Modernist Primitivism and Postmodern Postcolonialism

          Appiah articulates the fundamental difference between the postmodern and modern interpretations of African art, “for modernism, primitive art was to be judged by putatively universal aesthetic criteria” while the postmodernist believes that “African art should not be judged in terms of someone else’s traditional criteria.”[1]  European modernists could not appreciate African art using the aesthetic values of the west until they appropriated African art in order to critique their own rationalized modernity.  The modernist’s universal application of western aesthetic values seems invalid to the postmodernists for whom artwork could not be evaluated outside of its original context. 

            The postmodern interpretation views art objects of the other as an exchange between two cultures that establishes a discourse about identity and cultural biases.  Yet there is still a problem with the postmodern interpretation because the art of the other is being used to uncover the past misinterpretations of the dominant culture without evaluating the art of the other as an art in its own right.  Furthermore, the postmodernists prefer to judge a work of art using the values of the culture that produced it; however, as Hal Foster writes, “If it is true that we live today in a near-global economy, then a pure outside can no longer be presupposed.”[2]  Africa or any other third-world country is not really the other, because Africa is not outside of the cultural reaches of the first world.  The defining characteristic of this new interconnected global world is that ideology, culture, and industry is not limited by formal boundaries.  Therefore life in Africa is conditioned by developments in Europe and the United States just as cultural developments in the first world are conditioned by a new understanding of the third world.  To evaluate the art of the other becomes a reflexive exercise of self-evaluation.  This trap that the postmodern interpretation succumbs to is similar to the modernist primitivist appropriation of the other in that both exploit the art of the other to evaluate the practices of the dominant culture instead of examining the art of the other within its own context to understand more about the other.

            When Picasso came across the African masks and in 1907 first incorporated their aesthetic qualities into his work The Ladies of Avignon, he was guilty of what Foster would call “ethnographic self-fashioning.”[3]  Meaning that Picasso did not understand the function of this foreign art object within its own society so he freely attempted to endow it with significance, a significance that was false.  Picasso corroborated the African mask as a symbol for a more primordial state of being that was supposedly unmediated by rational culture and thus was a truer account of human nature.  In doing so, Picasso learned nothing of the true purpose of the mask; instead he simply used the object to project his own feelings and values onto it as an oppositional symbol to rationalism.  He was ignoring the fact that Africa was very much affected by the rational discourse of Europe.  Africa was not a wholly separate, uncorrupted “other,” rather it was invaded by European powers, had continued cultural and economic contact with Europe and therefore was conditioned by Europe. 

            Appiah uses the Man on a Bicycle example to prove this relationship.  European commodities like the bike had thoroughly infiltrated Africa and were thus not viewed as a foreign invention, a symbol of the West, but rather as an integral part of modern Africa.  History has witnessed this cultural appropriation before, take for example, the horse which was not native to America, but now the cowboy on horseback is symbolic of America.  When the horse first arrived with the Spanish it was certainly seen as foreign, the traditional transport of the European, but now the horse is a quintessentially American symbol.  Although the horse originated elsewhere, American culture has appropriated it as an American symbol.  Similarly, Africa has appropriated the bicycle as African and therefore to understand the African bicycle simply as an invasion of European culture is to ignore its everyday function in the lives of Africans.

            Too often, the developed world forgets that the undeveloped world is not culturally stagnant.  Older art objects are deemed to be more authentic because they supposedly reveal anthropological facts about the history of the other, however, this assumption ignores the fact that Africa is a current, living culture.  Art objects have a short life in African culture just as the latest fashions of the modernized West also have a short period of applicability because the culture is constantly shifting.  Therefore, it is ironic that the Western consumer of “other” art objects prefers what he deems to be a “traditional” piece over a modern piece when the modern piece is no less traditional than a “traditional” piece, but rather the modern piece has the potential to reveal significantly more about actual life in Africa.  “Traditional” African art objects are frequently unused in Africa because they represent past figures and events, furthermore, if it wasn’t for Western demand, “traditional” art objects would not be produced in Africa.  For the Africans contemporary art objects are traditional, they tell the story of Africa as those who now live there know it to be.  Therefore, the Man on a Bicycle depicts a scene that is now traditionally African. 

            It’s important to point out that the majority of research being down on postcolonial art is being conducted by African-Americans, American-Indians, Japanese Americans, other individuals of mixed ethnicity, or by third-world nationals educated in the West.  These individuals are products of globalization and the increasing mobility of people and accessibility of information that has created a hyper-awareness of national identity and international identity.  In addition to national identity, a new transnational identity of individuals from multiple parts of the world has been created.  The new transnational individual is conceived of as a hybrid of two cultures.  Many of the scholars investigating postcolonial art are of this hybrid identity, and thus, are assumed to be more familiar with the works on an innate level because of their cultural heritage.  Often these scholars are educated in the rationalized West even if they reside in the third world; therefore, the works of the other are being interpreted through a perspective that is not entirely western but certainly is not within the paradigm of the other either.  These scholars act as cultural mediators in that they transmute Western values to the third world and vice-versa.  It has become necessary that these scholars acknowledge the extent to which their identity is or is not a hybrid of western culture and the culture of the other.  It is assumed by many that being of a hybrid identity equates to a greater understanding of the other.  Arguments by scholars that don’t address their own cultural biases inevitably fail because their conclusions cannot be trusted if they are developed within a cultural paradigm that is strictly foreign from the culture within which the art object was created.

            The consequences of the Western art historian’s desire for the art object of the other destroys any attempt to understand the object.  For example, a headdress is a costume in Mali where it is used in ceremony, but to the art historian the headdress is sculpture and the ceremony is performance art.[4]  In a Western museum, the headdress is displayed alone as an art object instead of as a component of a costume that corresponds with a culturally significant ceremony.  Without any understanding of context it is impossible for the Western museum patron to understand the importance of the mask and to evaluate it on its own terms.  In Africa the object had a distinct function, but now within the museum, the object is devalued to the African because it is useless as an independent object.  The significance of the object is endowed through its use in ceremony, not by placing it behind glass and charging for admission.  It makes sense to put a Western art piece in a museum because in the West art is akin to fetish, but in Mali there is no word for art and certainly no concept of art for arts sake. 

            Ironically, the Western desire to commodify African art contributes to the mystery of understanding it because the original purpose of the art object has been corrupted by the lack of context.  Consider the Mali headdress, it was intended to be used during ritual dance as part of an elaborate character-driven costume, but now hangs in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.[5]  What this amounts to is a perversion of the art object when removed from its original context.  In the west, the work is no longer valued by its usefulness as it was in Africa but rather by its monetary value, which is determined by the degree to which the art object satisfies western aesthetic tastes.

            The exhibition “Primitivism” In 20^th Century Art: Affinity of the Tribal and the Modern at MOMA was the first Western exhibition that displayed tribal art alongside modern masterpieces.  The goal of the exhibition was to show the aesthetic influences that tribal art has had on the development of modern art.  The show has been rightly criticized, however, because it portrayed tradition of tribal art as less significant than that of Western art.  Tribal art was evaluated solely by its influence on Western art with no inclination to consider tribal art as an art in its own right.  Therefore the ultimate significance of tribal art was determined by its ability to reinforce the aesthetic values of modern art.  Through this relationship, tribal art was subjugated to modern art.  But even more troublesome is the complete ignorance of cultural context when evaluating the “primitive” art object. 

            This lack of knowledge about the context of the art object voided the object of all significance.  The lack of significance that the art object now held allowed its purpose to be easily corroborated so that it was only valued as an influence of modern art.  Although the show intended to elevate the value of African art objects, the criteria by which the art objects were evaluated was false because in most cases the object was not intended as art, was decontextualized, partially represented, and misinterpreted as being pure, simple, and unmediated by academic tradition.  The notion that the “primitive” art object was “pure” ignored the fact that these objects were mediated by their own cultural values just as much as Western art was mediated by Western society.  Characterizing these art objects as simple is ignorant of the craftsmanship that created them as well as their purpose within their culture.  And finally to assume that African art objects are unmediated by academic tradition is to refute the cross-cultural flow of information that is the defining feature of globalization.  Surely the Man on a Bicycle piece is proof enough of this international dissemination of knowledge.           

            The postmodern response stresses that the art of the other must not be evaluated on the terms of the viewer but rather within the context that the work was created.[6]  The primitivists were guilty of evaluating African art in European terms.  That crucial mistake would ultimately lead to the downfall of the primitivists because they failed to understand the cultural significance of the aesthetic from which they appropriated and thus the aesthetic’s meaning for them was ultimately only self-reflective.  The African aesthetic was only used within a western context to critique the west.  Therefore, its use was severely limited by misunderstanding because no new truths could be found within the meaning of the objects aesthetic.  However, as the postmodernists realized, if the object is evaluated within its own context, then it can elucidate truths about the other culture as well as their own cultural biases.  The postmodern awareness of the other allow for a greater understanding of the self, while the modern ignorance of the other contributed to their own lack of understanding.  It is the most ideal hope of the postmodern that this cycle of awareness and understanding will only multiply exponentially to reveal hidden truths and promote tolerance of the other.  Yet in practice this is not what happened.  For both the modern primitivists and the postmodernists have repeatedly held the art object of the other up as a mirror in which their own culture could be evaluated.  The ignorance of the value of the art object within its own culture only contributes to an ignorance of the other.

Works Cited:

Appiah, Kwame, “Is the Post- in Postmodernism the Post- in Postcolonial?” Critical             Inquiry, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Winter, 1991), pp. 336-357.  Accessed 11/29/09.              http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343840

Bamana Peoples, Mali. Headdress. Wood, metal bands, 19th-20th century. Michael C.             Rockefeller Memorial Collection, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.             http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ho/10/sfw/ho_1978.412.435.htm

Foster, Hal, “The Artist as Ethnographer?” pp. 302-307.

---

[1] Kwame Appiah, “Is the Post- in Postmodernism the Post- in Postcolonial?” Critical Inquiry, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Winter, 1991), P. 347.  Accessed 11/29/09.  http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343840

[2] Hal Foster, “The Artist as Ethnographer?” P. 304.

[3] Foster, 304.

[4] Bamana Peoples, Mali. Headdress. Wood, metal bands, 19th-20th century. Michael C. Rockefeller Memorial Collection, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ho/10/sfw/ho_1978.412.435.htm

[5] Bamana Peoples, Mali. Headdress. Wood, metal bands, 19th-20th century. Michael C. Rockefeller Memorial Collection, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ho/10/sfw/ho_1978.412.435.htm

[6] Appiah, 339.

Good trip to LACMA

As a side note to my post about the Spoon to City exhibtion, the other exhibition at LACMA, "New Topographics", should also be visited to view landscape photographs of the built environment from artists such as Frank Gohlke.  Lots of good photography and it was really informative because context is provided by thinkers including Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown, the authors of the seminal Learning from Las Vegas which provided a framework within which to appreciate low-design values. 

Oh, and go after 5 cause you pay what you want..

Gallery Review 4: "From the Spoon to the City" @ LACMA

This is a review of "From the Spoon to the City" which comprises a collection of objects designed by architects from LACMA's collection.  The exhibit gets its title from a quote by Italian architect Ernesto Rogers who declared that he wanted to design everything "from the spoon to the city", meaning that he did not only want to design buildings but also everything within them and the context within which the building is situated.  The exhibition only focuses on "the spoon", that is objects that go inside a building rather than on urban planning or landscape design (which would have been interesting to see).

"From the Spoon to the City" investigates the motives of the architect when designing that which is not a building.  Often the architect is motivated by a desire for a more holistic design, one that completely integrates the building with its furnishings.  In this model, each facet of design exists in dialogue with every other object so that each object simultaneously represents a complete design solution as well as an aspect that informs and dictates the total design.  The other motivation explored in the exhibition is the architect's necessity to realize novel often complex design schemes within a more viable format.  Architects frequently have grand design schemes that they need to test, but cannot afford to do so on the scale of an actual building; therefore, the smaller scale of furnishing provides the architect with a less costly medium in which to experiment.  The third motivation, which is not intentionally addressed by the exhibition is the architect's desire to control everything, to be the ultimate designer of society.

This obsessive compulsion is born out of the fetish to act as god that is within each of us.  This motivation will scant be acknowledged and is destined to failure.  Take for example Le Corbusier's machine-like homes in which he designed every facet of the home and its furnishings with the notion that design could mold humans and provide a more efficient and productive life.  Society never changed as a result of his design, his dream was never realized because he forgot that humans are not calculated machines, but rather are distinct compassionate beings that respond primarily to emotion.  Unfortunately those grand illusions that architects can design a better society have not completely disappeared and as evidenced by this exhibition probably won't.

Although I criticized the idealism of architects, I actually really liked Frank Gehry's Bubbles Lounge Chair.  I should preface this by saying I don't tend to like Gehry's buildings, in fact I find them baroque and ostentatious and think that his work has become repetitive.  But much to my chagrin I even started to like some of his architecture.

I thought the Bubbles Lounge Chair was an ingenious design; the beautiful folds of cardboard represented a union of high design and low-cost material to create a piece that was both art and furniture for the masses.  The chair is constructed entirely of corrugated cardboard, a material that is often viewed as waste and disposed of.  However, Gehry has managed to transform the throwaway material into furniture that is cheap enough that anyone can afford it yet it employs an ingenious design of sensuous curves that visually articulates the sensation of lounging in the chair. 

The use of cardboard makes the Bubbles Lounge Chair essentially a readymade and thus proves that objects can have many purposes if a designer conceives of it.  This realization encourages all people to reevaluate the uses of objects and materials that exist in everyday life.  Gehry's readymade is different than Duchamp's Fountain because Duchamp made a usable object unusable, while Gehry has recycled what would normally be considered unusable and made it useful.  In this sense Gehry's readymade is much more similar to Duchamp's Bottle Rack.  Both works transform industrial materials that would have likely been scrapped into utilitarian art objects.

Frank Gehry, Bubbles Lounge Chair, 1987

Duchamp, Bottle Rack, 1914

















Gehry's interest with unfinished or "throwaway" industrial materials as seen in the Bubbles Lounge Chair actually has its origins in his architecture.  Just look at Gehry's own residence in Santa Monica where he built a shell of corrugated metal, plywood, and chain link fence around a preexisting bungalow house.  Gehry created a visual deconstruction of the home by making the usually invisible materials of construction visible and expanding the role of those materials from structural support to aesthetic design.  The Bubbles Lounge Chair is an example of the architect experimenting with the same principles of recycling readymade materials, deconstructing the understanding of a material's purpose, and reconfiguring structural components to create aesthetic design.  Both Gehry's Santa Monica Home and Bubbles Lounge Chair marries high design principles with low-brow materials to deconstruct the barriers that separate high and low design.  Furthermore, the Bubbles Lounge Chair breaks down the barriers between art and utilitarian objects because it is affordable for anybody but also found in museums and homes of high-art collectors.  This result is a much needed democratization that destroys the distinctions of high and and low design.  Ultimately, it encourages the untrained designer to reevaluate common materials and even garbage in order produce a recycled, aesthetically pleasing, and functional design.  

Frank Gehry, Santa Monica Home, 1978

How should a museum be designed?

The new Modern Art museum in Rome, The Maxxi, by Zaha Hadid is a beautiful building.  Its sweeping lines, natural lighting, and sleek black accents are downright sexy.  However, as an art market we must ask ourselves if we go to a museum to see art or to see the building as art.  Personally, I adore architecture, but I also like art and believe that great museum design overshadows the art which it is designed to house.  I am sick and tired of visiting museums that are magnificent triumphs of design in themselves yet subjugate all that is held within its walls to the omnipresence of the design.  It is unfair to the works of art that the building becomes the utmost important work, a work that conditions all other art objects that come in contact with it. 

I prefer the design of the Geffen Contemporary in Los Angeles, essentially a warehouse with art inside.  The floorplan can be easily adjusted with temporary walls to accomodate any exhibition and allow the curator to manipulate design so that design works to emphasize the art.  In the Maxxi and many other contemporary art musuems, the art must succumb to the permanent design of the building.  I would advocate for museums to essentially be boxes, blank canvases that can be reconfigured to best display the art for which the public comes to see.  There are practical reasons to do this, the building is cheaper and the design more flexible; therefore, more money can be spent on art acquisitions and museum programs.  The design of the Geffen Contemporary plays down architecture in favor of art and thus provides a purer viewing experience, one that is not mediated by arrogant, attention-craving design.  The experience at the Geffen Contemporary is one that rightly emphasizes art over all else.

Here is the link to images of the Maxxi:  The Maxxi

Nancy Popp: Interventions within the Built Environment

This is a review of Nancy Popp's Artist Talk at Outpost for Contemporary Art on October 24th, 2009 where she presented images and video of her street performances.  Nancy Popp is a Los Angeles based artist whose performance series Untitled (Street Performances) investigates the body as a simultaneous site and material for art.  Her performances challenge the restrictions of movement in public places by reframing the relationship between her body and the public location.  Frequently, this means that Popp climbs stop-light poles at busy intersections in cities around the world.  Like other art works discussed on this blog, Popp's performances investigate the ability of the built environment to determine our experience.  She challenges the traditional hierarchy of subjugation that exists between architecture and the body in the pursuit of liberation highly controlled and predetermined function of individual within the built environment.  Her performances encourage witnesses to reevaluate their relationship to the built environment and urge them to create new paths that have the potential to liberate the individual from the physical confines of the modern urban environment.  She challenges conventional patterns of movement as she elevates herself above the typical confines of public movement.  From her heightened vantage point she assumes a sense of ownership over the public space that challenges notions of what is public and what is private.  She asserts her own power over the space by elevating herself to a place unintended for public movement and by conquering this space liberates herself from it.  Furthermore, the public watching her performance is forced to reevaluate their relationship to public space and how it dictates their daily patterns as well as the thin line that separates public and private.  Her performance proves that public space is only public until it is claimed.  Like a dog pissing on fire hydrant, Popp climbs poles to mark her territory and through this demarcation reverses the traditional relationship of architecture governing the individual because now the individual governs architecture by endowing it with a new, self-serving purpose.  However, the ownership of the space is only temporary until another dog comes along and marks the territory as his.  But the dog that peed there first is not concerned, he has already freed himself of the space by making the space function on his terms.

Popp's performances are interventionist in that they destroy popular notions of what is public and private and challenges human's proscribed relationship to the built environment that confines them.  During her talk, Popp explained that her street performances began in 2004 in San Fransisco because the urban density was making her feel claustrophobic, therefore, she began climbing a telephone pole in an attempt to escape the crowded environment that currently confined her.  Since that first climb, Popp began to consider the relationship between public and private space, and the confinement of the individual inherent within the built environment.  From her newfound vantage point, she realized that she had access to sightlines that were previously inaccesible.  The act of climbing, for Popp, is a declaration of liberation from the typical hierarchy of pedestrian movement, which is subordinated in favor of architecture.  That is pedestrians are at the control of architecture because they are forced to adapt their patterns of movement to circumvent architecture.  Popp's climbing performances present a new possibility that this relationship of insubordination to architecture and defined patterns of movement can be toppled and therefore new theories about the relationship of the human to the built environment can begin to be articulated.  In this new paradigm, public space is available for the taking.  It should be noted though that once claimed the public space becomes private yet this transformation is only temporary.  The pole is Popp's when she climbs it but once she is down, anybody else could climb it and make it theirs for the moment.  This is not revolutionary, its just that we typically aren't aware of this process.  For example, when I sit on a stoop, that space becomes mine for the moment, but later in the day it can be someone else's.  Picking a path to navigate through a crowd is also the same, the space between other people becomes your path, meanwhile everyone else has their own path through the same crowd.

Popp's performance transforms sign into signifier because her body becomes a symbol for a transgression that subverts the regulated use of public space in favor of a temporary escape from the overly-structured paradigm of the built environment as a search for personal freedom and the liberation of self-expression.   Furthermore, her performance can be read as a narrative of the human struggle to reconcile the individual within the relentless onslaught of contruscted space intended to confine the individual.  The individual functioning within established spaces prescribed by the built environment and societal norms is chronically subjugated to the spaces that reinforce societal norms.  A reinvisioning of the use of established spaces is a symbol of revolt against the confines of society.  Popp's performance is, therefore, a narrative about the potential to change our perception of these spaces and thus to liberate the individual from predetermined practices inflicted by the artificial construction of an environment. 

Recognizing that the narrative is limited by the temporality of the performance, Popp seeks to commemorate each perfomance by attaching a sticker of a silhouetted climbing figure to each pole and documents each performance with photography and video.  However, in her talk she notes that each medium of documentation has its own unique way of commemorating the performance that is inherent within the properties of the medium.  The sticker simply recalls the memory that the performance once happened at that site.  The memory of the performance becomes subjective because it is remembered differently by each person who sees the sticker.  Photography presents the viewer with a moment frozen in time, which therefore, emphasizes the absurdity of the action in relation to the normalcy of the street.  In one video clip, Popp showed herself climbing a post at the busy Trafalgar Square in London.  The constant predetermined movement of the street stood in direct contrast to the rebellous stillness of Popp on the pole.  Unfortunately, I have not had the privilege of witnessing one of Popp's performances in real life, but she described that there is a heightened awareness of spatial relationships when she is on the pole and pedestrians are still at ground level.  The absurdity of her action makes the viewer hyper-aware of the spatial relationships and constructs that surrounds him or her and determines many of his or her actions.  She also describes a realigning of energy when she is juxtaposed above the crowded street.  Energy is transported between her and the witnesses on street-level, she draws energy from them and they in turn recieve energy from her simply through the realigning of spatial relationships.  Within this sharing of energy is the possibility for real change in the way that we as a society interact with and interpret the spaces that govern our daily lives. 

One last thing I want to bring up is the idea of Popp's work as protest.  Her work seems to be a protest against the mass acceptance of the subjugation of the individual to the scripted movements determined by the built environment and society's singular usage of the environment.  This reminded me of a protest Tim Commerford of Rage Against the Machine did at the 2000 MTV Video Music Awards in which he climbed a stage prop to protest Limp Bizkit's award.  I could not find any more information on the protest except that Commerford was arrested for it.  Personally, I think Commerford's attempt falls short of the issues that Nancy Popp raises with her performances.  While Popp's work can be read as an action of defiance and protest against the uniform use and interpretation of space, Commerford's is more simply a publicity stunt.  One thing I did think was interesting is that the MTV website has chosen to glorify his act as Rock n' Roll although they had him arrested at the time.  This aspect of it reminded me of Daniel Buren's Inside because there was a symbiotic relationship between the artist and the institution in that the institution capitalized on the artist's protest and the artist could not have executed his protest without working within the context of the institution.  Anyways, just food for thought...

"Tilted Arc" makes its point

In class we have talked about Richard Serra's "Tilted Arc" a number of times. Although I acknowledge Prof. Folland's and many others' criticism that the work is arrogant and impractical, I think the work raises some very interesting points and is actually quite successful in what it seeks to accomplish. Critics of the work argue that the minimalist structure is arrogant and speaks only to a bourgeois audience in its lack of representation and its siting is disrespectful because it causes a daily inconvenience for the people that must circumvent it while they navigate the plaza on the way to work. I think the criticism of the work is the perfect demonstration of Serra's intent: to make people intimately aware of the spatial relationships that govern everyday life. In this respect the work functions much the same as Ball-Nogues' "Feathered Edge", which I have previously blogged about. Furthermore, while the siting of the work presents an inconvenience for pedestrians it is precisely due to that inconvenience that the pedestrian becomes the viewer and as the viewer is forced to reconcile with the art work.

Richard Serra describes the function of "Tilted Arch": "The viewer becomes aware of himself and of his movement through the plaza. As he moves, the sculpture changes. Contraction and expansion of the sculpture result from the viewer's movement. Step by step the perception not only of the sculpture but of the entire environment changes." It is precisely because the "the entire environment changes" that so many people don't like the work. On one level, I can appreciate this criticism because in all likelihood the plaza was a much more pleasant environment before the wall was erected; however, to dwell on this is to miss the point. The wall forces the viewer to analyze all elements of the built environment with the logical conclusion being that many of the structures we dismiss and therefore accept may actually be hugely inconvenient and many spaces may be more pleasant without the structures that currently occupy them. The wall should force all viewers to reevaluate the spatial uses contemporary society has deemed acceptable. The viewer should not focus on how nice the plaza was before the wall, but rather should imagine how pleasant that plaza was before Manhattan was developed and it was still a natural environment. The conclusion should not be "let's remove the wall", but "let's reevaluate the spatial uses contemporary society has deemed acceptable." The work should prompt questions, such as, are our current uses of space in tune with nature? And, is the way that modern society consumes space sustainable?

Ultimately, I think the work is uncompromising in its refusal to yield to convenience and practicality but why should it? The Eiffel Tower was originally considered an eye-sore but is now a world-renown and much beloved symbol of Paris. The point is many of the structures contemporary man has erected could and probably should be written off for the same reasons that "Tilted Arc" was so maligned, yet they get a free pass because viewers have not been trained to critically analyze the structures that occupy their everyday life. "Tilted Arc" on the other hand is held to a higher standard of criticism because that is what the concept of the work asks viewers to do. Therefore it should not be a surprise that when viewers actually think critically about the built environment they disapprove of it. This is Serra's point after all. It is just unfortunate that society has not applied the same level of scrutiny to all structures; if we did, a lot more structures would be removed due to popular demand.

Sheela's Gig by Bianca D'Amico at Sea and Space Gallery

          Bianca D’Amico’s Sheela’s Gig is inspired by the artist’s encounter with the Sheela Na Gigs, medieval figurative carvings of naked women with exaggerated vulvas that were recently discovered in Churches in England and Ireland. Although the use and importance of these figures remain unresolved, some theorists have suggested that they are fertility symbols, while others believe that they express contempt of female sexuality.[1]  Female sexuality has long been a subject of great taboo.  Only during the last 50 years has female sexuality even been considered an acceptable topic of conversation.  On one hand, popular media has frequently portrayed the sexually empowered female as a slut, while on the other hand, the women’s movement has had the effect of making the debate over female sexuality very serious and academically based.  As a result of the academic nature of the debate, many people are not being involved in the discussion.  In attempts to remedy this problem, the Sheela’s Gig installation takes a playful approach to female sexuality.  In its playfulness, Sheela’s Gig makes the debate over female sexuality less serious and, therefore, allows the sexually empowered female to exist without as much scrutiny.  Furthermore the debate about female sexuality becomes more accessible through her art because the discussion is not so academically oriented.  In regards to the lighthearted nature of her investigation D’Amico writes, "When first discovering the Sheelas I was thrilled by the carvings' contortionist abilities and aggressive yet welcoming pose. The combination of their opening vulvas and the possibilities surrounding their signification felt to me like the perfect invitation - an 'open door' to jump into. An invitation to befriend, extend or create a contemporary narrative for these carvings.  My work deals with notions of feminism and the Sheelas have allowed me to visually reflect my emphasis on female sexuality and pleasure in a subversive yet playful way.  They're partners in crime, parading their sexual parts in a happy marriage with all the other characters in my art world."[2]

A Sheela Na Gig

 Bianca D'Amico, Polaroid from "Sheela's Gig"

            Aesthetically, the installation recalls the humorous hyper-sexualization of works by Jeff Koons, 1970’s female video artists such as Dara Birnbaum, and the aggressive brushstrokes and bright colors of De Kooning’s Woman series.  However, with regards to De Kooning, D’Amico’s content differs from his aggressively sexualized women, which are congruent with the modern man’s fears of a liberated female sexuality.  D’Amico’s female forms do not pander to man’s fear of the sexualized woman but rather facilitate a wider acceptance of the post-millennium woman’s right to sexual pleasure.  Her celebration of female sexuality refutes and erodes the negative connotation associated with the popular notion of the sexualized female as promiscuous. 

De Kooning's Woman on Bicycle

            The content of D’Amico’s art is very similar to some of the more sexualized works of Jeff Koons such as his early 1990’s series of erotic images produced with then-wife Ilona.  Like Koons, she relies on the kitsch, everyday objects, to present a work that is both sensational but also decidedly more accessible to a greater diversity of people.  Unlike Koons, D’Amico incorporates nature into her work.  For example, the Sheela’s Gig installation includes a rather large painting of a nude female whose genitalia are articulated by real plants.  The connection is clear: sexuality is natural.  While her articulation is somewhat different from Koons the message is similar: to deny sexuality is to deny life. Jeff Koons, Ilona on TopJeff Koons, Woman with Dolphin and Monkey

            There is also a video component to the installation that recalls Dira Birnbaum’s Technology/Transformation: Wonder Woman.  Situated between the legs of the large painted female is a box containing video images, balls of yarn, and pieces of wood.  The video resembles an erotic workout video on acid.  In the video one woman is bent over while the other is thrusting an attached penis behind her.  The notion of a woman thrusting an artificial penis is subversive because it refutes man’s sexual power while the bright colors oversaturated colors reaffirm the prominence of media in contemporary society. Although there is a distinct critical element to the video, the colors are meant to amuse and the imagery is meant to be humorous.  Birnbaum’s film emphasizes the exploitation of women’s bodies through repetition and the role of technology, the media, in defining gender roles.  Similarly, D’Amico uses repetition and attention-grabbing colors to emphasize the media’s role in defining popular conceptions about female sexuality.  D’Amico’s reversal of gender roles pokes fun at the media’s debasing portrayal of sexualized women as sluts while the sexualized man is regarded as somewhat of a heroic icon.  Dira Birnbaum, "Technology/Transformation: Wonder Woman

            Ultimately, the viewing of D’Amico’s work is fun and often hilarious much like the work of Koons; however, don’t write off D’Amico’s work as simply humorous or kitsch because within the work’s sensationalism the artist delivers a deft critique of repressed sexuality and the media’s role in defining the acceptable practices of sexuality.  It is precisely the accessibility of D’Amico’s work that is so exciting because, like Koons, it invites a larger, more pedestrian audience to consider the complicated issues surrounding the taboo nature of female sexuality.

Bianca D'Amico, Detail from "Sheela's Gig"

Bianca D'Amico, "Sheela's Gig"

---

[1] www.seaandspace.org

[2] Bianca D’Amico, www.seaandspace.org