I was aware that women artists encountered gender bias in the community of fine art, however, I had never before heard of NAWA and would have never guessed that such an association still exists. Upon my visit to the exhibit, I learned that the National Association of Women Artists has been supporting female artists since 1889. The exhibit was relatively small, however it was packed with art of all sorts; paintings, sculptures, photos and computer prints. There was so much to observe. I particularly liked “Portrait of Picasso” by Annette Juliano. It depicted an abstract form of Picasso painting a realistic image of Picasso. This painting drew the issue of perspective to attention. Questions came to mind such as: Who is to say what is abstract? Is abstractness less “real” than how things appear to the natural eye? When the artist looks at human beings, does she see an abstract image of them in her mind rather than what is actually there? Did Picasso view people in this way as well? If great art provokes thought, then this piece can definitely be considered great. Another piece I found intriguing was Elaine L. Andrews’ “Persistent Memories.” This watercolor displayed a room or hallway with blank walls and a tall staircase leading to a door. The door is open and the lower half of a woman is seen blocking the entrance. It is unclear who the woman is. The detail of the railing suggests this space is in a home rather than an office or public area, but there is no way to be sure. However, it is difficult to view this space as a home since the walls are bare and not a single personal item exists there. I wonder which of the artist’s memories this painting is reflecting. Looking at the painting, I feel trapped. There is nowhere to go but up, but someone blocks the path ahead. The doors next to the staircase have no knobs. Whichever memory the artist is recalling, I don’t believe it is a pleasant one. The use of orange behind the woman may suggest that there is life or happiness beyond that point, but from the view of the painting, that point is not within grasp. What struck me the most about this work was the price tag of $50,000. The size of the painting was nothing magnificent; there was little to no shading, detail or technique shown; the painting was not very relatable… so why ask such a sum? The woman working in the exhibit hypothesized that the artist may not wish to sell the painting at all. This made sense to me, since I do not think anyone would consider paying $50,000 for such a piece. However, the possibility remains that the artist truly valued the piece at $50,000. After all, who can determine the true value of art? It will undoubtedly vary for each individual. I wish I had the chance to meet Ms. Andrews to obtain the answers to my numerous inquiries about her piece. My favorite sculpture in the gallery was entitled “Mom’s Food” by Lea Weinberg. I didn’t realize that the forms in beige and red were babies until I read the title. When I first read it, I saw the word “mom’s” as possessive, but then I realized the artist probably meant it as a contraction; mom is food. The umbilical cords connecting the mother to the babies portray ways in which the mother provides nourishment or “food” for the children. She is their life support. I think this piece is compelling to the eyes and illustrates a simple yet powerful fact of nature.