Konstantin Kakanias, 2008
Are those Neiman Marcus stockings? I’m guessing the Sarah Palin “shopping spree” provided no inspiration to the above masturbating with a cross watercolor spotted yesterday at Dinter Fine Art, but one has to wonder how long the Republican VP candidate will remain a subject of interest to artists now that she and McCain have lost the election. I suppose that’s only one of several problems in this art work — poor execution and shock for shock’s sake immediately come to mind (pussy + Christianity= scandal or satire!) — though ultimately I decided it was more interesting consider the male equivalent to this piece. Does it exist? Who were the artists painting pictures of Bill Clinton’s cock during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. And of course, are those images still around?
This image is part of a larger exhibition at Dinter Fine Art titled How To Cook A Wolf: Part One
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
The issue of longevity and cultural relevance through time really have to do with the artist and not the subject matter. Philip Guston’s art works that include images of Richard Nixon are still seen by the public because Guston made them. Any artist who turns to the contemporary media landscape for subject matter may or may not be making art that will stand the test of time. I think that works of art have to be dealt with on a case by case basis and general statements about the worthiness or worthlessness of specific subject matter don’t amount to much.
Hi Paddy,
I definitely feel like Palin wouldn’t have gotten such a sexually-oriented drubbing from artists and others had she been male.
While I’m HUGELY glad she lost the election (!) a lot of this kind of stuff comes off as a bit woman-hating to me. I know there’s more to it than that, but still… bring on the cock satire, art brothers!
Are the two even comparable? She promoted herself as a sort of Republican sex symbol—winking at the camera, etc… That and her devout religiosity make depictions like this inevitable.
Isn’t it “Stocking” and not “Stalking”.
thanks!
Right… and no male candidates ever wink or flirt with the camera, or make sexual overtures. And play conservative at the same time.
Many jokes have been made about that senator looking for queer sex in an airport washroom, and about Eliot Spitzer too, but I haven’t seen the same porno edge applied to these dudes. Like, I said, bring on the cock satire, bros!
Not exactly to point, but some of Aubrey Beardsley’s illustrations for Lysistrata have some cock-centric satire going on…
http://mkatz.web.wesleyan.edu/wescourses/2002f/cciv210/01/lysistrata_illustrations/
Palin ran the most overtly sexual campaign I’ve ever seen from any serious political candidate. I’m not surprised that it is being lampooned.
Comparing Palin’s winking to a full frontal shot of her masturbating with a cross is to create a false equivalency. Also, not that anyone on this thread has suggested this, but I have some doubts that Sarah Palin herself came up with the shopping spree brain child and then went crazy, which is what you’d think reading the coverage of that scandal. Sarah Palin is very very scary for a lot of reasons: sex appeal isn’t one of them.
This was the letter I wrote to the gallery Exhibiting this peice:
This e-mail is to express some concern and disgust for the recent piece highlighted on artfagcity.com of Sarah Palin masturbating with a cross. I am a fan of free expression, in fact I encourage it but there are lines that should be drawn and things that should not be praised. This piece is one of them. Shame on your gallery for allowing such vulgar and inappropriate art to be exhibited on your walls. Like many I was passionate about the election and the change it might bring, but this is not the right way to mock nor criticize the opposing party. I wonder what people might say if this were a graphic of Barack Obama masturbating with the Koran in his hand kneeling on a rug praying before Allah? What might be your reaction? Perhaps the majority did not agree with her, I certainly did not in many cases but this crosses the line. I may be one person, but rest assured if I am thinking this others are as well.
libhomo, I think here we come to an impasse again with the way the definition of “sexual” is applied differently to males and females in general, as well as to male and female political candidates.
Did I somehow miss pictures of Palin wearing low-cut dresses and playing up her cleavage? Lifting up her skirt? Licking her lips seductively for the camera?
Oh, photos like this didn’t exist from the campaign? She just happens to be a female that some people find attractive? And, worse yet, she’s slightly flirtatious? And was once even in a beauty pageant? Well then, I guess she must be “sexual”, and “running a sexual campaign” regardless of whether she fails to parade around in her swimsuit during presidential debates.
Why I get so riled about this is because, point blank, many women still suffer from being perceived as sexually provocative or “asking for it” simply because an individual (often male) finds them attractive. In other words, even though a woman may not be trying to send sexual signals, she’s read as such due to the sexual feelings arising in the viewer.
Again, I’m still SO glad Palin lost. And Sypher, I DON’T agree that this piece should have been censored. But it, and the surrounding sexual politic, does need to be discussed.
(libhomo, if you’re referring more to Palin’s stance on abstinence and sexual activity, I’m sorry for misreading. But when you wrote “sexual” it read to me as “playing up sexual attractiveness.” To which I still say… I don’t think so. Or at least… JFK??? Hello??)