|
From the phallic and vaginal symbolism of so-called primitive art-forms
to the homoerotic scenes on Greek vases, from mythological scenes
of bestiality (Leda and the Swan and Rape of Europe are but two examples)
to depictions of sadomasochistic martyrdom (to be addressed later
in the text), from Pin-Up-Girls in Pop Art to nearly pornographic
scenes of marital copulation by Jeff Koons and his then wife Cicciolina-
sex has always been and will continue to be a part of art history.In
recent years, images of sexuality in arts have focused primarily on
gender politics and the equal rights of women and homosexuals. In
most cases, such works can be classified as being a subgroup of what
is so ominously known as “political art”. Such artist’s seeked the
alteration of social norms by means of provocation. By confronting
the viewer with the various ways of expressing and experiencing sexuality,
they have opened our eyes to things which we in many cases have never
seen before (usually because we did not want to see them) or which
we have refused to accept as morally or ethically proper. |
| The
cases of Robert Mapplethorpe and, in the last few years, of Larry
Clark, whose film “Kids” has been banned in numerous cities and countries,
has shown that such radical approaches frequently have their downsides
and walk a thin line between eroticism and pornography. The four young
artists presented here each address the issue of eroticism and sexual
politics in their highly varied work. Whereas none of them cross that
dangerous border between eroticism and pornography- at least in the
eyes of this author- they all do come very close at times: be it Sylvie
Fleury’s enlarged reproductions of the covers of “Playgirl” with their
scantily clad wonder boys (erotic magazines cannot be sold to readers
under the age of 18), or Lidy Jacobs’ proudly erect “Willies” (according
to the laws of most nations the border between eroticism and pornography
is set at 45 degrees), or Piotr Dluzniewski’s stainless steel corsets
and sadomasochistic drawings of dominas (not only S&M still considered
perverse by most members of society, but prostitution continues to
be illegal in most countries), or finally Manuel Pardo’s portraits
of himself dressed in his mother’s clothing ( transvestism, since
it calls into question the validity of gender differentiation, is
a most frightening concept to the majority of the population). |
| But
if the works of art by these artists are not really pornographic and
at best mildly erotic, what is so special about them and why are they
being labeled in the context of this exhibition as being something
so equally ambiguous as exotic? What is exotic anyway?Is it not also
merely a matter of perspective? What unites each of the four artists
presented here is the way in which eroticism, pornography and sexuality
in general is ironicized and played with in their art. Of course,
important sociopolitical statements are made in each of their works,
but at the same time they have little to do with what we normally
call political art, and they are rarely associated with pornography.
In the end, it is their playfulness, which sets them apart. These
are all works, which do not take themselves too seriously while at
the same time pointing out serious issues. |
|
They are exotic because they deal with difficult, sometimes painful
topics and yet make us laugh or at least grin at the same time, both
at the works and what they depict, and- perhaps more important- at
ourselves. We are simultaneously outraged and drawn in by these works
of art. Humor always has been one of the best means of criticism.
|
|