‘…Another example would be the reaction of the Arts Council of Great Britain to Suzanne’s Santoro’s artist’s book, Towards New Expression.

In the short textin this image-based work, Santoro’s words resonate with Irigaray’s slightly later comments on the excision of women’s genitals from the scene of representation in phallocentric ‘art’. The text first discusses a graffito on a wall in Rome of a penis, a vulva and drops of semen being collected in a cup: The penis and the semen were drawn with force and the cup for the care and preservation of the semen was given great importance. On the other hand there was the subordinate and mystified presence of the female genitals, the usual crack-hole. […] When I saw how this subject had been treated in the past, I realized that even in diverse historical representation it had been annulled, smoothed down and in the end, idealized. […] We can no longer see ourselves as if we live in a dream or as an imitation of something that just does not reflect the realty of our lives. […] The substance of expression is unlimited and has no established form. Self expression is a necessity. Expression begins with self assertion and with the awareness of the differences between ourselves and others. (Santoro 1974, ‘Towards New Expression’, Rivolta Femminile, Rome, Italy.)


note: Ce sexe was first published in France in 1977, but other similar comments appeared in Speculum in France in 1974. I do not wish to suggest any direct influence one way or the other, Santoro’s full text is reprinted in Hilary Robinson (ed.), Feminism-Art-Theory 1968-2000 (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002), pp. 277,278.