It seems to me that in any field, women must jump over obstacles to come anywhere near men, so why should the art world be any different? Taken out of context, I don’t think anyone can really pin down a “feminist” painting style…perhaps that’s me talking with no art education, but I honestly wouldn’t be able to tell which gender painted which beheading without seeing the captions below. I think the problem for women in art today is more a matter of being accepted into the male-dominated art world with artwork that is pre-tagged with a label that says “female” on it. At that moment, I feel that un-biased judging is thrown out the window, and suddenly all purpose, technique, and meaning to the piece is picked apart. Are the lines too feminine, or not feminine enough? Why is that flower placed there—must be because she’s emotional…that sort of thing. This is just my opinion, but I feel like any woman who would try to do something radically different in the art world would have her pieces labeled crazy or unartistic. Would a woman doing what Warhol, Serrano, and Pollock did have the success they did as men? I want to say yes because I want to believe it could be that way, but in reality I feel it would not be so. Most things females create (or do for that matter) in male-dominated areas will always be judged not just for content, but for the gender of their creators as well.

Heidi was fighting for women’s equality in art, but her battle was so hard because she wasn’t just fighting prejudices in the art arena—it was in every aspect of her life. As an audience member I could feel her frustration, loneliness, and unfulfillment as she tried to create a path for herself and the women of generations to come. However, while I would like to see more women artists in museums, you can’t just “add women and stir” as Freeland discusses. With that method, the same effect that male critics do to women’s art is applied in a roundabout way: while critics might discount a good piece of art for being created by a female, feminists might display a woman’s bad piece of artwork in a museum simply because it’s made by a female. Neither is right, and both lead to negativity surrounding female artists. One must accept that, like many things, men have dominated art for thousands of years, so lots of great historical pieces are man-made. But women are artists now, and slowly working females into the art world so great pieces are equally created for present and future is a better approach in my opinion.

Finally, comments on the play. When I read the play, I didn’t imagine all the interactions, the props, and the emotions that came out seeing it performed. It gave the play an entirely different meaning for me. Also, I didn’t really like the audio/visual portion until I heard the explanation. I thought that it was done that way to keep college students entertained, but when I heard more explanation behind its purpose, it made me appreciate it more. Same with hearing about the set, costumes, etc. It almost makes me wish I could hear explanations like that about every play I see because it helped me get in a better mindset to appreciate the dialog and not focus on the things I hadn’t imagined when I read it.