Isn’t Barbie scary enough whole?

Let alone dismembered and made into fashion accessories.
barbie+necklace.bmp
Ok, now repeat after me. Dismembered women’s body parts are not funny, or ironic, classy or a message for recycling (as in this case). They are gross and a reminder that women are continually objectified in compartmentalized ways, where they are judged for a piece or section of their body, not for the total being they are. Dismembered women’s body parts are so part of everyday life, you almost have to remind yourself that it is totally fucked up.
I guess, I would like this more if it was done in a way that highlights how scary dismembered women are, a different type of art. Not trying to make something pretty, that really isn’t.
Thanks to Trina for the link.

and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

48 Comments

  1. equityforbothgenders
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    For some context, here is the artist’s statement:
    Artist Statement
    Barbie dolls were extremely significant in fueling my creative life as a child. They were controlled and manipulated to fit infinite situations of my choosing. I immersed myself in on-going narratives (complete with elaborate handmade dwellings) where all my fears, embarrassments, joys and explorations of human interactions could be played out like characters on a stage. An invaluable tool for the expansion of my imagination as a child, ironically, Barbie continues to be such for me as an adult.
    Whether you love her or hate her, there are few who feel neutral about the plastic princess. I am fascinated with who she is as a cultural icon, her distinguished celebrity status, and the enormous impact she has had on our society. Specifically, I’m intrigued with her influence in defining gender roles of women in contemporary American culture.
    My childhood spent with Barbie cultivated my interest in adornment. Extensive play with the doll and her miniature world strengthened my dexterity. This is a skill imperative to the art of jewelry making. Hence it feels natural for me to make art on a small scale.
    I enjoy the funny juxtaposition of wearing the body, on the body. Barbie has become the accessory instead of being accessorized. I take pleasure in the contrast and contradiction of something mass-produced being transformed and revealed as a unique, handmade, wearable piece of art.
    - Margaux Lange

  2. Jane Minty
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for this – I was about to post the link.
    If you look at her resume, she also dis and re-members Ken dolls. No one is forcing anyone to wear dismembered doll jewelry, but this isn’t even remotely related to such things as the recent urinal post.
    Not to mention, she has had a show at Woman Made in Chicago:
    http://womanmade.org/

  3. rae
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    I’m not sure I find this to be so objectionable. Keeping plastic crap out of our landfills, where nothing good can come of it, is a good thing; isolating the freakish elements of Barbies’ body and making them strange, rather than something that we, culturally, no longer “see” seems like a potentially powerful piece commentary.

  4. rae
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    I’m not sure I find this to be so objectionable. Keeping plastic crap out of our landfills, where nothing good can come of it, is a good thing; isolating the freakish elements of Barbies’ body and making them strange, rather than something that we, culturally, no longer “see” seems like a potentially powerful piece commentary.

  5. roethke
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    I feel like this particular entry is very knee jerk, and uninformed. You read the work as glorifying dismemberment of women, but I’ve never seen Lange’s work that way, and I’ve been familiar with this series of hers for some time. Your readers would have been better served if you had at least bothered to skim her website, rather than just grabbing a few images to get upset about.
    Lord, I can’t even imagine what would be said about my work on here if this work isn’t read with any degree sublety.

  6. Samhita
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for the statement. That definitely helps, but I am still put off by it.
    “Wearing the body on the body. . . ”
    And yes, it is better than going to landfills, but this isn’t going to make a significant difference in that. At best it is symbolic.

  7. Samhita
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    Roethke,
    A lot of our posts are knee jerk, it is a blog and I think that is ok. Art is how you perceive it and I think the artists intention comes second to that. I don’t have to know the background to something or the context to still make a judgment on it. And artists, writers, we already know that when we put something out there, our intention becomes secondary to that process.
    I think that with something as commonly known as Barbie it is safe to say that in the context of mainstream culture and the way that she is interpreted I can easily jump to the conclusion that using her body parts is problematic, irrelevant of the intention of the artist.
    Not everyone is going to like, understand or agree with everything that you write, produce, create, or distribute.
    But there is room for all of our opinions and reactions and that is a good thing.

  8. Posted October 30, 2007 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

    Well this is surprising.
    I, for one, am with Samhita on this one.
    From an artistic point of view, I do think that I would be okay with this if it was some kind of museum exhibit with the intent of provoking disgust. That doesn’t seem to be the point, here. And even if it were, marketing something as a piece of jewelery allows it to very, very quickly lose its context. It’s going to be “hey, that’s cute/cool/different” and not “wow, that’s grotesque and really says something about the status of women in our society.”

  9. MadWomon
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

    Yall know, don’t you, that a lot of young feminists have the same kind of problem with the Feministing logo as the problems you’re expressing here with the Barbie art. I know, the Barbie-art is just parts of a woman, or rather, women, and the other is just a silhouette, albeit of a whole woman, but I’m just sayin…

  10. Posted October 30, 2007 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    In principle, I of course agree that we are tragically bombarded with dismembered-woman symbolism. Aesthetically, I actually think this photo is very cool. Now, reconciling those two feelings, I have to default to the question of context.
    Not every partial representation of a women constitutes “dismemberment.” Seeing women’s bodies exclusively as potential victims of violence is as bad as saying they are only potential sex partners or potential baby-makers. I think there is a note-worthy difference between an artistic representation of part of a woman (I recently tried one such painting) and an advertisement that shows a guy’s face looking through stiletto’d legs.
    Now, which is this? Seems to be some of both, but as it is a woman’s artistic attempt to control the presentation of the female form (not that all “artists” get a free pass…), I think it is at least worth talking about rather than talking over with our “repeat after me” mantra.

  11. cjross
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

    I have actually admired Lange’s Barbie jewellery for quite a while now. I thought it was really intriguing and unique to see how she had taken something as familiar (and objectionable) as a Barbie doll and transformed it into something completely different.
    I think there’s a world of difference between a woman-shaped urinal or mouse and this type of jewellery. No one is getting any sort of sexual gratification out of these necklaces. The content of Lange’s work isn’t even very sexual; the breast hearts are definitely not a main theme here. Furthermore, these seem to be more of a comment on what a Barbie doll actually is than an expression of the opinion that women are just their sexual body parts. Lange’s work really emphasizes that Barbies are not, in fact, real women. Seeing dozens of identical Barbie pieces composed in this way illustrates extremely effectively how these plastic dolls all conform to the same, idealised mould. In my mind, these pieces are unsettling because Barbie dolls are unsettling, not because they objectify women’s bodies.

  12. MirandaJay
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

    MadWomon: DEFINITELY! The feministing logo really makes me uncomfortable. I THINK I understand their intent with it, but still…

  13. Grace
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

    I saw the word “dismembered” at the top and looked at the photo, and was confused until I read the rest. I really didn’t even realize those were Barbie’s perfect conical breasts.
    I’m slow sometimes.
    Anyway, I also do not see this as something to get terribly upset over. To me, Barbie is merely a caricature of a woman. I don’t find this as disrespectful, as say, the urinals and toilets made up to look like headless and torso-less women.

  14. Grace
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

    I saw the word “dismembered” at the top and looked at the photo, and was confused until I read the rest. I really didn’t even realize those were Barbie’s perfect conical breasts.
    I’m slow sometimes.
    Anyway, I also do not see this as something to get terribly upset over. To me, Barbie is merely a caricature of a woman. I don’t find this as disrespectful, as say, the urinals and toilets made up to look like headless and torso-less women.

  15. levinine
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 9:27 pm | Permalink

    I was reminded of this post (and other similar ones on this site) when my boyfriend posted this rant on his blog today, about a feature in Wizard magazine on matching the cartoon breasts to the video game they came from. Classy.

  16. Tina
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

    This post was really depressing to me. It was an uninformed, reactionary, and shallow critique of a piece of FEMINIST art. I understand what Samhita was saying about artist intent being less important than how things are interpreted. That is one school of critique, and there are certainly others. But I think it’s a slippery slope to say that artists have to basically keep in mind how the lowest common denominator will interpret their work, and crank out stuff that cannot possibly be offensive to anyone nor misinterpreted as encouragement to objectify. By your standards, several important feminist artists including Judy Chicago would be promoting the objectification of women. This artist obviously put a lot of thought into choosing a medium that was meaningful to her, and you have decided that because it gives you personally the willies, you can decry it publicly as ‘fucked up’ without giving her process a single thought. I think it’s dangerous not to look at the context of things, and to judge from our immediate reactions to something. Someone earlier made a great point about the feministing logo. The use of that logo is as a reclamation of something that is traditionally used to objectify women. That logo means something different on this site than it would on, say, Bob’s Boob Blog. But used in the CONTEXT of a feminist website, it has a whole different meaning. CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT, in life and in cultural criticism.
    The response that it’s just a blog and it’s okay to be knee jerk also is disappointing. Why would any of us be here reading feministing if we thought it was a bunch of ill-thought-out, reactionary, vanity blather? If we wanted that, we’d pick up some Andrea Dworkin. If feministing wants to be taken seriously as a feminist cultural crit blog, I would think they would endeavor to run posts that take into account the many facets of an issue, not just the author’s emotions. Not to single you out Samhita, there have definitely been other posts that have seemed over the top reactionary.
    And lastly, even though everyone is entitled to their opinion and allowed to express it, it is disingenuous not to acknowledge that writing for a blog that thousands of people around the world read is somewhat a position of power- by posting this and calling that woman’s art (essentially) anti-feminist, you have affected the way thousands of people view her work. What you say here is important, and should be at least minimally researched.

  17. darwin66
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

    I agree with Tina’s insightful comments completely; this post is reactionary and shallow. The line about Dworkin was a very funny bonus.
    Furthermore, I find the entire recent string of “dismemberment” posts, with their hyperbolic victimization stance, a bit over the top.

  18. The Crab
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

    Bosoms meet Bundt-cake?

  19. Posted October 30, 2007 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

    I have to agree with Tina. What’s wrong with being knee-jerk? Well, it’s reactionary and you’re post is inaccurate, that’s what’s wrong. You just give fodder for douches like darwin66.
    This beautiful piece of artwork is NOT the same as the headless woman mouse. First of all, you’re not likely to be able to purchase this at Spencer’s. It’s not being marketted to drunken frat boys. I’d be willing to bet that the people who would buy this would be more familiar with Judy Chicago than Jenna Jameson.
    By your standards, practically everything in my Power of Feminist Art text is wrong. I mean, what about the kitchen of Womanhouse where the fried eggs morph into breasts. Oops, objectification!
    And the fact that you can’t evn admit that you might be wrong, Samhita, makes me really sad.

  20. astraevirgo
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 10:26 pm | Permalink

    While perhaps the rhetoric attached to the recent string of dismembered women posts has been over the top, I think it’s highly important that we keep pointing out the fact that dismembered women are in fact common place and accepted in our society — if we don’t point it out, who will?
    I have a friend who is a museums studies student, and having pointed out dismemberment and cropping to her, she’s going to go on a campaign to make an upcoming exhibit on women’s underwear feature full mannequins. I’m proud of her, for recognizing that we are not body parts but whole people.
    I think that dismemberment and cropping is wrong, even used in art — as long as the art is not pointing out the problems with dismemberment. Yes, the artist has a context, but so does the feminist movement.

  21. astraevirgo
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 10:27 pm | Permalink

    While perhaps the rhetoric attached to the recent string of dismembered women posts has been over the top, I think it’s highly important that we keep pointing out the fact that dismembered women are in fact common place and accepted in our society — if we don’t point it out, who will?
    I have a friend who is a museums studies student, and having pointed out dismemberment and cropping to her, she’s going to go on a campaign to make an upcoming exhibit on women’s underwear feature full mannequins. I’m proud of her, for recognizing that we are not body parts but whole people.
    I think that dismemberment and cropping is wrong, even used in art — as long as the art is not pointing out the problems with dismemberment. Yes, the artist has a context, but so does the feminist movement.

  22. viva
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 10:36 pm | Permalink

    I checked out her portfolio, and most of her pieces are fantastic… weird, nothing I would probably wear, but definitely interesting. She has real skill. She is not out to offend, she utilizes parts of a doll, not parts of a woman. The only creepy thing about it is that it’s chopped up Barbies- Barbies are pretty creepy in and of themselves, but what she has created with them is art and jewelry and doesn’t offend me.
    It’s sad, because Feministing is usually expressing things that I, too, think. I think this post is a huge overreaction. Instead of jumping down her throat for utilizing an unusual tool for her art, we should be praising her technical skill and her conceptual eye. She is an intelligent, creative woman- not a misogynistic creep.

  23. Posted October 30, 2007 at 10:42 pm | Permalink

    I think that dismemberment and cropping is wrong, even used in art — as long as the art is not pointing out the problems with dismemberment. Yes, the artist has a context, but so does the feminist movement.
    That’s a pretty blanket statement. So the Venus de Milo is wrong? Winged Nike as wrong? They’re thousands of years old and have been subject to vandalism, but damnit, they objectify women, so get rid of them.
    What about The Dinner Party? Judy Chicago doesn’t explicity comment about dismembered parts, but damnit, those vagina plates are wrong.
    What about Femme Couteau by louise Bourgeois? Jebus, her Femme Maison series must piss you off. The woman has a house instead of a head!
    What about Nurturant Kitchen by Susan Frazier, Vicki Hodgetts, and Robin Weltsch? The breasts aren’t connected to any women in this installation, surely they’re not making a statement about women’s roles in society.
    Give me a break.

  24. DaveNJ17
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 11:22 pm | Permalink

    Do you know what else is used to objectify and de-personify women? Silhouettes. From mud-flaps to signs, the silhouette is at times quite good at making a picture of an idyllic woman with no eyes or face, just obvious, recognizable curves and pretty features in profile.
    So it seems weird that a feminist website that uses the silhouette ironically would have a problem with something just because it can be used to de-humanize someone, even if it isn’t actually being used to do so.
    Just thought it was a weird coincidence.
    As for art, you have to judge art in context. Plenty of parts of art can be offensive, but saying something ISN’T ALLOWED isn’t just a slippery slope, it’s a flipping precipice. I doubt we’d want signs in public with nudity, but that doesn’t mean we can’t use nudity in art. It’s the purpose that something is applied to that gives art some of its value.

  25. Djiril
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

    The thing about dismembered women being common pop-culture and serious art is interesting, and I think it merits more exploration. I also think we should try to find out more about the different reasons why all these artists, feminists and non-feminists alike, choose to portray dismembered women in their art, before giving a blanket condemnation of this trend.
    I’ve had different reactions to the various “dismembered women” posts:
    I can see why the urinals are offensive, but I just couldn’t stop laughing at the “pussy-foot” long enough to be offended by it, and try as I might, I just can’t bring myself to see Samhita’s point of view on this current offering.

  26. ghostorchid
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

    Barbie is a “woman’s body” just as much as blobs of silicone are “female breasts”…if you can figure out something to do with a Barbie that doesn’t involve giving it to a little girl for Christmas, I say, the more power to you.

  27. DrkEyedCajn
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 11:39 pm | Permalink

    At least Barbie has nipples now.

  28. EG
    Posted October 30, 2007 at 11:48 pm | Permalink

    I’m not wild about this jewelry; despite the artist’s intention, I do find it creepy.
    So the Venus de Milo is wrong? Winged Nike as wrong?
    C’mon, Moxie. You know as well as I do that the Venus de Milo was never intended to be dismembered. It’s just old and parts broke off.

  29. ShifterCat
    Posted October 31, 2007 at 12:28 am | Permalink

    What Tina said.
    I can see why the urinals are offensive: they’re used for pissing, and being pissed on is degrading.
    But this? I don’t think it’s any more “dismembering” than a collage of printed eyes.

  30. kissmypineapple
    Posted October 31, 2007 at 12:58 am | Permalink

    I get so tired of posters who, instead of just saying they disagree with the post, and why, attack the poster and the entire blog, pissing and moaning about how it’s sooo reactionary, and that this or that piece of art/magazine cover spoof/etc., etc. is just over the head of the feministing poster, b/c she just doesn’t get it.
    Since when do you have to agree with Samhita, Jessica, Ann, Vanessa, Jen (if I missed anyone, sorry!) for a post to be valid? It offended Samhita, she is an editor for this blog, she can say so. I can see why it would be offensive. I don’t think it’s as bad as the urinals, but that’s not the point. Not every post here has to be earth-shattering, and there is a way to disagree without tearing feministing down. And if you can’t see how a mudflap girl flipping people off subverts the message of the original mudflap girl, then you’re in no position to be lecturing others about subtlety.
    I mean, criminy. Can’t you say you disagree without tearing into Samhita?

  31. kissmypineapple
    Posted October 31, 2007 at 12:58 am | Permalink

    I get so tired of posters who, instead of just saying they disagree with the post, and why, attack the poster and the entire blog, pissing and moaning about how it’s sooo reactionary, and that this or that piece of art/magazine cover spoof/etc., etc. is just over the head of the feministing poster, b/c she just doesn’t get it.
    Since when do you have to agree with Samhita, Jessica, Ann, Vanessa, Jen (if I missed anyone, sorry!) for a post to be valid? It offended Samhita, she is an editor for this blog, she can say so. I can see why it would be offensive. I don’t think it’s as bad as the urinals, but that’s not the point. Not every post here has to be earth-shattering, and there is a way to disagree without tearing feministing down. And if you can’t see how a mudflap girl flipping people off subverts the message of the original mudflap girl, then you’re in no position to be lecturing others about subtlety.
    I mean, criminy. Can’t you say you disagree without tearing into Samhita?

  32. Posted October 31, 2007 at 1:04 am | Permalink

    C’mon, Moxie. You know as well as I do that the Venus de Milo was never intended to be dismembered. It’s just old and parts broke off.
    Which I actually SAID in my post. Scroll up.
    *kmp: There’s a difference between disagreeing with a poster versus the poster posting inaccuracies. I think this post really mischaracterizes the work and is irresponsible journalism (If blogging is journalism). Samhita didn’t even bother posting the artist’s statement, someone in comments had to do that.

  33. Jane Minty
    Posted October 31, 2007 at 1:22 am | Permalink

    I don’t think it’s as bad as the urinals, but that’s not the point.
    Fair enough, but in this case it would have been good to research the site beforehand (it took me about 3 minutes to do so). If an entry is reactionary, it might in turn offend people you want to convert to the cause.
    Anyone remember the proprietor of Portland’s Church of Elvis, and her Barbie doll coat? Geez, she was being “offensive” years ago.
    For that matter, my own (edible) art can be pretty offensive, and often involves dismembered body parts. It seems to bring great joy to the recipients, so I don’t plan to stop any time soon.

  34. rilee morgan
    Posted October 31, 2007 at 2:18 am | Permalink

    i know this has been floating around a few feminist blogs, and a lot of people are really all of a fuss about it, and usually, even if i don’t agree, i can see why people are upset about a thing, you know?
    but this isn’t one of those times. i don’t think that the object presented to us as readers and interpreters of art provides some context that insinuates any intent of such a variety as may be inferred as malicious, violent, misogynist, objectifying, belittling, or anything else.
    now, art is not so important to me in my life that i feel it is necessary to jump up in its defense for its own sake, but feminism is, and i really would like to say that i think that we embarrass ourselves when we present oureslves as so eager for outrage that we may do such a careless thing as post a diatribe against a piece of art in which is rattled off a list of repetitions of “not okay” offenses it has committed, without so much as representing the artist’s interpretation or even the fact that she intended to explore definitions and influences on gender and gender roles.
    some people are bringing up feministing’s logo, and i wonder how we could fail to correlate the failure of some to recognize its subversive nature with the reaction presented in this post to this piece of jewelry.

  35. VicSin
    Posted October 31, 2007 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    As a feminist who still likes Barbie to this day, I think the jewlery is not only a neat way of recycling something of historical meaning to the artist, but also a form of strong feminist art. The reactions here illustrate that perfectly. Personally, I didn’t see what Samhita saw. Looking at some of the other works by the artist I actually see a few pieces I would wear – the smile pin, the pins and necklaces made up of different parts of different faces to create a new whole, and even the eye necklace with the tears beside it. I think some pieces are beautiful and some are political, but all are art, created by a woman with a love for the original doll – there is not hate there. Context is everything, and yes, this is a blog – but it is a blog seen by many as informative, even journalistic. With that there is a certain responsiblity to the reader to present the whole story, and then yes, weigh in on it. And as far a dismembering a womans body part – at what point do we stop and realize that in some instances it is just a doll?

  36. maeve314
    Posted October 31, 2007 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    I loved Barbie as a child, but I’m not too keen on this jewelry. I agree that we need more feminist art though, and I highly recommend checking out the Beautiful Women Project.
    http://bwp.websterwood.com//

  37. Destra
    Posted October 31, 2007 at 11:47 am | Permalink

    I’ve never had a problem with people objectifying women’s parts, just as I’ve never had a problem doing so with men as well. Sex sells, and sex is funny, and we often associate sex with the sexual organs and not necessarily with the entire package. A penis pot-holder? Funny. An ass cushion? Amusing and ironic. Barbie boobs put to a fun pattern? Neat and a social commentary. No problems here.

  38. Brinny
    Posted October 31, 2007 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    I’m not entirely sure how I feel about this jewelry. The artist in me is more peeved at her calling it “original and handcrafted” as the majority of it is just “found art” (a term I particularly dislike).
    Though the first thing that came to my mind while looking through her portfolio was the serial killer Ed Gein.

  39. darwin66
    Posted October 31, 2007 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    Moxie –
    If I’m a douche for not goosesteping with every gender feminist marching tune, then so be it, ya yeasty jock strap! Stick that in your pipe and smoke it mister! (insert tongue-sticking out making raspberry thbtptbtpt sounds) ;)

  40. DrkEyedCajn
    Posted October 31, 2007 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    Troll.

  41. sybann
    Posted October 31, 2007 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    I kinda like it. I am not sure about all of the reasons why I like it but I don’t see it as objectifying women anymore than BarbieTM already does. I might even wear it.

  42. cupcakebandit
    Posted October 31, 2007 at 8:07 pm | Permalink

    After browsing through her work, I actually really like it. I’d probably buy a piece if I could afford it. I think taking a symbol of the “ideal women” and making it seem weird like this makes people take a step back and think about it. Barbie’s boobs on Barbie are “perfect” or “sexy.” But putting several perfectly identical nipple-free Barbie boobs on a necklace makes the innate unnatural weirdness of Barbie more apparent. This is not the same as presenting women’s disembodied body parts in “sexy” magazine ad.

  43. Posted October 31, 2007 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

    Yeah, I saw this on Feministe, and I liked it then and I still like it. I agree with Rae, there’s something really fascinating about the way those pieces work.

  44. loquaciouslaura
    Posted November 1, 2007 at 12:02 am | Permalink

    “I think that dismemberment and cropping is wrong, even used in art — as long as the art is not pointing out the problems with dismemberment.”
    I’m late as hell, but, wow. “Wrong”? Art is going to push buttons, art is going to be offensive, but “wrong”? Yikes. Forget personal expression, eh?
    Not to mention, I think the artist is clearly commenting on dismemberment; the artist is commenting on our culture’s trading in of real women for “idealized” plastic.
    I think it’s valid to comment on the poster, also, if we’re used to seeing something much more thoughtful out of feministing and that this post was disappointing.

  45. loquaciouslaura
    Posted November 1, 2007 at 12:06 am | Permalink

    “I think that dismemberment and cropping is wrong, even used in art — as long as the art is not pointing out the problems with dismemberment.”
    I’m late as hell, but, wow. “Wrong”? Art is going to push buttons, art is going to be offensive, but “wrong”? Yikes. Forget personal expression, eh?
    Not to mention, I think the artist is clearly commenting on dismemberment; the artist is commenting on our culture’s trading in of real women for “idealized” plastic.
    I think it’s valid to comment on the poster, also, if we’re used to seeing something much more thoughtful out of feministing and that this post was disappointing.

  46. Magpie13
    Posted November 2, 2007 at 10:24 am | Permalink

    I find it interesting with all this recent talk of dismembering that Jessica’s book cover, which appears on the upper right next to the barbie necklace, has half a woman’s abdomen on it.

  47. fatsweatybetty
    Posted November 3, 2007 at 6:25 am | Permalink

    Okay so I support the addition of a FAQ or something because the cover of Jessica’s book gets brought up in every other goddamned thread and I am sick of people having to go through it every time.

  48. Dorion
    Posted November 4, 2007 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    This is one of the best threads I’ve read here in a long time. It’s one of the only times I was LESS irritated after reading all the comments. I am a fan of Margaux Lange’s work and have been for some time, so I disagree with the original posting but am heartened by the thoughtful conversation that followed. Brava in particular to Tina.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

230 queries. 0.856 seconds