatomic parts are not that nice to look up close. Think of nostrils too.

Comments are closed.