Pages 614-619 and Linda Nochlin's "Why Have Their Been No Great Women Artists"

Since this section of the book discuss similar topics to that of Linda Nochlin's article "Why Have Their Been No Great Women Artists?" I will be combining elements of each. What I love about this movement is the extremity of women artists moving away from all that is considered "feminine". Linda Nochlin talks about how women were viewed as "delicate" and "dainty" but pointing out that the artists are anything but. And that work of the rococo style in 18th century France is the pure definition of "feminine" wheres women's art is far from that of a "femininity". What I love about the books take on the subject is the way women take the term of "femininity" and their application is anything but "delicate" or "dainty" and is actually almost grotesque. Take for instance Judy Chicago, Suzanne Lacy, Sandra Orgel, and Aviva Ramani's Ablutions and how disturbing the entire piece is in its grotesque manner. Speaking loudly to the entrapment of women, but in a disturbing manner. And then taking Judy Chicago's The Dinner Party and the use of the vagina in most of the art on the plates, and speaking loudly to the body of the woman by putting in on a plate as almost a symbol of "eat this". What I have confusion still about this era is the association with woman and nature, and I open this up to discussion for better clarification if you can speak some truth to the identification of women and nature.