Not long ago, I found an interesting blog post about furniture designed to look like parts of women’s bodies. As the title of the article clearly states, the furniture was “inspired by the most attractive female forms”–but of course, that means conventionally attractive breasts, buttocks, legs, and high-heeled feet.
The part that makes me laugh about this kind of art is that it is always described as unique, or modern, or ground-breaking. Somehow, people seem to think that art like this is just amazingly new and special.
Now, I won’t argue that it’s not art, mostly because I’m not really an artist, and I don’t think I have the right to judge either way. But I can definitely say that there is absolutely nothing new or unique or groundbreaking about this kind of art. Why? Because all this art does is cut women up into bunches of little tiny pieces based upon the only parts of their body that are supposedly worth something. It also furthers the idea of what is conventionally attractive, while undermining every single variation from that norm: large, perfectly round breasts, an ass that isn’t too big but it’s round and firm, long legs with thin thighs and even thinner calves, and feet that don only high heels at all times. Every single other part of the woman–her hands, her eyes, her brain, even her vagina, in this artist’s rendering–is totally irrelevant and isn’t even considered “beautiful.” And these ideals–of women consisting of only a few body parts that must be absolutely perfect-looking–are mainstream, totally normal and accepted, and not unique or fresh at all whatsoever.
A piece of news going around today (via Feministing) is that “Gold’s Gym has declared July ‘Cankles Awareness Month.’” It’s a prime example of cutting women up into tiny pieces. Everything about you, even your ankles, has to look perfect. You could have everything else going for you: no wrinkles on your face, a flat stomach, big perky breasts, labia minora that don’t stick way out, a bleached anus, etc. etc. etc.; but if you have cankles, forget about it, you are just plain ugly. That one piece can ruin the whole picture. Every little chunk must be perfect.
The furniture this artist has created just perpetuates everyday norms and ideals, and it annoys me that people run around going “Ohhh, it’s so new and original!” No. It’s absolutely mainstream and normative. Come on, artists! Shake things up a bit! I get sick of seeing conventionally attractive female-chunks being thrown around and called “original.” If you want to be original, depict a woman with “un-perfect” body parts as a whole being with a brain and feelings! Even though it’s the reality of the world (not every woman is perfect, like this art seems to want; and every woman has a brain and feelings, like this artist seems to deny), it’d be pretty original and surprising for a piece of art. And isn’t that a good thing?