The Dinner Party by Judy Chicago

 by Phoebe Clark

As part of my Art A Level coursework, I have been examining the place of women in society and what space they are given, in particular what space my Mum has in our home that isn’t used for work. This research into the correlation between women, art and space led me to a piece of instillation art widely regarded as the first epic feminist artwork, ‘The Dinner Party’ by Judy Chicago. 

When  it was first recommended to me to investigate, I wanted to first try and extract meaning from it without researching it at all. This inference is often valuable when concerning visual artwork, because the spectator is able to evaluate whether the artist has achieved their intention and successfully conveyed it through their outcome. The first thing that stood out to me was the shape of the table, a large triangle, which signifies women, as shape and colour symbolism has played a significant role within my project. After looking at close-up images of the table settings, I realised that they were all implicit, or very explicit, shapes of the female sexual organ, validating my assertion that this was a feminist piece. 

Each place setting includes a china plate in a detailed and intricate vulva form alongside ceramic cutlery and a chalice, which represents the womb, motherhood and the Virgin Mary. The table runner is inscribed with the names of women through time that each place setting is a representation of, which promotes textiles, an art form traditionally allocated to women and was a key topic within a girl’s education in recent centuries. Along each side of the equilateral triangle,  there are thirteen place settings, the number of people present at the last supper - a key event in history that only men were present at. The women ‘sitting’ at the table are arranged in chronological order, and as time goes on the ceramic plates become higher and more three dimensional, to acknowledge the increased freedom and equality that women are allowed. 

Once I had researched the piece, it became clear that it was an attempt to metaphorically, and quite literally, ‘bring women to the table’, women who are often forgotten or undervalued by time. Although I can appreciate the intention behind the artwork, I thought the piece actually conveyed a sense of the vulnerability of women, as a representation of their most intimate organ was placed on a plate for the world to not only gaze upon, but arguably destroy and devour.

This idea that these women were in a position to be sliced up and feasted upon by the viewer, which could arguably represent a patriarchal society, is an inference I extracted that was definitely not feminsitic. I feel that by placing the women on a plate defeats the idea of giving women space and power, as it is a passive position. Not only does the flatness of the plate imply passivity, but the fact that there is a lack of individual visual identity for each of these women, obscures them just like history has done.

Similarly, the way that their work isn’t incorporated into the artwork is also a source of anonymity and an ignorance to the very thing that gave them power. The potential freedoms from the societal restraints placed on women that they gained from doing something noteworthy has been erased from the narrative of the artwork. On the other hand, the fact that these women are given space for recognition, many of whom are widely unknown, does allow them their own identity, separate to any man.