In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

It was bad enough when “jugs” was just a euphemism.

Caperton

Hey, many breasts make milk, right? It’s a function. And yet for some strange, totally inexplicable reason, this disembodied lactating-breast milk pitcher, complete with about a dozen nipples that “dispense according to stimulus,” makes my skin crawl. That, and the demo video that I will not embed nor encourage you to watch but will tell you involves this jug and kittens. And also, the hair.

Designer Christine Chin’s “Sentient Kitchen” collection also includes a breast baby bottle that “lactates in response to stimulus” (which, okay, I thought was kind of the point of baby bottles) and is accompanied by instructions on how to “prevent clogged ducts and mastitis.”

Posted in Uncategorized

47 thoughts on It was bad enough when “jugs” was just a euphemism.

  5. Whelp, this will be haunting my nightmares for awhile. And there’s a demo video, you say?

    I think I found my new gtalk status. Might as well spread the love.

  7. I was expecting the pitcher to look more… “breast like”. Not like a normal-shaped pitcher with random hairy patches and nipples just stuck on everywhere.

    Yikes. Kubrickian nightmare indeed.

    On the other hand, the tables and chair with the human legs didn’t seem at all odd to me. Then again, I have a deep-seated nostalgia for the leg lamp from “A Christmas Story”, so maybe that’s it…

  8. If you’re in the mood, you can watch a 19-minute video of the jug slowly dripping milk from its nipples, at http://people.hws.edu/chin/ChristineChinWebsite/SentientKitchen/milkjug.html. If you’re patient enough, a black kitten walks up to the jug at about the 3 minute mark, and starts licking the milk off the floor. And then starts licking and nuzzling one of the nipples. And then more kittens start entering. I usually like kitten videos, but not this one. I’m not planning to watch long enough to find out what else happens.

  10. I looked at the milk jug and it was creepy but not the worst thing I’ve ever seen on the internet. Then I looked at the sentient kitchen webpage…it haunts my soul.

  14. I’m in love with this quote: “Much like your childhood Barbie dolls, you can brush, style and cut your lamp’s hair any way you like it.”

    DonnaL: Did you see the toes?

    A salt shaker that comes when you call would actually pretty cool, but only if it did not look like that.

  15. it’s not so much a designer’s collection as it is an artist’s exhibition, and a dang good one at that. it’s tongue-in-cheek (salt shaker reference not intended) and it obviously gets people talking. if it were a real product, though, i would totally want those cheese shakers with the toes.

  22. Thing is, a lot of the tools on that site are kinda cool concepts. They’re just implemented in the creepiest way possible.

  23. Art art ART ! It’s making you talk and think — and I would not describe any of it as objectifying or sexualizing.

    Rock on hairy lactating multi-nipple pitcher !

  24. It’s art… and yet it’s also design… and overall, creepy. Add this designer to the list of people who I do not ever wish to visit for dinner.

  25. That salt shaker was supposed to be feet? ERGH. The tongue spoons were just horrifying, the milk jug is disgusting, and I’m really not sure what the other salt shaker is. Perhaps a penis?

    A lamp with human hair? Doesn’t sound like a good idea.

    I really really hope she’s on drugs.

  26. I think it’s meant to be a mouth opening, to show the tongue? Mouth without lips continues the creepy run here.

  30. I don’t get it, therefore it must be “high” art.

    This quote makes me sad. Damn you (some) contemporary art!

  31. “Art art ART ! It’s making you talk and think”

    Yes, it’s making me think, “Aaaaaaaaah! NIGHTMARES! Creepy disembodied toes!”

  32. Don’t call any of this “tongue in cheek” or you’ll give her new ideas.

    Good thing the artist is female, because if not then think of all the stuff people here would be saying.

  34. Thinksnake: Ah, I think you’re right. I would’ve been happier if you weren’t.
    Shannon: I think people would burn the gift shop down if these arrived. I’m all for art, but this woman must be stopped.

  36. If you backtrack a little, you’ll get to her other projects, Alternative Alternative Energy (moth generator ftw!!) and the Genetically Modified Foods Cookbook. <3

  37. Norma, that video is amazing. I just love how the eye follows the spoon around. Also, the product features are excellent. Sugar Jar with “non-judgemental gaze”.

  38. On the perceptive sugar pot referenced @ 27 & 35–1st listed feature is “effective dieting tool”–that, my friends, is truth in advertising

  39. I am not even going to click through.

    You know what would be breakthrough art? Not appropriating women’s body parts for once.

  41. You know what would be breakthrough art? Not appropriating women’s body parts for once.

    I can’t stand that practice either; some of what I’ve seen in that genre is horrifying. In this case, not that it makes these products any less creepy for me personally, I got the feeling that at least the disembodied toes were intended to be men’s toes; in fact, the only one I saw as intentionally gendered as female was that nipple jug. Of course, that could just be my own gendered assumptions showing.

  42. I dont think much of it is gendered with the exception of the pitcher and even that could be up for debate. I will admit wanting the tasting spoon, the mobile shakers, and the table and chairs with “legs” and “feet.” That sugar jar would be used as a cookie jar and would be VERY helpful in preventing me from too many trips to the cookie jar!

  43. If you backtrack a little, you’ll get to her other projects, Alternative Alternative Energy (moth generator ftw!!) and the Genetically Modified Foods Cookbook. <3

    Thanks for the advisement! Her work is awesome.

  45. From Chin’s statement about the collection:

    Sentient Kitchen takes inspiration from some of nature’s most ingenious engineering. … [W]hy not take advantage of the mammary gland’s unique relationship to milk?

    Because women’s breasts have been reduced to the status of milk jugs for so long now that that particular choice isn’t all that revolutionary? But then, I’ve never pretended to have a sophisticated appreciation for art.

    Also: What’s with the hair? My breasts do have hair on them, certainly, but they’re not resting on a bed of it like plastic grass in an Easter basket.

  47. Also: What’s with the hair? My breasts do have hair on them, certainly, but they’re not resting on a bed of it like plastic grass in an Easter basket.

    I’m pretty sure the hair is there (as it is with a couple of the other items) to knock the object even further into the uncanny valley, as well as to trigger the kinds of gross reactions we’re socialised to feel about body hair (especially when it’s long/located in places we don’t expect it). If your intention is to provoke body horror, putting a couple of errant hairs on your breast jug is clearly a good idea.

Comments are currently closed.