"When I visited, I reached in, past a black curtain, and was struck first by warmth, the stillness of the air suspended like an inhale. I submerged my arm past my elbow until all of a sudden I reached flesh: curves and warm skin. I felt the distinct edge of a forearm giving way to a wrist. How familiar, how sensual, how normal. After a beat I stopped trying to guess how she was sitting and gave into sensation, feeling this delicate creature I was honored to share a species with.... [Yve] Klein conceived the idea for 'Sculpture Tactile' in 1957. But the gallery’s co-owner, Dominique Lévy, who also curated the installation, said Klein feared the world was not ready for this show. He died of a heart attack at age 34.... When Lévy Gorvy Dayan refabricated the box as a complete work of art in 2014... 'You had all these very intellectual conversations about the role of performance,' Lévy said. 'Now, the reactions are much more visceral and emotional.'... Had we become more prudish? Most of the people I observed shuddered upon making contact with the model, instantly retracting their arms. Some shrieked, most winced...."
ADDED: The article refers to "'Anthropometries of the Blue Epoch,' a short archival video." We see "models, coated in ultramarine blue paint dragged across and pressed up against sheets of paper" as Klein, fully clothed, tells them what to do and an orchestra plays. I remember seeing that video long ago. I was a sequence in the 1962 documentary film "Mondo Cane" (and the orchestra plays the "Theme from Mondo Cane," which won a Best Song Oscar, and when sung with lyrics is called "More"):
I’d be too worried that I’d touch an intimate part. Should I retract out of respect or does that violate the spirit of the event? If I enjoy the feel, am I violating her? No matter what part I touch, any movement I make while trying to identify it would leave me feeling like I’m groping her.
4 feet x 1.5 feet- that’s a small box for an adult. Prudish? Pervy is the adjective you’re searching for. Pedo is the noun…maybe jockey fetish if we’re being generous…
I'm not perceiving this as art. It's like the homemade haunted house props we used to make - the bowls of cold spaghetti and stirred-up jello, only less directive - no one intoning, "These are the intestines of poor John Smith." Do artists simply no longer care if they're getting their specific and particular vision across to their audience?
The thought, though, about being human in a human body, is indeed worth pondering.
'You had all these very intellectual conversations about the role of performance,' Lévy said.
"Very intellectual" my ass. We had effete pretend intellectuals trying to figure out how to milk a crowd by sitting in a chair reading a newspaper or some other mundane activity an untrained monkey can do. This is just the perverted end of that.
"Being human in a human body" is one of those axiomatic statements made to appear (like performance art) deep and intellectual but, after pondering intently, you come to "No shit, Sherlock."
Temujin - It's like NY is some sort of bio-magnet with only a negative end.
I'm taking "being human in a human body" as sort of like a Necker cube: can I simultaneously be aware of my mind as distinct from and part of my body? To what extent does the body I have influence how my mind perceives the world?
Wasn't there something about this in early robotics? I might be making that up, but I seem to recall something about whether robots would have to be anthropomorphic in order to be able to do what we needed them to do. It's turned out not to be the case, but was that a point of discussion among developers? Or was it an AI thing back in the '80s, about whether conscious AI would have to have sensory receptors like a human being, or at least a human head?
She's lucky there wasn't anyone with a good sense of spatial relationship and anatomy who, on figuring out what part they touched, snaked their hand down to grab her by the pussy.
Arguably she'd have no complaints at all. Just as arguably, it would have turned it into a way more interesting exhibit with all the sudden thrashing.
Jamie: Wasn't there something about this in early robotics? I might be making that up, but I seem to recall something about whether robots would have to be anthropomorphic in order to be able to do what we needed them to do. It's turned out not to be the case, but was that a point of discussion among developers? Or was it an AI thing back in the '80s, about whether conscious AI would have to have sensory receptors like a human being, or at least a human head?
Yeah, by the same people who "seriously" discussed uploading your consciousness to a computer for immortality because your brain was like electronic circuitry, that the universe is a holodeck, and that if their favorite math didn't conform to reality all they needed to do is add imaginary dimensions (and for you to believe them).
TLDR - who cares what they thought. I lived around those people during my career and they're more prone to believe fantasy than the mechanic down the block.
The ending of Lawrence Sterne's "A Sentimental Journey" comes to mind. And it was published in 1768. Truly there is nothing new under the sun shining down upon the art world.
The 'live model' sounds awfully..... two-dimensional.
@Aggie, I was wondering the same thing — the two dimensions are presumably height and width, but what is the depth of the box? Ah well, I don’t suppose one needs to pass high school geometry to write for the Times (or be an editor).
Another thing I’m wondering: if I wandered into that gallery by mistake, would I reach into the hole? On the one hand, I’m a straight heterosexual male. On the other hand, if I wouldn’t reach into the box in front of my wife, and I wouldn’t, I probably shouldn’t reach in at all.
And an observation. The point of nudity in art has always been visual, not tactile. I presume from the title that the writer “posed” inside the box (the article is behind a paywall). Would she still have posed if she had to stand naked in front of a painter or photographer, knowing that it meant thousands of heterosexual males knowing what she looks like with her clothes off?
Reminds me of a comedy act on Japanese TV that featured four people standing in compartments, facing the camera. They could not see each other. Some were celebrities; others were ordinary people of all kinds.
The compartments had an opening on each side masked by a curtain or something. The action involved extending your arm into the unknown and retrieving an object and then giving it up to the person on the other side.
Raw, nuke-level reactions of all kinds were the norm. For some reason (probably sick), watching this anxiety, fear, revulsion and panic inspired laughing fits.
TLDR - who cares what they thought. I lived around those people during my career and they're more prone to believe fantasy than the mechanic down the block.
At least the person in the box doesn't get complete sensory deprivation, instead their is the wait, the wait for a stranger's touch and hope it is gentle and not a pinch or a clawing.
Psychological torture as art, Dr. Mengele would have been intrigued.
Click here to enter Amazon through the Althouse Portal.
Amazon
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Support this blog with PayPal
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
পোস্টগুলি
৪০টি মন্তব্য:
Guess the pronouns.
I’d be too worried that I’d touch an intimate part. Should I retract out of respect or does that violate the spirit of the event? If I enjoy the feel, am I violating her? No matter what part I touch, any movement I make while trying to identify it would leave me feeling like I’m groping her.
Who needs the stress?
Thank you Ann for an immensely thought provoking article. Or maybe that's just me!
4 feet x 1.5 feet- that’s a small box for an adult. Prudish? Pervy is the adjective you’re searching for. Pedo is the noun…maybe jockey fetish if we’re being generous…
“What an honor it is to be a human in a body”
That's enough to think on for awhile right there. Thanks for the link.
"That's the worst thing to happen since pantyhose ruined finger fucking." - Lyndon Johnson.
I don’t wanna touch sandpaper.
Where’s Laslo when you need him?
Sounds like a glory hole. Take a chance and put in your dick.
I’d be fearful of finding a wide-mouth catfish.
I'm not perceiving this as art. It's like the homemade haunted house props we used to make - the bowls of cold spaghetti and stirred-up jello, only less directive - no one intoning, "These are the intestines of poor John Smith." Do artists simply no longer care if they're getting their specific and particular vision across to their audience?
The thought, though, about being human in a human body, is indeed worth pondering.
Again, a glory hole.
There cannot be a more navel-gazing center of the known world than New York City and it's environs.
Now all you need to do is swap out the paid model for an 'immigrant' child and you have a leftist delight.
Sticking someone in a box and letting people feel them up is not art. Like Marcus Bressler said - it's a glory hole in a tissue thin disguise.
So strangers touching a naked woman is okay if it’s positioned just right as “art.” Interesting what I learn at the indispensable Althouse blog.
'You had all these very intellectual conversations about the role of performance,' Lévy said.
"Very intellectual" my ass. We had effete pretend intellectuals trying to figure out how to milk a crowd by sitting in a chair reading a newspaper or some other mundane activity an untrained monkey can do. This is just the perverted end of that.
4.5 feet x 1.5 feet is one sixth of a box.
Voyeur: One who likes to watch strangers touch a naked woman who is seated inside a box.
Update your dictionary accordingly.
"Being human in a human body" is one of those axiomatic statements made to appear (like performance art) deep and intellectual but, after pondering intently, you come to "No shit, Sherlock."
Temujin - It's like NY is some sort of bio-magnet with only a negative end.
I'm taking "being human in a human body" as sort of like a Necker cube: can I simultaneously be aware of my mind as distinct from and part of my body? To what extent does the body I have influence how my mind perceives the world?
Wasn't there something about this in early robotics? I might be making that up, but I seem to recall something about whether robots would have to be anthropomorphic in order to be able to do what we needed them to do. It's turned out not to be the case, but was that a point of discussion among developers? Or was it an AI thing back in the '80s, about whether conscious AI would have to have sensory receptors like a human being, or at least a human head?
She's lucky there wasn't anyone with a good sense of spatial relationship and anatomy who, on figuring out what part they touched, snaked their hand down to grab her by the pussy.
Arguably she'd have no complaints at all. Just as arguably, it would have turned it into a way more interesting exhibit with all the sudden thrashing.
Sexual harassment leans into social progress. Or is it the reverse?
So the art world and the art consumers are perverts, hah, who knew. Well other than anyone with even a miniscule amount of common sense.
"Sculpture Tactile,” a white box, four and a half by one and a half feet, with a live model inside, and a single hole through which to reach her....."
I had to read it, just based on this. The 'live model' sounds awfully..... two-dimensional.
Jamie:
Wasn't there something about this in early robotics? I might be making that up, but I seem to recall something about whether robots would have to be anthropomorphic in order to be able to do what we needed them to do. It's turned out not to be the case, but was that a point of discussion among developers? Or was it an AI thing back in the '80s, about whether conscious AI would have to have sensory receptors like a human being, or at least a human head?
Yeah, by the same people who "seriously" discussed uploading your consciousness to a computer for immortality because your brain was like electronic circuitry, that the universe is a holodeck, and that if their favorite math didn't conform to reality all they needed to do is add imaginary dimensions (and for you to believe them).
TLDR - who cares what they thought. I lived around those people during my career and they're more prone to believe fantasy than the mechanic down the block.
The ending of Lawrence Sterne's "A Sentimental Journey" comes to mind. And it was published in 1768. Truly there is nothing new under the sun shining down upon the art world.
I would put a belly! cast! in the box! and charge quarter per feel
and save on paying model
The 'live model' sounds awfully..... two-dimensional.
@Aggie, I was wondering the same thing — the two dimensions are presumably height and width, but what is the depth of the box? Ah well, I don’t suppose one needs to pass high school geometry to write for the Times (or be an editor).
Another thing I’m wondering: if I wandered into that gallery by mistake, would I reach into the hole? On the one hand, I’m a straight heterosexual male. On the other hand, if I wouldn’t reach into the box in front of my wife, and I wouldn’t, I probably shouldn’t reach in at all.
And an observation. The point of nudity in art has always been visual, not tactile. I presume from the title that the writer “posed” inside the box (the article is behind a paywall). Would she still have posed if she had to stand naked in front of a painter or photographer, knowing that it meant thousands of heterosexual males knowing what she looks like with her clothes off?
Reminds me of a comedy act on Japanese TV that featured four people standing in compartments, facing the camera. They could not see each other. Some were celebrities; others were ordinary people of all kinds.
The compartments had an opening on each side masked by a curtain or something. The action involved extending your arm into the unknown and retrieving an object and then giving it up to the person on the other side.
Raw, nuke-level reactions of all kinds were the norm. For some reason (probably sick), watching this anxiety, fear, revulsion and panic inspired laughing fits.
C'mon... enough of this panty waist (or no panties waste) crap.
Tell the observers there is either a nude model or a snake in the box.
Let the "intellectual" conversations begin.
Left out a box dimension.
"I don’t wanna touch sandpaper."
I don't wanna touch a cock...
Big news: Art is shit, and artists are grifters and mountebanks.
Yves Klein is so cool.
TLDR - who cares what they thought. I lived around those people during my career and they're more prone to believe fantasy than the mechanic down the block.
No argument from me! I just like to ponder stuff.
Seems to me I remember reading about something like this at the platos retreat sex club in the 60s.
It was called a "grope box" a naked volunteer would get in and be groped to (hopefully) orgasm through holes in the box.
They at least had the honesty not to pretend it was "art"
John Henry
At least the person in the box doesn't get complete sensory deprivation, instead their is the wait, the wait for a stranger's touch and hope it is gentle and not a pinch or a clawing.
Psychological torture as art, Dr. Mengele would have been intrigued.
"a single hole through which to reach her"
Usually there's at least a couple to choose from.
107 years ago, Marcel Duchamp submitted "Fountain".
It's mind-boggling how far we've come.
Acid, booze, and ass
Needles, guns, and grass
Lots of laughs, lots of laughs
I'd like to see the art world explore a concept that doesn't date back more than two generations.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন