Judy Chiacagos The Dinner Party

Whether an opponent or advocate of Judy Chicago's The Dinner Party, there is no denying the historical importance of the piece. Even though its' creation was only some 30 years ago, it is already seen as a feminist icon in western culture. The historical importance, to women and western culture, is intangible. When researching this piece, I found some questions intriguing, such as Ð''Is this piece a work of art or a study of history?' And Ð''is it a symbol and if so, what for?' My paper will discuss these questions along with the criticism of Judy Chicago's, The Dinner Party. But first, I would like to give some background information on The Dinner Party and Judy Chicago.

Judy Chicago did not set out to be a feminist. In fact, she was an opponent, stating that, "most female artists were not taken seriously as a result of their own lack of commitment to their careers, and because many of the art classes demanded the use of power tools and skills not traditionally taught to women. In California, She was the first woman to obtain a permit to use flares in her artwork. After not getting the recognition she wanted, she began to research other women's struggle. Chicago went from one extreme to the next.

The Dinner Party was initially named The Great Ladies, but once she took the idea further and evolved the project into the theme of The Last Supper, the named changed. "Although the design and all images used in The Dinner Party were created and monitored exclusively by Chicago, over four hundred volunteers and skilled assistants came to aid in the overall production and exhibition of the work (Walker 27).

IS THIS PIECE A WORK OF ART OR A STUDY OF HISTORY?

Obviously the reason behind the creation of the project is to contribute to the history of women in art, since there hasn't been much in the past (walker). Chicago says that, "the installation is not a piece of art but a massive study project that develops awareness" (Koplos). I see the piece as both, a work of art and a study of history, because Chicago is displaying the information instead of recording it, in writing, in a textbook. I even see it as a monument to all the women in history that have made an impact on society. When creating this piece, Chicago related the history of women with women's crafts in history, such as sewing, embroidery, traditional needlepoint, crochet, beading, patchwork, and appliquÐ"© (Walker). Also when looking at Chicago's piece, you can find the Ð''central-core theory', that states woman have the same traits in their artwork, applies to her work. The traits include: autobiographical content, windows, animals, flowers, layers, veils, pastel colors, sensual and repetitive overall texture, and detail to the point of obsession were all recurring, dominant themes (Walker). Janet Koplos states in her article that, "As a process of creation, the work remains an exemplar of artistic ambition. However, as an art work, The Dinner Party is not altogether satisfying."

IS IT A SYMBOL AND IF SO, WHAT FOR?

The Dinner Party is a symbol of women and their history, a history that has been left out of the grand scheme. The triangle is an ancient symbol for female or an equilateral symbolizing equality (Koplos). I think it is ironic that Chicago named her piece The Dinner Party, because this is what most of the world relate women with, dinner. Chicago's piece evolved from the Last Supper and could be seen as a symbol for it. "Chicago decided to present The Dinner Party as an open, equilateral triangle that would display all women in attendance as equals. Each arm of the triangular table was designed to sit thirteen guests, since thirteen was both the number of male guest at the Last Supper, associated with holiness, and ironically, the number of women in a witches' coven, associated with evil" (Walker). "The first side of the triangle begins with pre-history to a time when global history was diminishing. Second table is Christianity to the reformation. The third table is 17th century to 20th century. The dinner party demonstrates the development of goddess worship, which represents a time when women had social and political control (almost every society). The piece then suggests the gradual destruction of these female oriented societies and the eventual domination of women by men, tracing the institutionalizing of that repression and women's response to it" (LUCIE-SMITH). This makes me come to the idea that times change, people change, and societies change. Is the saying really true that Ð''trends repeat' and Ð''history repeats itself'? Will there be another time that women dominate men? A professor of mine was saying that women are now the majority attending college because women are realizing, before men, that power comes with higher education.

THE CRITICISM OF THE DINNER PARTY

Judy Chicago's The Dinner Party, despite the success, had many troubles with its' exhibition. The first exhibition was not until five years after it was finished at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. After the first exhibition the rest were shown in Ð''alternative spaces' due to the work of Chicago's