Just as I was beginning to despair with the recent ‘attention seeking’ acts of performance art, one young artist comes along and changes all that. YES, Deborah de Robertis constitutes a piece of performance art work that directly plays with and challenges Gustave Courbet’s ‘The Origins of the World’. Indeed if we are aware of the incredibly racy nature of Courbet’s 1866 painting we can only imagine the provocative nature of the act that this performance artist undergoes. If you weren’t aware, and as the title makes clear the painting references to the beginning of human life, the place where it all starts. It is a portrait of the female genitalia. Whilst the painting was seen as a great scandal at the time, today we recognise it an artistic treasure uniting themes such as realism, romance, eroticism and voyerism. It’s an incredibly powerful piece, it disturbs just as it incites.
Last week de Robertis, draped in a short gold sequin dress, entered ironically, rather inconspicuously into Room 20 of the Musée d’Orsay. She placed herself boldly and un-ashamedly directly in front of the Courbet masterpiece, but at the same time, she gave nothing away. A few seconds later she opens her legs revealing her womanhood. It is as raw as it is intense, and at the same time rather too easy to watch given the brashness of her display. But what is it about this piece of performance art that allows it to stand so far from other more recent contemporary pieces?
Before you go any further, check out the video of the performance here: *high sexual content ALERT* http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1yaxll_une-artiste-expose-son-sexe-sous-l-origine-du-monde_news
There was something incredibly raw and emotional about her performance, surpassing the so called ‘aesthetics of beauty’ that the History of Art proclaims to, pushing her performance one step ahead. It is a declaration of a message about women by women to women, to men and to society. Did you know that in the 1990’s, less than 5% of the artists in the Modern Art section of New York’s Metropolitan Museum were women, but 85% of the nudes were female?
As always the most frustrating and often most entertaining part of reading articles like these is the sprawl of comments made by the great public. One ‘top commenter’ AKA a Carol Dixson naively says ‘I’m guessing about half the population in the world has one. Hers is special? This “artist” needs to get over herself.’ It is comments (attitudes) like this that seems to disregard the powerful message behind the act of performance art. If you don’t like it that is fine, but with conceptual art, with performance art, it’s more the message or concept behind it that becomes the most powerful. I don’t think those gallery-goers or indeed the security staff at the Orsay will forget about this incident for a long time. And why should they?
Who knew that a vagina that in art is so treasured, becomes so disturbing and hated in real life? Talk about hypocrisy!
Despite the much despised custom that the French adhere to move things at a very glacial pace, it still didn’t take long before De Robertis was removed by security staff. She has been handed over to the police who have the power to charge her with sexual exhibitionism.
But De Robertis justifies her performance. ‘If you ignore the context, you could construe this performance as an act of exhibitionism, but what I did was not an impulsive act,” she explained to Luxemburger Wort. “There is a gap in art history, the absent point of view of the object of the gaze. In his realist painting, the painter shows the open legs, but the vagina remains closed. He does not reveal the hole, that is to say, the eye. I am not showing my vagina, but I am revealing what we do not see in the painting, the eye of the vagina, the black hole, this concealed eye, this chasm, which, beyond the flesh, refers to infinity, to the origin of the origin.’
I couldn’t agree more with the brave young woman and neither it seems did the surprised gallery-goers who were quick to applaud her performance. Why call her brave? She believed in promoting her own message so much that she sacrificed her own position and persona to do so. Displays of sexual exhibitionism in such a public place like the Musée D’Orsay are going to get you arrested. Yes she broke the law, yes the performance was extremely sexually explicit and yes it came with absolutely NO warning, but this was the very beauty of it! And there is something incredibly powerful and beautiful about her performance. It’s funny how quickly the public go a-wall when a woman’s genitalia is involved.
Last time I checked almost 50% of the population have a vagina, and the other 50% are no stranger to them, so why the outcry? Does it take a nude performance artist disrupting a casual day of museum revelry to make the world notice? Apparently so…
Art String 
I have to say I find performance art like this just utterly cringe worthy. Courbet’s ‘The Origins of the World’ does not need a real life vagina in front of it to receive an applause or even simply, attention. Furthermore, her statement about revealing her hole goes beyond being a pastiche, a homage, an ode, if you will, but takes on its own concept and persona, which is removed from the original. Using an established art work in such a prestigious institution in this way is merely a cheap way to get some exposure. In fact, I immediately thought of your article on the performance dancer in front of Guernica. To me, there is nothing feminist about this act, there is also nothing erotic or fearless. I fear for the future of art when something like this can gain so much more traction on the internet, even greater than the original work itself. Is society really only interested in art for its cheap thrills and “daring” acts of “exhibitionism” (of which I think it is neither) ?
I did thoroughly enjoy your article and want to pose these questions.
What sets this young lady apart from any other performance artist?
And is what she did that “racy” considering half of us have vaginas and half of us are no stranger? Surely the papers shouldn’t be this outraged, as it is just a vagina.
She has no real concept here. She says her work is “the origin of the origin”, but what’s next? Will a performance artist cut herself open and physically show us her ovaries? Yawn, where has the subtlety, class and mystique gone, that these masterpieces were, and are still, able to convey so beautifully. So, yes my final question, where do you think it goes from here?
LikeLike
You talk of ‘concept’, and I quote you here, ‘it takes on its own concept and persona which is removed from the original’. Yes, is there a problem with that? The very fact it takes on a concept entirely of its own is entirely the point. For me, this is why the piece is so powerful. If you are aware of Duchamp and the series of Readymades he commissioned throughout his working life, you would understand the importance of concept over art work (i.e. the importance devoted to conceptual art, like this episode of performance art). With Duchamp and Fountain (1917), it is of no concern that the original was lost, and that many (both original replicas and fakes) urinals have been seen within the premise of a gallery or a museum. It is not the object that contains importance, it is the concept, the idea behind it that makes it powerful. With De Robertis her concept that I suspect is a solid statement about feminism (regardless of whether or not you agree) is the very thing that sets her apart from other performance artists.
I also find your reference to Courbet’s original piece and the institution of the Orsay as ‘prestigious’, incredibly problematic. Are you saying that because Courbet was one of the old masters, his piece means somewhat more than other pieces that are somewhat less renowned? Art should be devoid of labelling (something Duchamp was against) and can be anything that we deem it to be. Duchamp’s Fountain was awarded as the number one most inspiring and inspirational art work in the 20th Century (above Cezanne, matisse, Picasso). In these days, it is the concept that is important, and this piece certainly has one. Art doesn’t have to have ‘subtlety, class and mystique’, it can, quite literally be anything to which the artist or the public or the institution defines.
Furthermore, with reference to your second question, you appear to be challenging me on something to which I originally stated, i.e I made the very point to which you dismiss me, ‘surely the papers shouldn’t be outraged, as it is just a vagina’. Well, yes, exactly. Unfortunately even in this day and age, when people of all ages spending hours downloading porn, the same people still claim to be shocked by vaginas, even if it is in the name of art. If you’ve watched the video, you’ll notice the reactions of the people in the gallery, they applaud her performance. I think this constitutes a general theme- if you had been there and seen it, perhaps you would have thought very differently. Art has the capacity to move, but one has to be there, to see the actual painting, to be a victim of the performance!
It’s a dying shame that people are constantly criticising art and attempts by artists to show their work. Did Duchamp achieve nothing? I think thats a shame. If you don’t like her work, fair enough, but perhaps before you judge and criticise her work you can look at what she’s done, i.e. she’s certainly brought back interest in that original Courbet piece. Furthermore, she has shown that art still has the capacity to be powerful, playful and provoking. She’s given the public something to talk about, and what’s it that they say, there’s no such thing as bad press!
LikeLike
I think the problem I have is that she is using the original work to propel her own ideas (and herself no doubt) into the limelight. Her concept – that wouldn’t exist without the original – lacks abstraction and imagination through being so obvious; that is what I mean with mystique, class and subtlety.
I hadn’t compared this piece to any other, because I speak for all great masterpieces when I say, is the art not enough? Just like with the dancer in front of Guernica, isn’t this performance just completely unnecessary. I think it’s it a shame that this is the only way an artwork is likely to get exposure nowadays unless it’s considered “contemporary” or “avant-garde” or even heavily advertised.
I was in no way demeaning conceptual art (especially Duchamp? He is one of my favourite artists). But I do question what real role performance art really plays. It is temporary, short-termist and self indulgent (in my opinion that is).
I think the whole point of art is to have discussions like this and to criticise and reflect upon it. There is no right or wrong, merely opinion.
LikeLike
I completely agree! At the end of the day, neither of us, nor any particular person in the art world or even a member of the public can claim to be right or wrong. That’s the beauty of art, it’s open to the individual eye as much as its history! Unfortunately, in today’s society, with social media such as instagram and twitter being subjects of fascinations for the youth, there has been less interest in the old modern masters. People want a quick image, something fun and witty that responds to society and culture- perhaps that is one way in which PA attempts to succeed in?
LikeLike
Absolutely agreed.
LikeLike
Finally someone agree’s with me! YAY! It seems like these days everyone is quick to criticise acts like this, and PA in general….I think if people look more deeply at the concept behind the act rather than the provocation of the act itself, they may see things differently! Would love to learn your thoughts on this Ayham!
LikeLike