The Vagina Monologues: performance and feminist discourse

¶ … Vagina Monologues:

A Response

Theatrical performances of any kind are uniquely poised to evoke a myriad of audience responses. Unlike many other forms of artistic expression, theatre involves the visual, auditory, and emotional -- in short, a wide range of the human aesthetic experience is evoked in the performance. Thus, especially when the subject matter is of a particular novelty or controversial nature, one can virtually count on a strong aesthetic response in the viewer.

When one considers the nature of "aesthetics," one must consider not only the "nature" but the "value" of a form of artistic expression (ArtLex, 2005). This means that, philosophically, the human is supposed capable of reading "clues" in the work itself that can allow one to interpret/understand, as well as "judge" the work according to "beauty, taste ... function, nature, ontology, purpose, and so on (ArtLex)." Further, in the postmodern world, a great deal of interest goes into the definition of art in that it inhabits " ... A certain imprecise distinction between art and life ... (ArtLex)." In the case of the controversial theatrical/literary piece known as the "Vagina Monologues," the aesthetic experience evoked by the piece is (as in much art) is in itself a point of contention among critics and general audience members.

The Vagina Monologues refers to the original Eve Ensler's stage work dealing with the "taboo" subject of the female sexual organ. Supposedly based upon real-life interviews with women from all stations in life -- the elderly, sex workers, religious American Christians, lesbians -- the "monologues" cover the subject matter evoked by the vastly important female body part known as the vagina.

Although the work is centered on the rather literal and mundane "physical," the vagina itself serves as a kind of springboard metaphor for the feminine experience in all of its wonderful -- and terrible forms. Here, the author evokes feeling in the audience with tales of rape in Bosnia, genital mutilation, as well as the glories and wonder of birth and sexual expression. However, some do complain that the artistic value found in the above examples is overshadowed by crass and obvious "shock" fishing, courting the oft-discussed line between "true art" and mere psudo-art (a la "Piss Christ).

In my experience of the work, I did find it to have certain esthetic merit in the portions that did use the metaphoric vagina -- even clothed in its most shocking language and imagery -- to evoke a certain feeling and understanding of the female experience in general, as well as the female sexual experience in specific. However, there were moments in which the artistic "imprecise distinction between art and life" seemed to be irrevocably lost -- particularly in the monotonous political feminist agenda that seemed to dominate the vast majority of the piece. After all, when much of the performance pushes "arguments" designed to persuade the audience (for example, that women should turn away from men in their quest for happiness), it seems to loose its artistic feeling -- instead moving into the realm of a self-help presentation. In this vein, Ian Shuttleworth writes in his 2001 review of a London performance of the Monologues for the Financial Times, " ... whatever its weakness, The Vagina Monologues functions less as a piece of theatre than of affirmation and testimony, and on that score, after several years as an international sensation, it is quite unassailable." I would submit that is exactly the point that reduces the works true artistic merit -- whatever its other benefits.

To be sure, the benefits of the work definitely "teach" the audience the value of the sexual feminine. Further, one certainly supposes that among those who laud the work (particularly feminist-minded women), that the work buoys the feeling of female "identity" as well as offers a certain "permission" to own their sexuality (permission in that such ownership is commonly denied in most cultures and societies). Perhaps it even conveys the reality of female sexual repression to those previously unaware of the problem. However, again, is this art? Of course, two of the most commonly cited references concerning the nature of true art with regard to aesthetic appreciation are Plato and Aristotle. Given their writings on the field of aesthetics -- specifically with their emphasis on "imitation, cognition, and knowledge, form and morality (Giardina, 2004)," one might imagine that Plato would not characterize the work as art (and that, according to him would be a good thing), and that Aristotle might assert that the Monologues are art, indeed.

Although Plato's view of art is hardly simplistic in its philosophical nuance, it is clear that according to him it is pointedly negative the more any particular work of art is removed from the "true reality" embodied by the philosophical model of thought and discourse. According to Plato, the true "reality" is represented by the higher "intelligible world of the changeless and perfect Forms (Giardina)" -- this is the world of philosophical thought and truth. The world of the senses, however, is merely an imperfect imitation of the Forms, and as such is twice removed from "truth." Even worse, is art which is modeled after the world of the senses, which as such is three times removed (and wholly unreliable or useful).

Given, then, that the Vagina Monologues is in essence modeled after a philosophical truth -- as opposed to a physical, written, or spoken performance of the sensory world, it is in some of its aspects more akin to philosophy, and as such is removed from his negative characterization of art. However, one cannot discount the fact that where the Monologues depart from the philosophical purity of meaning into the visual/emotional representation of the physical vagina, that it dips into the realm of art as imitation -- and three times removed at that.