"GEORGIA O 'KEEFFE PAINTING

“Georgia O’Keeffe was only painting flowers, you see. Extreme close-ups of flowers. She never meant for them to be interpreted as vaginal imagery at all, and refused to cooperate with any…“women’s liberation” or “feminist” stuff that claimed she did.
Whoops.
HOW DID WE GET THIS SO WRONG? Have we really been interpreting her art this poorly for nearly a century? Shit. I guess we better have a look.”

To which author Susie then proceeds to reflect on a suite of O’Keefe paintings that look more and more vulva-esque. She makes a fun point at the end of the article that, yes, Georgia was indeed painting vulvae because
“Flowers are like . . . mostly vagina. It’s true: flowers are primarily made up of sex organs and things that surround the sex organs. In fact, they have both male and female sex organs… I don’t want to burst your bubble or anything, but you kind of were painting vaginas all that time. I know that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but a flower is pretty much always a cunt