yes. also, i haven’t forgotten that emily made this point in her interview with ny mag:
”If a woman writes about herself, she’s a narcissist. If a man does the same, he’s describing the human condition. But people seem to evaluate your work based on how much they relate to it, so it’s like, well, who’s the narcissist?”
“From the very start, art critics saw Hannah [Wilke]’s willingness to use her body in her work as an act of “narcissism” (“A harmless air of narcissism pervades this show …” The New York Times, 9/20/1975). This strange descriptor still follows her beyond the grave, despite the passionate efforts of writers like Amanda Jones and Laura Cottingham to refute it. In his review of Intra-Venus, Hannah’s posthumous show, Ralph Rugoff describes the artist’s startling photos of her naked cancer-ridden body as a “deeply thrilling venture into narcissism.” As if the only possible reason for a woman to publicly reveal herself could be self-therapeutic. As if the point was not to reveal the circumstances of one’s own objectification.”
[ …]
“In an amazing text written in 1976, Hannah proved to be her own best critic … ‘Rearranging the touch of sensuality with a residual magic made from laundry lint or latex loosely laid out like love vulnerably exposed … to make objects instead of being one.’”
— Chis Kraus, I Love Dick (emphasis mine)
