[Previous entry: "CLEAN HOUSE"] [Next entry: "Resale Royalties"]

10/18/2007: "Let's talk about Sex"

In viewing the range of subjects we can choose to inspire ourselves to produce art, human experience is the largest source from which we draw. Artists have commented on war, on racism, on human rights, and on love. In other cultures, such as those of India and ancient Greece, sex scenes are portrayed on works of art, but in our own culture, normal sex doesn’t seem to have a big place in the fine arts. Yet it occupies a very large space in our minds.
Perhaps it is scary, or perhaps it is taboo because its commercial value hasn’t been determined. Art merchants marketing sexually oriented work risk big on a label they will carry for the rest of their careers if they fail to sell, simply because of the powerful reactions from the public their actions will draw. If sex is so powerful a tool, you would think someone would have the courage to try to manage it. Someone did, and her name is Mary Boone.



In the 1990’s, Jeff Koons exhibited gigantic photos of himself and Cicciolina, the Italian/Polish porn star, doing the wild thing at Mary Boone’s gallery in New York. Art connoisseurs were uncomfortable at this show, and crowds mobbed the place that were totally uninterested in buying anything, but just wanted a look from up close. Galleries like this are, despite their snootiness, obliged by law to let anyone in, and while they can make individuals tremble with fear under their scornful gazes, this can’t be done with large crowds. To let loose control shows courage. But big, heavily promoted shows like this one weren’t done twice, nor were they intended to be. The intent of the gallerist was to shock, and by doing so get press. The reputation of the gallery as cutting edge was strengthened. It was a creative way to use sex, and by no means a failure, even if the crowds it drew were not buyers.
What do we seek to do with our art? This too, has a close connection with sex. We want to make love to our viewers, and give them sensations they haven’t felt before, to make them melt and shiver with delight in front of works we’ve created. We want to be the ones who can, when every other lover they’ve ever had couldn’t. Artists that claim they make their work for themselves, are like dancers without an audience. To stretch out one’s arms to someone else, and make contact, to reach them, is what it’s all about. Their reaction will tell you if you’re doing it right, or not. To say, or to believe, you’re doing it for yourself, is tantamount to closing your eyes to your lover, and pretending it’s someone else.
It’s true you can’t move everyone with your work. But neither can you find a sexual partner with whom you communicate wordlessly without looking far and wide. They’re special. Just like the people who fall completely and insanely in love with your work. Yet, as artists we seek to arouse the attention of multiple partners. How could it be otherwise, if we wish to have more than just one during the course of our artistic love lives?
I started out by talking about how sex is a difficult and risky subject to exhibit, and then twisted onto a different path, comparing ‘creation’ to a sexual act. On this site, looking over the work of Absolutearts artists, I see some sexual work, mostly blatant and not exactly full of veiled innuendo. Under ‘erotic’, first I see the work of Bryan Paul McCarthy, and then another sixty pages by various other artists. That’s 360 of the over 100,000 works on this site. Which means that over 99,540 works are considered by their creators to be primarily something other than erotic. Yet knowledgeable people say that between the ages of eighteen and forty five, a man’s thoughts turn to sex an average of once every twenty seconds or so. If that’s so, I would think that the percentage of art exploring what is certainly a strong emotional part of our souls would be higher than a measly point three percent. Does this mean there is some kind of taboo, an unwritten rule that compels us to ignore something which to most of us has been important in one way or another since our teens? Which, once broken, leads artists like McCarthy to concentrate on their own version of eroticism and have it become of primary importance in their work? And others to eliminate any trace of it from what they do?
Or could it be, that within all artwork, whether put there consciously or not, there is an element of eroticism, of sexuality, that emerges subliminally and perhaps for this, makes people fall in love with works of art without knowing why?
In my own studio, I try to put a touch of eroticism into some of my works, and consciously think about what it is I want to provoke. Sometimes I use symbolism that will lead a viewer towards sexuality without forcing it upon them. In my ‘Sea Serpent’ piece, I used a snake-like serpent, gave him a knowing smile, had one cherub playing a flute, and put the figures into a composition that while not definite, left plenty of room for an erotic interpretation. I also played with a non clarity of lines that hopefully don’t allow the viewer to be sure of what they’re looking at. Maybe those two cherubs are in a state of arousal? Or maybe not.
The next piece is a challenge. It’s a female minotaur, a reclining nude to be done in a dark grey colored marble, that will go onto a platform overlooking a terrace swimming pool in Greece. In three directions you can see other islands and the blue Aegean sea. I’m supposed to make her look attractive and dangerous at the same time. I thought of placing symbols, perhaps three or four spools of thread like Theseus had, around her, implying that she could even use imitations of Ariadne’s gift to thwart his attempts to flee. To confuse him, rather than overpower him with strength. The setting has to be considered in inventing an expression and a pose that works, with a touch of eroticism that confuses the viewer too, rather than being confrontational and easy to spot. I want viewers to see Theseus hesitating, not knowing what to do, even if he isn’t there. I’ve got just seven months. It should be fun!

Replies: 24 Comments

on Wednesday, October 31st, olivier said

It feel like you mix s-ex and nudity. And put all the pathologie derived from the first one in the same basket??? I agree by looking at you first picture there is a problem here, it's Ok nobody's perfect but, anyway it all of personal matter; quality has nothing to do with artist state of mind.
I love when they call it gender by here..it's so cute..and hypocrite. I say that I don't know anything about this subject, just talking for talking in a sense.

on Tuesday, October 30th, astegaing said

You don't really need or want that lifestyle, it might hurt y'all slowly more.......Just tell him you
don't wanna repeat something your not too proud of z7uas.

on Saturday, October 27th, test said

test

on Thursday, October 25th, Andrew said

Gordon, the first image is a detail of a marble statue called 'Nude with Cell Phone'. On the whole piece, she has inlaid eyes and an inlaid cell phone in the hand at the end of the arm that crosses the chest. When you remove these elements from the whole composition, remove the whole head, the lower legs and feet, and the base...you take what's in the photo out of the context I intended it to be seen in. You change the way people interpret what they're seeing. You weren't even sure it was marble any more, without those familiar clues like rough stone at the edges of a base. I'd say the piece becomes more like a bodyshop calender, and less powerful. At this point it doesn't even matter how well it's carved, or not, because context has changed everything.

on Wednesday, October 24th, zanderGordonAnderson said

Actually I was intrigued by the initial image - I admit as a male and artist images like this do capture our attention...

However, I think s3x is kind of not the issue
- Im deeply attracted to seduction in a painting.
Seductive technique, seductive composition, seductive intellect... rubens portrait of a face can be very involving.. especially looking at the great master works in person, pretty seductive, entrancing almost - do we have any control over where my eye roams next, no...

wow! Great art seduces.

In my own work I am searching for a quiet kind of internal seduction..

What was the deal with that artist who painted large daffodil and other flowers? hmmm.. Georgia Okeefe? yeah. Her works seem disturbingly sexual, to me at least, and as art/compositions still quite inductive / seductive, yeah?

Thinking about that initial image of the female torso [top of this page]... its a seductive image for a couple of reasons - the physique is pretty superb needless to say, but its not just a sexual image is it now - Im intrigued as to how it was produced - seems to be a photo negative, texture looks very much like a stone sculpture.. its not just a sexual image, If feel.

Consider one of the all-time big grand-daddies - Rodin. Some of his pieces are extremely erotic, but I still wouldn't call any of them 'porn', although some are quite sexual..

hmm, provocative discussion.. but its not a religious issue for me

great post!

gord

on Wednesday, October 24th, Andrew said

Yo, RB, where'd you see a model? I think you need to find yourself a good seeing eye dog, and then get someone to read the blog for you.

on Tuesday, October 23rd, RB said

I'm sorry, but a nude model with a Brillo pad in her croch doesn't do it for me.

on Sunday, October 21st, walt said

Andrew, building the room around a work of art is the way it should be. At the very least buying a work that moves us then changing the furniture to fit rather than looking for art that fits the furniture (since the furniture won't last as long as the art anyway). If we could get folks to understand this concept it would be a beautiful world.

As to emotional states while painting...besides the more or less hypnotic state that one enters at the same time being aware and conscious of the mechanical act of making a work I notice that I come and go between the two. While working I'm there, intellectually attacking my subject, the formal elements, the color, shape, textures...but at any moment what I've done may over come my consciousness of it so that, as if in a dream the unconscious issues, feelings, memory, that visceral gut feeling that something is happening before me somewhat beyond my control...I'm sure I dream while sleeping. But I rarely remember my dreams when I awake. I've suspected for some time that it's because I work in a wakened dream state for so long that the bucket gets emptied quite often.

on Sunday, October 21st, Andrew said

Ellen, Stendahl's syndrome! Travelers to Florence...suddenly being overcome by dizziness, fainting, or even hallucinations...when they're exposed to too much art. That's how powerful our stuff can be!
Walt, a forum like this one is the place to be as open and informative as you have been. I went to an opening last night, and because of this blog and the responses, tried to ask the painter whose works were being displayed if he was aware of what sexual content he was putting into his work as he painted it.
What I asked him was, if he was aware of what emotional states he was in as he painted it. We talked about that fully and for quite a while. There's a time and place for everything, and I think I would have been rude to put him on the spot like that, in a public setting, with a question perhaps he would have wanted a little time to think about, before coming up with a response. We all expect what we're used to getting, and I don't really want to throw someone off balance at their opening.
Odette, thanks. I went to see your work through the link you provided, and read the criticism of Roberto Malfatti. It was his words you used to speak of the continuation of life, and making it fuller, and I think you chose a key line in his rather lengthy discussion that pretty much sums up much of the whole critique. I know just where I'd put one of your nudes, they have spark, but I have to build that room first... I often fall for a piece of art before I build the setting it will be seen in. Is that backwards?

on Sunday, October 21st, Ellen said

Andrew- True that: ALL art is not ART. As a matter of fact, I detest that group of artists who catapult themselves to fame and fortune by using xxx as a vehicle. One such person, did images of only women's pubic areas foe several high profile shows and then went into almost strictly abstract work when he "made it."....selling for HUGE sums now (the abstracts). I usually applaud success, but not this blatant use of xxx to get there. Plus, I don't think the abstracts are especially great or even good on any level (my opinion). And this artist never went back to the theme of eroticism as far as I know, so it was just used to get him noticed unlike several artists whose work I admire who use an erotic theme thoughout ie: in many cases Rubens. While some of Maplethorp's work is not appreciated by me, some of his photography was right up there. He used shock value and xxx to make a statement about various social ills. I don't agree with all his statements, but the flowers speak for themselves as a body of photographic work.
Walt- Every time I go to a museum, all of my senses are alive. When I saw/see certain works I almost passed out from senseory overload (this is true). The first time I saw the Moses in Rome, my husband had to literally hold me up.....Sensory overload...might make for a good reclining image: female with Michaelangelo while massive sclupture looks on. APPOLOGIES, Walt.... I would LOVE you to do a blog about your own images.....& include drawings/paintings!!
One last thought, Andrew, Jose, Walt Brad, Kelly, et al: Yesterday, I took heed to Mike Corbin's blog to clean house. Breaks were spent watching Al Pacino and Michelle Pheiffer(artworks themselves) in Scarface. How come THAT which has xxx in every line, frame, etc. is OK for "FAMILY CABLE?" GREAT flick! GREAT ART....OK Andrew, sometimes.....

on Saturday, October 20th, Odette said

Andrew

First of all: Congratulations! I like very much your work.

And I do agree with Brad, bw, José, Dana, Ellen, Kelly,... *** is the foundation of any creative work. Why does a work of art arouse us? It could be a nude, it could be a landscape and even something very abstract...
It is in eroticism where we may find the force that is able not only to assure the continuity of life , but its fullness.

My main subject in my paintings is the human figure... and I might say that I find a bigger erotic charge in some of my portraits than in my nudes. And maybe it is because on those portraits I was able to see that subtle seed. Yes, as José said, the resulting work doesn't have to be or will end up being explicitly sexual. Sexual energy is in us and if we are able to transmit a part of us into a painting, that energy will be present there.

on Saturday, October 20th, walt said

The fact that if you type the word *** it will show up as 3 asterisks is telling. But if you space your letters one space apart it should read s e x. It's that Greek drama thing haunting the mechanical electrical ether.

on Saturday, October 20th, walt said

I have a stencil I made some time back of a couple copulating. Originally it was for my wife...I give her erotic drawings sometimes and now she has a small collection. They are very tame for the most part. everyonce in a while the copulating couple show up in my work. In one painting they are on the balcony above the main image in a piece called Earnest Dreams of Venice Light. The piece is a little homage to Hemingway who, it is said, once made love to a woman in a Venetian Gondola.

In another piece the lovers are beneath a large colorfully decorated tree. It's called Garden Lovers. A reference to Adam and Eve.

I also used an image of reclining male and female figures. Originally they were also a stand in for Adam and Eve. At some point they began to multiply and whole surfaces were created from the reclining lovers. I made the World Trade Towers out of reclining lovers, I made the sea series each an ocean of reclining lovers. Eventually I did an artists' book based on biblical stories in which the repeated reclining lovers represent spirits hovering, as if to enter, the copulating couple. So both appeared in the same piece. I often have references to *** and love making in my work although as Brad suggests much of it disapears into the larger idea.

*** is one of the primary instincts. The Greeks kept all the *** and violence off stage (obscene is rooted in the term for 'off stage' in greek I think.) The idea is that if the *** and violence are not tamed to some extent they become the sole subject overwhelming any other story or nuance projected by the playwrite because of their primal power. I think we've developed a sensibility about this. I also think as Ellen suggests it can become a fetish in it's own right...prudish, tittilating, leading eventually to pronography. Stollen watermellons and all that. What you are not allowed to have is what you want most feverishly.

Well, anyway if it weren't for the porn industry there would be no internet. Porn pays for the largest majority of the net. Or as John Lennon once said "keep your drugs with religion and your *** on TV."

And I agree with several who suggest that the sensousness of art is by it's own right a form of eroticism. I always get aroused in museums because all my sensory systems are dialated and sensatized by the visual stimulae. And I don't mean just by the nudes or intentional sexual imagery. The color and subtle tonal variation, the sensual lines, textures...it could be a non-objective painting or a painting or sculpture of a Saint draped in folds as easily as a nude.

Anything, as Brad suggests, a soft wind ruffling a palm tree and the hairs on your arm, the smell of flowers blooming in spring with their musky sexual oders or the smell of a warm lake on a clear moonlit night, the gentle rocking of the boat, the sound of someone sighing or laughing intimately in the next room,these and more can do the same thing as art. *** is all around us. Life is all around us.

on Saturday, October 20th, Andrew said

Ellen, I don't agree that ALL forms of art enrich society, but rather that together they all create a pool in which gems that do, can be found. Your background sounds strikingly familiar, and we share that Art Student's league experience.
Kelly, it's true that we're driven to some extent by the sensual energy you're talking about, but because of the way society views certain ideas and themes, we may feel threatened to make this as present in our art as it may be in our minds. It's not something I know much about... I've never read about it in catalogue introductions, critic's essays in the papers, or art history texts.

on Saturday, October 20th, Kelly Borsheim said

Art is supposed to be the one safe place for us to explore and express our humanity. As pointed out, sexual desire and energy drive all of us, in one way or another.

I for one never ceased to be amused by those who are offended or simply prefer not to see the nude human form in art, in any pose. After all, where do we think families COME from?

on Friday, October 19th, Ellen said

Thanks, Andrew, I'm glad to give you feedback....I was raised by a Mother who was enormously strong and determined. She left home at 15 to rent a room near Brooklyn College because her father thought it unnecessary for a girl to go to college (1934). She worked days & went to night school. By no means was my Mother a "feminist." (NOTHING WRONG with the feninist movement,; she just bypassed it before it happened.) She believed in PEOPLE so we did not really focus on gender at all in my home. She believed that any human being could accomplish anyhing. She also considered art, art regardless of subject matter. If it was erotic and she thought it was good art, she accepted it. My folks were big opera fans as well: lots of *** in operas. They were not drawn to pornography, but they did not consider ***, per say, in art out of place. Both my parents loved Rubens, Klimt (the sexy kiss) et al. They thought that all forms of art enrich society. So do I.

on Friday, October 19th, Andrew said

Brad, you actually did say better some of what I was trying to say, and yes, eroticism is a truly personal thing. I remember reading 'My Secret Garden' and about how an erotic fantasy was made out of a cheering crowd at a football game. What works for one may not work for another.
John, the picture that upset you was one I deliberately took out of context to change it's meaning and worth. You can see the whole statue which is called 'Nude with Cell Phone' on one of my pages here. The collector who commissioned this statue, Umberto Sforza, wrote a critique of my work in general, and said,
"Wielawski does nudes well, but this is not his forte. His strength is in the expressions on the faces of his nudes."
Remove the face, and the context in which I meant the statue to be seen, and yes, it reduces its quality. A detail showing good craftsmanship but no context reduces a sculpture to the same level as those postcards of the David from navel to knees sold to tourists in Florence.
The reason I did this was for the purpose of discussion.
BW, sales motivations are no different for us than they are for anything that's sold, and if *** sells, you're quite right in pointing out that we artists are no different than anyone else.
Dana, it does represent a challenge, and one which many people don't want to even deal with.
Jose, I agree that the energy is often there, even if we can't see it. Some of histories greatest artists, as you point out, went the whole range from subtle to blatant in their use of eroticism and ***. Anyone remember that painting, 'Origin of the World'?
Ellen, it's good to hear your feedback, especially since you're a woman. I know a lot about what men think and why, but there's a veil over my sureness about what women think.

on Friday, October 19th, Ellen said

I agree with Jose. I think that sexual energy as well as other energies is present at the time of creating art. As far as subject matter goes, I think that *** is a subject like any other. It certainly permeates advertising: the original Calvin Klien jeans ads come to mind. Even ads that show some glossy lips drinking from a straw can be construed as sexual...and that's EXACTLY what the advertiser wants...family beverage or not. *** is a natural part of life for numerous humans (and certainly other beings). I think that the subject is a subject, like a rose is a rose. It's the execution of the artwork that is key: the final work.
Years ago I did hundreds of nudes from life at the Salmagundi Club and the Art Students League. Every week I'd prop up my painting in my kitchen to study it for the next session. My son (about 8 at the time) asked me to put the paintings away. "It's no big deal. It's a human body," I said. His friends laughed at the oils and he repeated my words. One day I overheard: "Where does your mother paint those naked people. I never see any of them on my street!"
As far as erotic art goes, it's part of life, too. Some works are well done and others produced solely for shock value. My floral photographs have been compared with Maplethorp's. I'm thrilled. If they are erotic, I must have been having a great day! Beautiful work, Andrew.

on Friday, October 19th, jose said

I always thought sexual energy was very present in the act of creation, at many levels. This does not mean that the resulting work has to be or will end up being explicitly sexual. If it does, it does, end of story, there can be no moralising amongst us artists. As with everything we may like it or dislike it but that really is as far as we can go. Like Brad, I too prefer eroticism and sexual tension to be less in-your-face and reveal iself in more subtle and unexpected ways - Koons does nothing for me, and I agree with bw, it is porn. I think you achieve this, Andrew, even when the image is as overtly discriptive as the ones you show here they are not images that shock, they are images that elevate. Sorry John but I disagree with that comment you posted below, tell me something, would you guard your family from Rubens, Egon Schiele, Picasso, Dali, O'Keefe......... An open minded artist indeed.

on Friday, October 19th, Dana briggs said

I have always been fascinated by *** as a theme in art.
It represents a real challenge to treat this subject in the world today, surrounded by a host of images relating to it.
To see my latest effort , go directly to the latest show button on my home page.
I'd be interested to know what you think.
D.Briggs.

on Friday, October 19th, bm said

It seems that AA has a problem with the word s-e-x. In my comment this is the word used and you will see it with 3 stars. What's up with that AA?

on Friday, October 19th, bw said

John, you say you are an open-minded artist, but you are not. By the way, this site isn't a "family" site: It's a site for ART. I think most will agree that the definition of ART is pretty subjective. Some would even argue that this Koons exhibit referred to was art. Personally, I saw it as porn.

Andrew, you are very right in that the gallery used *** as a tool. It worked for the gallery and very well at that! Clever but not unusual when you watch TV commercials for example. As "they" say - *** Sells.

Brad you were able to say what Andrew wanted to say more clearly. Maybe John should read your comment.

on Thursday, October 18th, John said

You know what? I'm an artist. An open minded artist. HOWEVER I find your first photograph of your blog DISGUSTING! I couldn't read any of the crap you read. You happy? Is that what you wanted? A reaction? This is a family site. You are disgusting as well.

on Thursday, October 18th, Brad Michael Moore said

Good luck Andrew, seven months goes by in a snap. I just referred back to my portfolio and found I has 3 pieces out of 184 works where I used the theme Erotic. In those three, all are very subtle in their erotic expression. As a rule, I've always considered the sexual aspect when working in either the landscape, or the studio. However, the only person I'm sure to arouse with my art (for certain) is myself - since my subject matter contains the push-buttons, and visual or sounding references that turn my own churn bucket. Some folk require blatant visual cues to get their goat, and others only need the impression of an ocean breeze upon the palm trees. I know for a fact, in my own work, what I see as truly erotic - is often naturally camouflaged, or unrecognizable, to others. That's the fun of it for me. More than once, I've considered making aroma art - it's a hard concept to pull off - but certain to arouse pleasurable ideas - shaken or stirred...