Deborah de Robertis has done it again. Visitors at the Musée d’Orsay in Paris Saturday got more than they bargained for under Eduard Manet’s Olympia. The performance artist stretched out nude below the painting with a camera in hand in order to record people’s reaction.
Security agents quickly closed the special exhibit of Splendour and Misery; Pictures of Prostitution and asked Ms Robertis to get dressed. Upon her refusal to do , police were called and she was arrested for sexual exhibitionism.
Her lawyer explained that she was only performing her “artistic” routine, which apparently is what she does best. Is it art, a feminist statement, or sexual exhibitionism?
I am always enthralled to gaze upon the rosy cheeked nudes of Renoir and Botticelli, and the magnificence males sculpted by Michelangelo that
capture the majesty of the human body. To expose your own naked body and genitals for all to see is not an art form, but just plain exhibitionism.
On may 29, 2014, Deborah performed her first stunt at the Orsay. At that time she had the audacity to consider her vulva to be as monumentally impressive as the one immortalised by Gustave Courbet, whose painting, titled L’Origine du Monde (Origine of the World) is on permanent display in the museum.
Ms de Robertis, who hails from Luxembourg, calls herself a performance “artist”. Up until this first exploitive caper she was fairly unknown, but since, has gathered at least notoriety in the press and media, if not artistic acclaim.
She explained in interviews published by Le Figaro, and by the Luxemburger Wort that her genital unveiling was not “impulsive” , but “well thought out”.
The day she chose at that time was the day of Ascension, a Catholic feast day and a national holiday in France, though accordingly to her, a non believer, had no significance other than she likes hearing the Ave Maria and compares herself to all women, even the Virgin Mary.
The Luxemburger Wort, said she went on to explain that she felt Gustave Courbet’s rendering lacked the realism she felt was needed, because the artist had painted the model’s vagina closed.
Taking upon herself to correct the situation at hand, she wanted to further enlighten her own interpretation, by making sure all could be witness to her vaginal opening or “le trou” (hole) as she repeatedly made in reference. That to me is offensive enough, beside comparing herself to all women and the Virgin Mary.
I hold in reverence a woman’s vagina, womb and ovaries, and never liked for them to be referred to it vulgar terms. The vagina is indeed the sacred conduit of humanity out into this world, and should be celebrated as the temple of the feminine, as our ancient and more matriarchal societies did.
The Musée d’Orsay, aside from having their artistic feathers ruffled, replied from an administrative point, “that she never even requested permission, which of course , given the nature of the request, it would have been refused”. The museum and two of the guides involved have officially filed charges of sexual exhibitionism.
Paris, like every big city has its share of kooks and attention seekers, though sometimes I think more here, due to the French having rather liberal thoughts and indifference in general to nudity.
Nude breasts hardly raise an eyebrow, and are flashed about in advertisements, in the media, and entertainment ad lib without a second thought. Femen, known for their bare breasted demonstrations are charged with disturbance of the peace, not exhibitionism.
Flashing one’s genitals in public though is another thing, and not only frowned upon, but will get you arrested. Paris, seemingly has had a wave of these sensationalistic seeking “artists”.
Fall of 2013, again in the Musée d’Orsay, Arthur G, a regional art student stripped completely nude during an exhibit called Masculin/Masculin. He too was quickly escorted out and charged.
Another performance artist, from South Africa by the name of Steven Cohen, was caught parading around Place Trocadéro , dressed in red plumes, red gloves and platform shoes with a live rooster tied to his penis. Wanting to protest against homophobia, and antisemitism, using the rooster as the symbol of France, may be meritorious, if not for his provocative genital nudity, for which he was found guilty of exhibitionism.
In Cologne Germany, Milo Moire, in my opinion takes the cake for vulgarity and feminine degradation. Straddling above a canvas totally nude, again using “art” as a disguise for mockery of female genitals and organs of reproduction, she stuffed plastic eggs full of paints in her vagina and then plopped them out to create her colorful “creation”.
I find all these so called performance “artists” as nothing more than using nudity to call attention to their pitiful and extremely pretentious attempts of being an art form. Good art never needs sensationalism to be recognised and admired for the majesty it offers.
I think of all the thousands of professional artists who have spent their entire life, along with much sweat and tears, mastering and perfecting their art, be it painters, sculptors, dancers, musicians, photographers and writers. Some lived in abject poverty, denying themselves comforts of life in order to buy their supplies and instruments to pursue their art, often without any recognition of their talents!
It does not take any talent to hike up your skirt or unzip your pants to expose genitals, nor parade around nude. I find it a real slap in the face to all the professional artists, who have toiled night and day, consumed with perfectionistic passion to have their art recognised and acclaimed.
I think of the many times when I have been moved to tears and held in trance like gazing at the magnificent works of a Botticelli, Renoir, and Michelangelo, amongst many others, or having had my mood magically transported by beautiful music of professional musicians.
These pompous “artists” reek of narcissism, believing that their interpretations of their “art” are worthy of any recognition. Even more pathological narcissistic is to compare themselves to the great masters, whose work were rigorously selected to have the honor to be displayed in the hallowed galleries of the Musée d’Orsay or Louvre.
The classical psychiatric definition of exhibitionism centers around the need to expose one’s genitals to unconsenting others, in order to gain sexual satisfaction, through shock and amusement.
The fact that Ms. Robertis had a camera to record others reaction to her nudity, points to the above statement. There is about 63% correlation of exhibitionism to voyeurism.
It is human nature to enjoy gazing at nudity and procuring sexual pleasure with consenting others, but seeking to do so on the sly of unsuspecting others is against the law. Likewise I consider exhibitionism a subtle form of cultural violence and certainly a personal violation, regardless of how much one is accepting and liberal in their views of nudity.
I find myself to be very liberal about nudity, but I don’t appreciate being subjected to having someone’s genitals purposely flashed in front my eyes. Having been a victim of three incidences of sexual exhibitionism, most recently in the metro inches from my face was disturbing and frightening.
If Ms. Robertis’s sole aim was to call attention to the exploitation of women’s nudity, as some might argue by the prevailing artists of the time, there are other ways of accomplishing that with more impact and approval. The bottom line is that by using shock and sensationalism to seek attention through public nudity may certainly attracts many eyes, but rarely if ever will produce an empathic response for whatever cause or statement made.
Calling a public display of your own nude body as a form of art, is just ludicrous, and is not art, but plain exhibitionism. Comparing your own nudity as an interpretation of and as having the same aesthetic beauty painted or sculpted by the great masters is the epitome of narcissism!
Well this is definitely a different subject. I have to agree that these are “kooks” and not artist.and the media is fast to give them the attention rather than the true fine artist. I have customers who dresed a little skimpy than they should in public. I know that they do this to get attention. One customer, man and woman who been shopping with me for years told me they get the best customer service when she’s dresses like that, she also had a lot of plastic surgery. I guess she is somewhat of a exhibitionist. Do these kinds of people need voyeurs to make them happy?
Thank you Isham for your interesting comment. We can all be rather amused by others who dress on the fringes of decency, but it does make a statement about them. Dress codes are different depending on the culture, and America is fairly conservative in comparison to some European countries.
Females who dress skimpy and provocative are looking for attention in order to feel admired, which for them helps boost their otherwise poor self esteem. We all have some voyeurism in us, as normal curious human beings in seeing others nudity, but obviously it should be mutually consenting.
Cherry, that was an interestingly amusing blog. I think that I had read about this “artist” previously. The older that I become (and I turned 71 y/o yesterday) the more amused I am at society’s perception and projections about sexuality; it is all so culturally biased and crafted. There are more women than men in the world than men; so their bodies and form are not “unique”; we just learn to appreciate the female form more, and are titillated by provocative dress or female nudity. However, if a guy isn’t going to have a personal intimate encounter with a woman, it is all just ” eye candy” . . . . it’s like a kid with their nose pressed against the candy store window; but not being able to get any candy . . . Ha! It would becoming tiring or frustrating to keep one’s nose pressed against a cold candy store window without the chance of ever getting any candy.
While there is sexual exploitation of some women, women use their sexuality . . . attractive appearances and provocative dress, etc. for their own advantage and benefits. (But they are “affronted” if they get the attention of men whom they are not interested in . . . . that is undoubtedly a little confusing and frustrating to a lot of guys . . . Ha! Sometimes it may be difficult to draw the line between exploitation of versus exploitation (of men) by women. And the average woman is not going to admit to any of it . . . . Ha!
What is the difference between this “artist” and entertainers and celebrities such as Madonna, and so many others who use sexuality, provocative dress, various forms of nudity, and “routines”? It is just a way for them to get more attention and publicity for their own personal gain and advantages. It amazes me that with all of the soft and hard porn that is available now days, and the liberalism of society, etc. that these entertainers and “artists” can garner so much attention with their exhibitionists acts. LOL . . . . it just goes to demonstrate “that men are easy suckers” for all of this . . . Ha! If a woman isn’t available or interested in you then it is just more “eye candy” at best; not worth more than a curious passing glance.
As for vaginas and vulvas, the world is, and always has been full of them; and women’s genitalia is more internal and less obvious that that of males . . . it is all sort of cultural mystique of sorts (for men). In today’s society we have the more crass public commercial use of nudity and exposure of the female form . . . . there is no more subtlety or mystique to any of it; it is just commercial exploitation . . . . and a lot of women (the Kardashean women, etc.) do it on their own for their own personal gain. Is it good or bad . . . time will tell. Meanwhile some of the radical Muslims keep their women in burkas, yet they suppress and explit their women. We have one extreme versus the other.
Personally, I prefer to live in a more liberal society; but there are always those who can’t resist taking it all to a crass extreme publicly. I can’t imagine anyone going out of their way to look at this “artist’s spread legs and vagina . . . that strikes me as being absurdly crass; but then so do the acts of so many entertainers.; but they are making mega-millions from doing that.
Sexual perceptions are just somewhat of a quandary . . . . how much is too much, esp. in public. Our society is is so liberal and promiscuous, why is anyone particularly titillated by the sight of such an “artist”. Daily the Internet web sites are full of this type of stuff . . . . but that is undoubtedly what draws the public’s attention (and money). The emotional and psychological side of people is amazing and confounding . . . Ha! . . . LOL . . . . perhaps I am just “showing my age” . . . Ha!
Thank you David. You would think that these so called performance artists would at least offer a little bit more in entertainment than just baring skin, in order to give validity to their being called an “artist”. It may take courage to go naked in public, but not any artistic ability in my opinion.
However beautiful the human body is, and it is a masterpiece of creation, Ms Robertis did not do anything artistic with her body, other than undress.
My gripe is that she calls that “art” in comparison to the masterly strokes of a painters brush that replicated the beauty of a human body on a canvas, which is very difficult to do! Courbet, Renoir and Manet studied and practiced many hours in order to accomplish their masterpieces. Maybe she could take up nude tightrope walking, aerobatics or juggling to qualify as an “artist”.
Cherry, I think that you make your point well about this self proclaimed “artist” and those of her ilk.
I consider myself to be somewhat of a moderately liberal “conservative”; and I think that people, consenting adults, should be able to do whatever they choose to do in the privacy of their homes or private establishments . . . . they are going to do it anyway; and there isn’t much sense in trying to criminalize that type of stuff. However, society has the right to expect and to set levels of/standards for public decency to respect the rights of others. Public museums and art galleries are inappropriate for this “artist’s displays of nudity.
Unfortunately, as displayed on cable TV, the Internet, and throughout our media, the ratings games are are “won” by those who exceed the sensationalism of their competition. The Genie is out of the bottle; there are very few, if any, limitations on standards for public decency or artistic standards. It is just a frantic race for many to outdo their competition.
As you noted Ms Robertis and her ilk are nothing more than narcissistic exhibitionists who seek to use their genitalia in public exhibitions in seeking some type of faux “fame”, recognition, and income . . . it is nothing more than a commercial venture. Without some of the public’s rather pubescent curiosity, these “artists” would get little attention. I jut do not see how any decent, reputable venue would allow such crude displays of vulgarity . . . . but there will always be an audience for these kooks.
Art is in the eye and perception of the beholder; but there should be reasonable standards of public decency.
I forgot to wish you a Happy Birthday be it a day late. I am of the notion that we should celebrate the whole week, as one day is not enough. Hugs