Sex at $20,000/hour

G

Guest

Guest
I haven't decided what I think of this, or if I will spend much more time thinking on it, but it's a fitting bit of info for Lit. - Perdita

Sex, Art and Videotape By GUY TREBAY, NYTimes, 6.13.2004

My first thought was, If I'm going to have to sell it, I might as well sell it,'' the artist Andrea Fraser said last week, speaking from a downtown studio. Fraser was referring in a starkly literal sense to her work's medium: a fit 38-year-old brunette in a sexy red V-necked dress, who is in fact herself.

Fraser's videotape ''Untitled'' (2003) was scheduled to go on view at the Friedrich Petzel Gallery in Chelsea on June 10. In it, the artist is seen having sex in what some have characterized coyly as ''every imaginable position,'' with an unidentified American collector who paid close to $20,000 to participate in this curious 60-minute work of art.

As ''Untitled'' begins, Fraser enters a hotel room, her hair swept fetchingly to one side. The setting is standard-issue Hip Hotel: the videotape was filmed, using a single overhead camera, in a room Fraser identified as being at the Royalton Hotel in Manhattan, owned by Ian Schrager. The artist is carrying two glasses, white wine in her left hand and what looks like a highball in her right. The collector enters, and then begins a filmed seduction whose detailed contractual terms were worked out in advance by the artist's gallery. Among the requirements for participation in ''Untitled'' were that the artist's potential collaborator be heterosexual, unmarried and, of course, willing to underwrite the transaction. ''All of my work is about what we want from art, what collectors want, what artists want from collectors, what museum audiences want,'' Fraser explained. ''By that, I mean what we want not only economically, but in more personal, psychological and affective terms.''

It would be easy to conclude that Fraser's intellectual apparatus might have cooled the ardor of the most passionate suitor. That it did not may say less about Fraser's persuasiveness than about the seductive spell that contemporary art-making seems to cast.

For Fraser, ''Untitled'' was, she explained, ''not a literalization of what is, in fact, a very old metaphor, that selling art is prostitution,'' a point that was made with pithy precision by Baudelaire. ''This is not 'Indecent Proposal,''' Fraser added quickly. And it is not -- or not quite.

In Adrian Lyne's notorious (and highly successful) stinker about a billionaire (Robert Redford) who pays for a night with someone else's wife (Demi Moore), Moore says to Redford, ''You can't buy people.'' He replies: ''That's a bit naive, Diana. I buy people all the time.''

There may be some Demi Moore naivete operating in Fraser's work, peering from behind the verbiage of a brand of thinking known as ''institutional critique.'' ''Andrea's work has been about exposing the mechanism of the whole art system,'' explained Dan Cameron, senior curator at the New Museum. ''In this case, she's playing a little bit with what the act really is that takes place between an artist and a collector. It underscores the paradox of ownership and pushes it into a realm that hasn't been so pointed before.'' That may be. But when Fraser remarked that she wanted the transaction underpinning ''Untitled'' to be ''normal to the extent that it could be,'' she was perhaps forgetting that, in any number of ways, it already is. Article 230 of the New York State penal code refers, quite straightforwardly, to the sort of exchange ''Untitled'' immortalizes as prostitution. It is safe to assume that transactions just like it are taking place this very minute in hotel rooms around the world. But those enterprises, unlike Fraser's, lack the frisson of what the art press tends reflexively to call ''transgressive.''

Far from being the first artist to use her body as a medium for producing art or polemics, Fraser is one in a long -- if not in every case distinguished -- line of provocateurs. Back in the 1970's, Carolee Schneemann pulled a paper scroll out of her vagina at a performance, and Hannah Wilke adorned her body with sculptural multiples of vulvas cast in hardened chewing gum. A decade later, the performance artist Karen Finley smeared her naked torso with chocolate syrup and publicly performed acts -- using a yam -- that are not advisable to mention in these pages. For many years, Annie Sprinkle, a sex worker turned artist, gave performances at which she invited members of the audience to examine her cervix through a speculum.

Stunts designed to set art-world sensibilities aquiver are practically a rite of career passage. Who can forget the stir caused when a buffed-up Jeff Koons transformed sexual acrobatics with his wife at the time, the Italian porn actress Cicciolina, into a highly lucrative series of glass sculptures and photographs? Or when the godfather of transgression, Vito Acconci, in his legendary ''Seedbed, 1972,'' secreted himself naked beneath a ramp on the floor of the Sonnabend Gallery in SoHo, muttering obscenities as he . . . well, never mind.

You might have imagined that most people would be inured by now to shock art and accustomed to the notion that works like ''Untitled'' are no more morally challenging than an average episode of ''Temptation Island.'' But you would be wrong. As soon as Fraser's show was announced, the tabloids went on high alert. ''Talk about interactive art,'' huffed the lead item in The Daily News's gossip column, later putting the word artwork in scare quotes, lest anyone miss the point.

The oddest thing about all this is that Fraser is both a savvy and a fairly well regarded artist. (A midcareer retrospective of her work, organized by the Kunstverein in Hamburg in the fall of 2003, is currently on view at the Dunkers Kulturhus in Helsingborg, Sweden.) What's more, she has demonstrated a certain knack for skewering the foibles of the contemporary art world in her pieces, mostly videotapes of performances that hilariously depict her lampooning the bloated lingo of much art critique; the egomaniacal ravings of artists who believe their own fawning press; and the orgiastic cult of museum worshipers.

In her 2001 video, ''Official Welcome,'' taped at a private collector's house, Fraser delivered a monologue that mimicked, as one critic noted, ''the banal comments and effusive words of praise uttered by presenters'' during gatherings intended to introduce avant-garde artists to wealthy patrons. Then she gradually stripped to her Gucci thong and high heels and portentously announced: ''I am not a person today. I'm an object in an artwork.'' Any resemblance to persons living and working under the name Vanessa Beecroft -- who once posed numerous models, some in thongs and Gucci stilettos, some in nothing at all, in the atrium of the Guggenheim in New York -- was altogether intentional.

''This is one of the most complicated pieces I've ever done,'' Fraser confessed to me, laying out her considerable fears for the anonymous collector -- that his reputation might be damaged, his feelings hurt, his identity exposed. If Fraser's emotional engagement tends to compromise a project based on satire and debunking, it also calls up another, older sort of story -- that of the hooker with the heart of gold.
 
- Works like ''Untitled'' are no more morally challenging than an average episode of ''Temptation Island.'' -

Correct. To me. I can think of far more morally challenging works.

Everyday, people prostitute themselves in varying ways, none immune, so I don't find any thematic commentary on the culture/sans nature of the artist's relationship to art/collector being one of prostitution, especially challenging or new.

The interesting'ness' to me is that there continues to be shock value in it when sex/prostitution of varying degrees is something that permeates, if you want to look at it that way, everything. But then again, artists (and advertisers) know all of this, hence the continuing success of works like "Untitled".

Is it art at all? It's apparent that the artist tells us that it is, but just because it's said, whether by artist or critic, does not a masterpiece make. If that were the case, one could make 'art' out of vomitting. Oh, shit someone did. And shit? Ya, someone made 'art' out of that too. :D

On the surface, the artist points out a given, which in my opinion is not particularly artistic, philosophically deep or avant-garde.

But that's an opinion elicited from reading one article. I would have to see it for myself to give any further comment.

I had a thoughtful read though, P. Thanks.:kiss:
 
You're always welcome, Ch. (in more than one way). At times like this I try to keep Wilde's thought in mind: All art is quite useless. So I guess when an 'artist' puts a message directly on top of their work it's much too useful for me.

Perdita :kiss:
 
Hmmm...so in effect, she prostituted herself for 20 grand and got away with it because it was 'art' huh? I can see it now...walking down certain streets in the big cities at night, 'artists' with their easels and canvas out on the tripods, selling 'art' some position will cost more than others.:)
 
curious2c said:
Hmmm...so in effect, she prostituted herself for 20 grand and got away with it because it was 'art' huh? I can see it now...walking down certain streets in the big cities at night, 'artists' with their easels and canvas out on the tripods, selling 'art' some position will cost more than others.:)
I don't know much about art, but I know what I like...
 
Fraser, I just love that show! I will have to watch it with a closer eye next time. I had no idea such artistry was going on in it. :D


I think CH hits on my real opinion about this article. Nowadays Art can be seen in essence the foremost expression of human creativity. As difficult to define as it is to evaluate, given that each individual Artist chooses the rules and parameters that guide her or his work, it can still be said that art is the process and the product of choosing a medium, a set of rules for the use of that medium, and a set of values that determine what deserves to be expressed through that medium, in order to convey either a belief, an idea, a sensation, or a feeling in the most effective way possible for that medium.

Personally prostitution is not Art, it is a way to earn monies by selling a service. However with the ability and creative minds of some, many normal repetitive jobs can bee nseen as a work of Art depending on how much personal flair is placed into the efforts.



The arts are divided into mechanical and liberal arts. The mechanical arts are those which require more bodily than mental labor; they are usually called trades, and those who pursue them are called artisans or mechanics.
The liberal are those which have for the sole or principal object, works of the mind, and those who are engaged in them are called artists. Pard. Dr. Com.

Legally this is Art, but not so different from those of them, who make porn movies.


Phildo
 
I'm thinking of the old saw about the philosopher who went up to a young lady and asked;

"Would you go to bed with me for a million dollars?"

"Yes, I would," she replied.

"Would you go to bed with me for fifty dollars?"

"No! What do you think I am? A whore?"

"We've already determined that. Now we're haggling over the price."

Personally who cares? Art is what we say it is. If Ms. Fraser says what she did is art, and people like it or get outraged over it or buy it, then I guess it is art.

I regard samurai swords as works of art. Using them is an artform. And when I was a computer programmer I regarded that as art, as well.

There's something inefffable about all of them that can't be explained, only experienced.

And I agree with Ms. Fraser that that too many 'artists' take themselves way too seriously.

All the good artists did what they did because they had something to communicate to as many people as possible. A lot of 'artists', it seems to me, speak only to other 'artists'. Or perhaps the voices in their heads.
 
For me, what makes this interesting is the labelling.

A man and woman go through contractual negotiations – no matter how casually – to agree upon what form of sexual interaction they will engage in, for what price. This is offensive to society, and a crime under most region’s vice laws.

A man and a woman go through contractual negotiation – no matter how legally – to agree upon what form of sexual interaction they will engage in, for what price, and then film it. This is offensive to the ‘better’ strata of society, though not illegal, and when the resultant recording of the event is distributed, it is given the negative label, ‘porn.’

A man and a woman are filmed going through the contractual negotiation – no matter how self-consciously – to agree upon what form of sexual interaction they will engage in, for what price, then film it. This is shocking, though acceptable to the ‘better’ strata of society, not illegal, and when the resultant recording of the event is distributed, it is given the positive label, ‘art.’

Should police, or other agents for the enforcement of the law, employ their cameras to film what we have been discussing, it is called, ‘evidence.’

The conclusion to be drawn from this appears to be that the difference between criminal vice, porn, art, and evidence, depends on whether a camera is employed, who operates it, and when the tape began rolling.

Or, maybe I just don’t get Andrea Fraser’s art.
 
Virtual_Burlesque said:
For me, what makes this interesting is the labelling.

..........................

The conclusion to be drawn from this appears to be that the difference between criminal vice, porn, art, and evidence, depends on whether a camera is employed, who operates it, and when the tape began rolling.

Or, maybe I just don’t get Andrea Fraser’s art.

*applauding softly*.
Hear, hear, VB.
I don't get it either.

Matriarch
 
Should police, or other agents for the enforcement of the law, employ their cameras to film what we have been discussing, it is called, ‘evidence.’

The conclusion to be drawn from this appears to be that the difference between criminal vice, porn, art, and evidence, depends on whether a camera is employed, who operates it, and when the tape began rolling.

Or, maybe I just don’t get Andrea Fraser’s art. [/B][/QUOTE]

Taking notes:

Next time I am paid for sex, surely I will bring the video camera for security reasons.

"Honest officer this is a work of Art! See!" pointing at the vid camera I forgot to turn on. :rolleyes:
 
perdita said:
May I ask, Phil, how many times you've been paid for sex?

respectfully, Perdita

OOOOO ive got $1.50 in my pocket.. will that work???
:devil:
 
I think "art" is more difficult to understand from person to person than religion and political views combined.
 
Wildcard Ky said:
I think "art" is more difficult to understand from person to person than religion and political views combined.

I never thought of it like that, but you have a good point. Poetry profs always have a lot of difficulty even selling a definition-- "What's poetry?"-- to the class. "What's Art?" is just as hard to agree on.

There is at least some criteria of orthodoxy in religion and in politics.
 
Originally posted by perdita
May I ask, Phil, how many times you've been paid for sex?

respectfully, Perdita

Now does that matter? This is not a good time to hi-jack this good thread :D

Originally posted by vella_ms
OOOOO ive got $1.50 in my pocket.. will that work???

Vella Pm me I am sure we can work something out for you! :p Of course in the name of art.
 
21st post I guess we can hi-jack it now!

Perdi you will have to ask my twin brother. He lurks here as well, not generally in the AH though. He will say something like, "Any female can get a guy, Now brothers is a hard find. What's it worth to ya?"

:rolleyes:

Phildo
 
Conceptual art is mostly about the frame, not about the picture. You put a frame around something, and suddenly it has whole new meanings. Conceptual artists have been concerned with just how that happens and what that means ever since the genre began.

The problem most people have with conceptual art is that (a) it doesn't take a lot of skill, (b) it doesn't have any intrinsic aethetic, and (c) by its very nature it involves scamming or fooling people into looking twice at something they might not normally look at once. After all, it doesn't seem like it takes a lot of skill to put a frame around something, whether it's a Campbell's soup can or a crucifix in a jar of urine or a video of woman getting laid, and so people love to go on about what a huge ripoff it is.

Maybe it is, but the point is not the art itself by the viewer's realtionship to it.

---dr.M.
 
Is silence music?
BlogCritics report:
Posted by Marty Dodge on January 13, 2004

The BBC Symphony Orchestra will perform John Cage's legendary piece 4'33" - just under five minutes of complete silence - as part of a season celebrating the avante garde composer's work. What's more the performance will be broadcast on both BBC4 and BBC Radio 3 - the latter will have to turn off its emergency system which cuts in after a few minutes of silence.

When Cage wrote the piece in 1952 he said the work aimed to demonstrate that "wherever we are what we hear mostly is noise".

The BBC are keen to stress the silence you will hear at the Barbican Centre this weekend is Cages and not that created by Wombles man Mike Batt. As previously reported Batt had to pay a six figure sum to a charity after Cage's people threatened to sue him over a silent track on one of his albums which he co-credited to Cage.
 
Virtual_Burlesque said:
Is silence music?
BlogCritics report:
Posted by Marty Dodge on January 13, 2004

The BBC Symphony Orchestra will perform John Cage's legendary piece 4'33" - just under five minutes of complete silence - as part of a season celebrating the avante garde composer's work. What's more the performance will be broadcast on both BBC4 and BBC Radio 3 - the latter will have to turn off its emergency system which cuts in after a few minutes of silence.

When Cage wrote the piece in 1952 he said the work aimed to demonstrate that "wherever we are what we hear mostly is noise".

The BBC are keen to stress the silence you will hear at the Barbican Centre this weekend is Cages and not that created by Wombles man Mike Batt. As previously reported Batt had to pay a six figure sum to a charity after Cage's people threatened to sue him over a silent track on one of his albums which he co-credited to Cage.

bare with me a moment.. was at a family picnic and prolly drank more than my fair share... however..
when i heard of this the first time.. i thought to myself.. it must be a joke.
and now im just sad that it s acutally serious. silence can be had for free... ill donate to charity.. but thank you, if i go to see a symphony.. i dont expect them to sit there doing nothing... art schmart. that one just irked me. :rolling eyes:..
symphonically,
vella-la
 
Virtual_Burlesque said:
Is silence music?
BlogCritics report:
Posted by Marty Dodge on January 13, 2004

The BBC Symphony Orchestra will perform John Cage's legendary piece 4'33" - just under five minutes of complete silence - as part of a season celebrating the avante garde composer's work. What's more the performance will be broadcast on both BBC4 and BBC Radio 3 - the latter will have to turn off its emergency system which cuts in after a few minutes of silence.

When Cage wrote the piece in 1952 he said the work aimed to demonstrate that "wherever we are what we hear mostly is noise".

The BBC are keen to stress the silence you will hear at the Barbican Centre this weekend is Cages and not that created by Wombles man Mike Batt. As previously reported Batt had to pay a six figure sum to a charity after Cage's people threatened to sue him over a silent track on one of his albums which he co-credited to Cage.

I don;t think Cage's piece can be broadcast. In the actual piece as performed, a pianist comes out to the piano, sits down and opens the music, and sits there for 4 minutes and 33 seconds.

There's two components to music: playing and listening. We know all about playing. Cage was trying to teach us about listening, about what we do when we 'listen' to a piece of music: how we pay attention to what we hear and how we interpret the sounds and place them in a musical context. It may seem like a cynical put-on, but there's a lot to it.

Creative musicians always listen to the sounds around them and learn from them. Sibelius used to transcribe bird song and Debussy studied the sounds of the sea. There were these other guys who used to go into factories and just listen. The blues took much of its energy from the sounds of trains and, later, automobiles and car horns (just listen to Chuck Berry). Hiphop and rap sample sounds from the streets.

All these things happened because these guys knew that it was the listening that made music just as much as the playing. I'm big on this fabulously terrible band called the Shaggs because they teach you how the most unmusical moments can be musical simply by the way you listen to them. That's why Frank Zappa said the Shaggs were better than the Beatles.

Anyhow, that's what Cage was trying to show in his piece. So we can laugh at the idea of paying money to hear silence, but would people have listened if it had been for free?

---Zoot
 
Back
Top