It's a VULVA... but it's not!

The Red Trench
Photo Courtesy: The Telegram

The first time I saw it I was still in highschool, visiting the campus to see some friends. I remember the thrill of the glass elevator and riding up to see the whole thing.

The Red Trench… I took the name seriously. Trenches, to me, spoke of war trenches. I decided it was a blood soaked trench of war and the white v-shaped crest at the top was a dove – the symbol of peace – with its head buried in the trench. Was it backing out of the trench, distancing itself but with an eye on the atrocities of the past? Or was it venturing in, attempting to cleanse it?

Neither, it turns out. Apparently I have a bit of an imagination when it comes to interpreting art. But not as much of an imagination as some.

“Do you know what it is?” a boy (I’d say man, but 15 years later, by all reports, he’s still not mature enough to be called that) asked with a snigger, in my first year at MUN. I was embarrassed. I didn't know what it was, really. Just my own interpretation. So I shook my head no.
“A vagina” he answered.
“No it’s not.”
“It is. Everyone  knows it.”

I argued with him, but sensed it was pointless. And the fact is that I didn't know for sure that it wasn't  well, that’s not true. I knew with absolute certainty that it was not a vagina – the passage from external genitalia to cervix. If anything it was a vulva – the external sex organs of a female.

And that’s what many have assumed. The vulva (mistakenly vagina) assumption led to this amazing and mesmerizing piece of art being removed from Confederation Building, put into storage, and then shuttered away from public view at the university Arts building – where one assumes the “intelligentsia” would enjoy it’s titillating history.

Geoff Meeker wrote about the entire history of both the Red Trench’s creation and its banishment in his Meeker on Media blog:

“It had a prominent place, hanging in a large open stairwell between the East and West Blocks of Confederation Building, where it was seen by thousands of people daily.
And then it exploded into controversy when a politician of the day pointed out that the Red Trench resembled a “giant vagina.” Much chatter ensued in the news and on talk radio, followed by half-hearted defence from government of its own art procurement program. Finally, the offending sculpture was taken down and placed into storage, where it remained for about five years until it found a home in the Arts and Administration Building at Memorial University.”

Even while defending it, Meeker does capitulate “ it is difficult to deny the clear and unmistakable reference to female genitalia in the sculpture.”

And some don’t believe it deserves any defense at all. Peter Jackson, also of the Telegram wrote

“There is an element to this story that still offends me today. I’m not offended by suggestive art, unless I feel it is cheap or gratuitous. Neither am I offended by the public’s reaction to this work or its subsequent removal.

What I am offended by is the elitist scolding handed down from arts gurus such as former provincial curator and arts critic Peter Bell."

Apparently in defending this art, Meeker fell on the sword of those before him who handed down their “elitist scoldings.”

Well, brace yourselves. Because I’m going to call a great big steaming pile of bullshit on all of this.

Firstly, it’s not  a vagina. It’s a VULVA. Were it a vagina, it would look like this:

Internal Genitalia Diagram
Image Courtesy: Kotex.com

Basically kinda like a subway tunnel or a pig in a blanket without the pig.

Jackson insists (without proof or specifics) that eventually Don Wright, the artist, made a deathbed confession that the Red Trench was indeed a giant, red vagina.

That is inconceivable

Don Wright was an artist. Artists understand anatomy - unless they’re idiotically bad artists, which he was not. So Don Wright, first of all, would have known that what he had created was a vulva not a vagina. And if he was going to confess to creating it, would’ve used the right word. Now maybe I’m wrong on that, but I don’t think so.

Don Wright was also a man. A straight man. Presumably he saw a vulva or two in his day. And as an artist you can be damn sure he studied what it looked like.

This is what a Vulva looks like:

External Genitalia Diagram
Image courtesy: GirlsHealth.gov

This is Don’t Wright’s drawing of the Red Trench:

See similaraities? Yes, of course you do. Both are vertical gashes with  mound of sorts at that top and some shaping in the interior.

But look closer.

Side by side
Images courtesy adam.com and cbc.ca, manipulated by me.

There is no possible way that the Red Trench could be a vulva.

Yes, at the very top, I suppose that could be a clitoral hood. Except it’s the oddest one I’ve ever seen (though admittedly I've probably seen less than the two men who wrote on this): curving downwards with no clitoris hiding underneath.

Also, look at the lines. Presumably, this is a spread-leg pose so that we can get that full, wide view of the supposed clitoris. However, if that’s the case, how is it so narrow at the bottom? Even if this were a stripped down vulva, with no labia majora (which I can only assume it is, because there is clearly only one set of “labia”), the labia minora would not close in on themselves near the vaginal opening like that - especially not with that prominent a clitoral hood, indicating arousal.

Also, it’s IMPOSSIBLY long. Even if artists don’t get the details of anatomy right, they do at least get proportion right. Proportion is why I’m a sucky artist and people with real talent are not. It’s all in being able to measure things up. Wright would not have gotten that wrong.

Every vulva is different. But still, I must insist, there is not a single vulva that looks like that. If you don’t believe me, head on over to Vulva Love Lovely and check out their vulva art.

Now, frankly, I don’t care if it’s a vulva or not (though I’m getting a little pissed off at everyone calling it a vagina). But if we’re going to create entire arguments around  the value of this art given what it represents, then we’re going to have to get it right.

Wright’s Red Trench was created as an expression of the fecundity of nature itself. And it’s possible that in capturing that he purposefully or inadvertently made representation of other matters of fecundity. But the similarities are surface ones only.

Our confederation building is a symbol of the power of our province. And it’s possible that in building it the architect purposefully or inadvertently made it phallic in appearance.

The site of all our power
Photo courtesy: skyscrapercity.com

But the Red Trench is no more a vulva than Confederation building is a giant penis.  And no one has said we should tear it down.

Trenches are vulvas, caves are wombs, hills are breasts, guns and buildings are penises (and subway tunnels are vaginas)... I'm beginning to think women have the better side of this bargain.

The bottom line is, one of the primary purposes of art is to get us to examine our social mores, our beliefs, the stereotypes we live by... it does that through representation of structures we understand. So if you look at the Red Trench and see "a giant vagina" first and foremost and are unwilling to look deeper, than that says more about you than the art. And any piece that has garnered this much discussion is obviously a worthy piece of art. It's not elitist to say that -it's just common sense.