Are Vaginas Everywhere or Am I Going Crazy?
Lots of things look like vaginas.
Oysters, tortellini, flowers, the Al Janoub Stadium… We are surrounded by things that resemble female genitalia every single day. Is this by coincidence, on purpose, or are vaginas so overly fetishized that we make unnecessary subconscious associations to everything that ever so slightly has a similar shape?
Zaha Hadid would probably agree with the latter, when someone questioned her about her stadium’s resemblance to a vulva her response was “what are they saying? Everything with a hole in it is a vagina? That’s ridiculous”:
Pareidolia is a psychological phenomenon where our brains see patterns or shapes that aren't actually there. So, is everything with opening and curves a vagina or are we all just going insane?
One of the most famous ‘is it a vagina is it not?’ cases is that of Georgia O’Keeffe’s paintings. An American artist from the South, she became one of most prominent and successful female artists of the 20th century, known for her use of bold colors and abstract shapes. Her subject of choice? Flowers. Mainly enlarged and in fine detail.
Meant to convey their essence, she believed that by enlarging the flowers and painting them in bold, simplistic forms, she could unveil their underlying beauty.
WHEN YOU TAKE A FLOWER IN YOUR HAND AND REALLY LOOK AT IT, IT'S YOUR WORLD FOR THE MOMENT. I WANT TO GIVE THAT WORLD TO SOMEONE ELSE. MOST PEOPLE IN THE CITY RUSH AROUND, SO THEY HAVE NO TIME TO LOOK AT A FLOWER. I WANT THEM TO SEE IT WHETHER THEY WANT TO OR NOT
– GEORGIA O’KEEFFE
But while she saw flowers, her careful depictions of blossoms, lilies, and irises were often apraised for their emphasis of sensual curves and folds. Many art critics regarded these paintings as emblems of femininity and sexuality, despite O'Keeffe's insistence that they were not intended to be erotic or sexual in character.
A FLOWER IS RELATIVELY SMALL. EVERYONE HAS MANY ASSOCIATIONS WITH A FLOWER - THE IDEA OF FLOWERS… WELL - I MADE YOU TAKE TIME TO LOOK AT WHAT I SAW AND WHEN YOU TOOK TIME TO REALLY NOTICE MY FLOWER, YOU HUNG ALL YOUR OWN ASSOCIATIONS WITH FLOWERS ON MY FLOWER AND YOU WRITE ABOUT MY FLOWER AS IF I THINK AND SEE WHAT YOU THINK AND SEE OF THE FLOWER - AND I DON'T
– GEORGIA O’KEEFFE
The link between O’Keeffe’s flower paintings and representations of the female body was actually first proposed by her husband, Alfred Stieglitz. A prominent photographer inspired by the idea that sexuality and sensuality can be channelled into the creation of art. Later in life, along with his wife, he rejected his original interpretation of O’Keeffe’s flowers as female genitalia, however the idea stuck around.
Despite her rejection of feminism and sexual readings of her art, prominent feminist artists in the 1970s started to praise her as a pioneer of "female iconography" and liberation. Enraged by this appropriation of her work, she would very often point out that she did not think of herself as a woman painter.
Now, do her flower paintings actually look like vaginas? Honestly, a little bit. While for some are a bit of a reach, like Red Hills with Flowers or Jimson Weed/White Flower No. 1, others such as Gray Line with Black, Blue and Yellow, have to me undeniable resemblance - but then again, who am I to say.
There is also the fact that plenty of things in nature do look like vaginas, or penises too (eggplants are a prime example). And to O’Keeffe’s defense if you look at flowers really close, they do kind of resemble vulvas.
Perhaps, we should consider that these shapes are natural, that we’re surrounded by them, and that maybe we do not need to compare everything in the shape of a cylinder or an oval to genitalia.
Regardless, I don’t think that whether or not they were actually meant to be depictions of female genitalia is important at all. In art, there is no need to reduce a painting, a shape, or an abstract form to single subject. Comparison of art to genitalia can shape complex works to nothing more than crude sexual imagery. There is plenty of art out there resembling or depicting phallic images and one wouldn’t dare to reduce Michelangelo's David just to themes of male anatomy and sensuality.
THE SUBJECT MATTER OF A PAINTING SHOULD NEVER OBSCURE ITS FORM AND COLOR, WHICH ARE ITS REAL THEMATIC CONTENTS
– GEORGIA O’KEEFFE