<p>2014<br />
Pillow Feet and Japanese Sweets</p>
<p>2014<br />
Pillow Feet and Japanese Sweets</p>
<p>2014<br />
Pillow Feet and Japanese Sweets</p>
<p>2014<br />
Pillow Feet and Japanese Sweets</p>
<p>2014<br />
Pillow Feet and Japanese Sweets</p>
<p>2014<br />
Pillow Feet and Japanese Sweets</p>
<p>2014<br />
Pillow Feet and Japanese Sweets</p>
<p>2014<br />
Pillow Feet and Japanese Sweets</p>
<p>2014<br />
Pillow Feet and Japanese Sweets</p>
<p>2014<br />
Pillow Feet and Japanese Sweets</p>
<p>2014<br />
Pillow Feet and Japanese Sweets</p>
<p>2014<br />
Pillow Feet and Japanese Sweets</p>
<p>2014<br />
Pillow Feet and Japanese Sweets</p>
<p>2014<br />
Pillow Feet and Japanese Sweets</p>
<p>2014<br />
Pillow Feet and Japanese Sweets</p>

These objects deal with my desire to objectify and digest the strange object (for instance the male phallus) without losing my position of empowerment.

A critique could be that this desire seems to be codified because feet made of cloth and pillow take the place of the male phallus. However I disagree and say it should be taken quite literal. In a traditional, non-feminist reception, it has been normal for male artists to present only parts of women in their artistic productions (chests, legs). While this can be read as paraphilic, or sublimating desire, it isn't required for the perception of the artwork. Female artists doing the same thing have often been received as attempting to subjugate their desire (Meret Oppenheim).