Water baby OMGWTFISTHAT?!?!

If you have ever witnessed, firsthand, the birth of a cow or seen a recently-born cow, you might notice that the most amazing part of that calf is a pair of huge, brown eyes. They're glossy, yet perceptive, taking in absolutely everything that comes within its sight range. When I saw the icon for Window Water Baby Moving on youtube, I thought that I saw one of those beautiful warm eyes staring back at me. I had no idea what that cow eye could have to do with a window or a baby, but I accepted it. And then I saw things that cannot be unseen.
I've got to put it out there - I am bisexual. I have a vagina of my own, and have seen other ladies' lady parts. But man, I was *not* expecting what I saw on that screen in the middle of the library with Jen Werf. First off, the vagina is a weird-looking bit of flesh. I don't particularly like looking at mine in real life, nevermind seeing someone else's blown up on a computer screen to approximately the size of my head - even if it is being artistically shown with pretty fantastic lighting and camera angles. In fact, it was that lighting, the simple-yet-complex crisscrossing pattern on the woman's stomach, that made it bearable. And then I saw it: my calf eye. But it wasn't a calf's eye. It was a baby shoving it's way through a rather pained-looking woman's hoo-hah. I preferred my theory, so I went with it. Strangely enough, Brackhage's essay seems to imply that this is a good idea. Observe:
"...squint, give the visual objects at hand their freedom, and allow the distant to come to you..."
Sidenote: I'm about to be pretty crude.
The one thing that bothered me most about the film was the major continuity...thing that I saw. In the beginning of the film, preggo hops on into the tub sporting a bush reminiscent of one in the final scenes of the movie Waiting. (If you haven't seen it, count yourself lucky. If you have, just think about Naomi and "It's so angry!") However, shortly thereafter, she enters the tub again, this time clean shaven. From 1970s crotch-fro to pornstar smooth in seconds flat. That was just odd to me.
Speaking of continuity, I watched Mothlight immediately following Window Water Baby Moving. There was almost a continuity between the two. The red wash, the veins of the wings mimicking the veins of the (incredibly squelchy) afterbirth, the somewhat jarring switch from one image/shot to the next, and the (apparent) repetition of images all seemed to flow nicely. I'm sure that wasn't Brakhage's intention, but it was just one of those odd things.
Also in the article, he says, "Nowhere in its mechanical process does the camera hold either mirror or candle to nature." I could be dead wrong, but I feel like that says something very telling about his work. The three videos I watched were exclusively nature-based: trees, butterfly/moth wings, and childbirth. While the camera angles, lighting, and (artificial) coloration can influence the way we feel about these subjects, there's no way that the camera itself can create such an image. It's completely real, yet entirely artificial for us - we aren't there to witness it, thus it's open to our interpretation. But isn't that what he wants?
I'll be honest; Brakhage's article confused me a whole lot. If the videos were somewhat perplexing in their choppiness, the article took that to the "Nth" degree. So there's a whole lot of "bwuh?" going on in my head.
And since I've already referenced Ryan Reynolds, I'll do it again.
"Birds of a feather flock to *vagina*."