Roman Polanski is free again: A victory for art, intellectualism, European sexual mores, and French dudes with a column on HuffPo, no? Um, no—all attempts to hide a convicted rapist who fled sentencing under a pile of shiny Oscar statuettes will not fool Sady Doyle of Tiger Beatdown and I! For, as Sady explains in this excellent piece for the Atlantic, Polanski ain't the only predator to hide behind the veil of "art":

Last week, the New York Times reported that Emma Tamburlini, the daughter of artist Larry Rivers, was asking to have videotapes of herself—young, topless, fielding uncomfortable sexual questions from her father about her breasts—removed from her father's archives and destroyed. She referred to them as "child pornography." The director of the Rivers Foundation, David Joel, demurred: "I can't be the person who says this stays and this goes," he said. Nor can Emma Tamburlini be that person, apparently; the current agreement is that the tapes will be shown after her death.

Looks like some priorities are fucked up in the art world! In this edition of Sexist Beatdown, Sady and I are totally on this! So join us as we  "sneak in a little Buttman discussion, and debate the merits of creating art while simultaneously not sexually assaulting people.

—

SADY: Hey! You know what feminist blogs haven't discussed, ever: Roman Polanski.

AMANDA: Nope. Kind of just let that one go. It's been so long, after all!

SADY: Right! If there's one thing I can say for us all, it is that a very famous dude sexually assaulting someone, confessing, being convicted and serving NO SENTENCE WHATSOEVER for this is something that we all just kind of let fade, after a certain point.

AMANDA: That, or convicted criminals who have fled the country gradually gain points for stamina. I think that's a legal thing. Particularly if they spend their 30-year European vacation doing things like making fancy movies!

SADY: Hah, yeah. This is the thing that kind of enrages, about the Polanski thing: The way so many folks were like, "but... he made MOVIES? They were really good!" And I won't deny that those were some really good movies. And that they benefited from having Roman Polanski direct them. The non-Polanski directed sequel to "Chinatown," for example, is just not so good! (Although, you know, kudos to Jack Nicholson for trying. And for not being convicted of rape.)

AMANDA: Generous points for that last detail. But like, how good do the movies have to be for people to excuse the rapist? As you pointed out in your piece, it's not like this happens all that often, but I'm betting that a lot of people would be willing to forgive people who make less than "Pianist" levels of art. Even saying that is ridiculous. THEY'RE MOVIES. Not people!

SADY: Right. I mean, if Tommy "The Room" Wiseau were convicted tomorrow, I doubt we'd be seeing these outpourings of sympathy. Although folks did rally around R. Kelly during his trial, which makes me think that the question is not how good one is, but how famous one is. If it were some random "Law and Order: SVU" directing alumnus, we wouldn't be here. But Le Cause de Polanski has always been framed as this issue of the permissive/enlightened European sophisticates/degenerates versus The Hard-Working Moralistic American People. Which is a take that's been encouraged by both sides, and ends up serving neither.

AMANDA: So there's a little bit more fame-mongering in Bernard-Henri Lévy's free-Polanski intellectualism than he'd like to admit, is what you're saying.

SADY: Oh, goodness me oh my, yes. I mean: How immeasurably has Levy's profile been raised, now that he's A-Number-One Polanski supporter in the public eye and/or the on the Huffington Post? And I'm sure he'd feel above all that, to some degree, but I don't understand why he keeps publishing on the philosophically enlightened and sophisticated HuffPo if he's not eager to get his name out there. I mean, maybe he just feels passionate about this cause, but I feel that demeans him MORE than a desire for HuffPo readership. Which is not something I say often!

AMANDA: I have several original Huffington Post nipple slips in my collection. So I'm covering this obscenity case in D.C. right now, and it's funny how the "art" argument worms its way into the legal pornography debate as well. These jurors have to decide if there's any redeeming artistic or literary or scientific value to the copious milk enemas they've viewed over the course of the trial. And so on cross-examination, the defense is asking witnesses stuff like, "And are you aware that the Adult Video News Awards are the Academy Awards of the adult entertainment industry?" "And are you aware that Buttman has won several of these awards?"

SADY: I SEE.

AMANDA: The whole thing is ridiculous. Like, I'm not against obscenity. But take the absurd "art" defense out of it.

SADY: Right. I mean: That's the thing. Like the Tamburlini/Rivers case that was being reported earlier this week. In that case, you could maybe make a more convincing argument for "artistic value" — an Artist, Recognized As Such, was coercing and pressuring his daughters into participating in uncomfortably sexual video shoots! For his Art! — but we're still not assuming that Art has the right to involve harm to actual human beings in the process of its creation. A person coerced and pressured his daughter into sexual activity, to which she objected. In the case of "obscenity," which is always tricky — even Dworkin didn't fully support banning porn under "obscenity" laws — the Art question can be brought up in defense, however. If it was relevant for Joyce, it's relevant for Buttman, sad to say. Which is what's so infuriating about this: Often, as in the Max Hardcore case, what's being prosecuted is sexual abuse of performers. And then people are like "obscenity laws are unconstitutional; why didn't these performers bring their cases to court?" Whereas if they did, as sex workers, they'd be slut-shamed and devalued and wouldn't stand a chance of winning.

AMANDA: That's true. The tricky thing is when there is legitimate abuse of performers (as in the Rivers case) and then the dissemination of the work in effect constitutes more abuse. Which, again, in any of these cases, the art argument only serves to obscure the issue, right? Are you producing these works with full consent and participation of everyone involved? Or are you abusing people, and filming that? In either case, it doesn't really matter to me if there's zero artistic value there or if it's fucking Shakespeare abusing his kids for "art.”

SADY: Yeah. Exactly. I mean, I think our conception of Artist as Special Person who is obliged or privileged to Stand Outside Of Societal Norms is useful, in some respects. In the respects that you can't just send D.H. Lawrence packing because he uses the fuck-word a lot, or you can't shut down Mapplethorpe because he's showing these queer BDSM images. But it's abused so easily by folks for stuff like the Polanski case, or the Rivers one — the Polanski case being even more indefensible because SEXUALLY ASSAULTING THAT GIRL HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF HIS MOVIES — to argue that These People Can't Be Held To Normal Standards.

AMANDA: Right. It also ends up being really elitist, or in Polanski's case, both elitist and celeb-focused. Like, hey, what if I'm a really shitty artist who works with queer BDSM imagery?

SADY: And I have to admit, most of my off-the-top-of-the-head associations with Artists who we have to Defend Against Charges of Obscenity because they're just outside the norm have to do with very famous men. Kathy Acker, maybe? But maybe not. I don't recall court proceedings, but that may just be the result of insufficient Googling.

AMANDA: Yeah. I mean, the art test is a really fucked up standard for obscenity law in my opinion. Like things we determine to be “good” and things we determine to be “bad” just balance each other out, naturally? And I think the Polanski case is some sort of bizarre extension of the logic—that if art is good enough, it can make anything tolerable. And maybe if Polanski starts making really shitty movies, everyone will have to be like, "Alright, lock him up," on principle.

SADY: Right. And it might just be a case of removing the quality of the art from the equation: Like, if we're testing whether the art in question is "obscene," that can apply to any kind of art with any kind of behind-the-scenes process. As a person who watches the extremely sophisticated Bravo program "Work of Art," I know this. BUT, if we make the question whether the creation and distribution of the "art" (????) objectively has to harm in order to be produced, we can actually legislate on the level of production, not content. And no-one will ever be able to say that this glorious painting made with the entrails of their Gramma deserves serious consideration ever again. I mean, yeah, we should protect "artists" against petty common morality charges. DUR. But "please don't rape anybody" isn't petty. Nor, sad to say, all that terribly common.

Photo via Jacob Freeze, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.o

When flurry over a nipple tassel (among other things) forced MOCA DC out of its Georgetown digs, gallery owner David Quammen promised to send the gallery off by replacing his standard eye-patch with the incriminating breast covering. Quammen sent over this photographic evidence as proof. "Wore it all night," he says. MOCA DC's final event at its current location, the "Artists & Models Ball," will by held on July 30 at the gallery space at 1054 31st St. NW.

Last week, readers theorized as to why art students avoid drawing the penises of nude models. Both David Quammen and John Hammack attest to students avoiding their genitalia by inserting an obscuring shade or a set of imaginary shorts over their crotches. Is homophobia and sexual repression to blame, or is free penis sketching a matter of training and experience? Discuss.

Amy says a drawing of the hand is easier than that of the bush:

having been an artist in a figure drawing class, I can tell you that the ‘tender parts’ tend to be just as difficult to draw as a hand (especially if you’re circumcised). Perhaps more difficult than a hand. I can practice drawing hands from observation by looking at my left hand, but only the guys in class can practice drawing male junk without a model—and even that they can’t practice while doodling in their notebooks during other classes.

So the avoidance of drawing your tender parts may be less shyness than lack of ability.

Stephen Kosciesza says he routinely gets snipped:

Amy, funny you say that about “it” being hard to draw, “especially if [we're] circumcised” I’ve been a model for 15 years. I’m an uncircumcised man. And I’ve seen it over and over: in college age classes, the young women tend to draw my “it” circumcised. I have to wonder if they’re not comfortable actually looking at “it” (especially on an older man), and they draw what they expect. And of course, here in the USA, if you haven’t seen many, there’s a good chance you’ve only seen circumcised.

PL suggests that the penis is "taboo":

I can appreciate that Mr. Quammen might attribute an amateur male artists reluctance to work with a male models to homophobia. However, it would seem to me that this is using a rather broad brush. There could be several reasons that amateur male artists are not comfortable with depicting male models, probably the most reasonable being that depiction of male genitalia in popular and modern culture is practically taboo.

I would suggest to Ms. Hess that she could have been more careful in illustrating that it is Mr. Quammen’s opinion that she is reflecting, and that not all male artists that have struggled to attempt to depict male models suffer from homophobia.

Saurs disagrees:

“There could be several reasons that amateur male artists are not comfortable with depicting male models, probably the most reasonable being that depiction of male genitalia in popular and modern culture is practically taboo.”

Yeah, the phallus as an architectural shape, for example, is so seldom used, I’ve forgotten what they look like.

Jon explains what "homophobia" is:

PL, Mr. Quammen is using the real definition of homophobia, not the more popular but incorrect definition (not liking gays). Homophobia is pretty much exactly what is described in the article, not wanting to draw or look at male junk (if you are male) basically being uncomfortable looking at or being close to those who are the same sex as you.

Stephen Kosciesza insists that genital avoidance is no homo(phobia):

I’ve been a male art model for 15 years. I suppose you might say that I’m a charter member of the Guild. I believe that explaining a man’s reluctance to draw a nude male model—and to draw a penis—as “homophobia” is just way too simplistic.

Nudity among non-intimates is something that most people in our society are not used to, and there’s bound to be discomfort and uncertainty at first. I’m sure many men AND many women feel some nervousness and discomfort when faced with drawing from the live nude model for the first time. No doubt, the nature of that discomfort would depend first on who they are themselves. And then it would likely depend on whether the model happened to be of their sex or of the opposite one.

A woman might very well feel awkward drawing the nude man in front of her, too. And a man might feel uncomfortable the first time actually looking at the nude woman modeling in front of him.

It’s human nature, and as with everything about human nature, there’s rarely one, simple explanation. And since when we’re talking about human nature, we’re talking about individuals, generalizations are noteworthy mainly for their exceptions.

I think to boil male reluctance to draw the male nude as homophobia is way too easy and dismissive an answer.

Adrienne:

Stephen K, it’s human nature to feel uncomfortable with the human body? Really? It seems to me a clear case of the exact opposite, of a reflection of how societal constructs and expectations actually inhibit true “humanity” (whatever that is).

There’s no “natural” reason for men to be uncomfortable with the sight of a nude male body. I wouldn’t go as far as to say every man who is uncomfortable is homophobic (I don’t think the article was saying that, either) but there is an idea pervasive among many in US culture that for a man to look at another man’s body is “gay” and therefore wrong. We don’t have a cultural space for the appreciation of the male form as a work of art (certainly not like, say, the ancient Greeks), so to see a nude male body is jarring for many people. The biological penis has so much cultural weight as a tool of sex that it’s hard for a lot of people to get out of that mindset, and for some men this manifests as homophobia.

This is the exact opposite of “human nature” which, if anything, would dictate that people be, by default, comfortable with nude bodies of all genders.

I know we probably agree on a lot of this (being uncomfortable with nude men not being an exclusively male trait) but it bugs me when people bring out “human nature” to justify/explain away behavior that is actually learned and socially constructed.

Sketch, with penis intact, by Keli Anaya

Three area artists’ models bare all about the job’s hazards: potential psychopaths, fake artists, and people who draw imaginary shorts on them.

THE KILLER SKETCH.

When she was in college, F. took off her clothes for $16 an hour. F., 23, worked as a model for figure drawing classes at the Corcoran College of Art and Design, a job that required her to stand in the center of a circle of students, disrobe, and strike a series of poses while the beginning artists sketched her form. About six months into her tenure as a nude model, F. posed for a painting class where she held the same position for several hours—naked, seated, reading a book—while artists painstakingly reproduced the image. During a break, she wandered around the classroom to silently critique the students’ work. “Hey, that’s me all dismembered,” she remembers thinking of one student’s painting, which portrayed her with all of her extremities disconnected from her body. “Everything was just jumbled up—arms, legs, torso, head too probably,” she says. “I thought, ‘That’s kind of gross. OK. I’m going to go back and sit down now.’ It freaked me out.” After the session, the artist cornered her outside and offered her a ride home. She declined.

THE AMATEUR.

Lise Bruneau, a local actor, was modeling for art classes in San Francisco in the early ’90s when she decided to begin advertising herself for private sessions. She reported to one artist’s hotel room in the Tenderloin. The venue put Bruneau on edge, but she kept an open mind. “I thought, ‘Hey, artists are poor! Artists don’t have any money! This could be normal!’” she says. Still, she made sure to inform a friend of her whereabouts, just in case the guy turned out to be weird. He did. “I met him, and he was a very unusual, awkward guy, but I wasn’t going to let that bother me,” says Bruneau. “Again, he was an artist.” But when Bruneau asked to review the artist’s portfolio, he refused. “I don’t understand why we can’t just get started. You can go change in the bathroom, or you can take your clothes off right here,” he told her. When Bruneau insisted on seeing the work before undressing, the guy reluctantly produced a couple of drawings. “He showed me two crayon drawings. Stick figures. One was an oblong shape with another circle above that and a pair of pigtails on top,” she says. “I was seized with terror when I saw those drawings. You don’t hire a naked woman in your hotel for an hour and not be an artist.” She left the room as quickly as possible.

THE NAKED MAN YOU SHOULD NOT CROSS.

If you’re a local artist’s model who has hastened an exit after finding yourself alone with an artist whose vision includes extracting your limbs, or whose crowning achievement is a pair of crayon renderings of little girls, you can always call David Quammen. Quammen, who has a decade’s worth of experience in figure modeling, started the Figure Models Guild in 2002 to help eliminate such inappropriate encounters in the sometimes misunderstood profession of posing nude. “Nudity is so touchy. If you even start to make the sound—’nuuu’—all of a sudden everyone is up in arms and it becomes a big deal,” says Quammen, 70. “The goal of the guild is to treat the subject artistically, to increase the level of confidence and professionalism in the field.” In addition to his Guild duties, Quammen runs Georgetown’s MOCA DC gallery, which supports the work of figure models and artists through such annual exhibits as “Heads and Tails: Fine Art Portraits and Tasteful Backsides.”

But Quammen’s strangest task may be working to eliminate the scene’s weirdos. The Guild currently maintains a membership list of 125 models—70 male and 55 female—a resource that Quammen discloses to artists only after a proper vetting. Despite the precautions, Quammen has addressed a variety of bizarre complaints over the past eight years. Once, a group of female models approached Quammen to report that an artist had been staging sessions as a way to corner potential dates. Several months ago, Quammen received a phone call after a model thought she had spied a hidden camera on an artist, and summoned the police. A few years ago, Quammen reprimanded a photographer who got 30 minutes into a session before informing his nude model that he would be finishing the set without his clothes on. When the Guild first started up, one man calling himself a photographer showed up at Quammen’s monthly open drawing session for ogling purposes. “He wouldn’t draw. He would just look,” says Quammen. “Whenever a male stepped up to model, he would go outside in the lobby or out in front. But whenever a female got up, he’d be back in the room, watching.” Nude modeling tourism is now against Guild policy. “If you’re not drawing, then you’re not to be in the area where the model is,” he says. “There have been cases of people coming in for the wrong reasons. I try to weed them out as effectively as I can.”

As a model, Quammen has encountered the opposite problem—artists who refuse to look at him at all. Since the D.C. area is host to dozens of colleges, figure models are offered constant sessions in front of artists who are, by definition, amateur. “It isn’t uncommon for some male students to react in strange ways to their first encounter with nude male models,” says Quammen—particularly if the students are reluctantly fulfilling an art requirement for an unrelated discipline. Quammen has modeled for male students who have been so incapacitated by their homophobia that they refuse to draw Quammen’s genitalia. Some have addressed the phobia by sketching tiny shorts over his penis; others obscure his crotch in shadow; a few have outright refused to draw him, a process that would require them to actually look at a naked man. “As the students get used to male models, some overcome their aversion and draw what they see. For some, however, it becomes obvious that their homophobic reaction is rooted in a deeper paranoia,” he says. “It’s usually a small number who retain this attitude. On the other hand, most classes adjust rather quickly to it and realize that drawing genitals is part of the process.”

“If somebody comes to me with a problem, I won’t automatically take their word,” says Quammen. “I’ll have a discussion with the artist and the model, and if it doesn’t get resolved, I’ll act on it. If it is a model, I’ll take them off the model registry and kick them out of the Guild. If it’s an artist, I’ll let them know that I have a lot of clout in this field, and that I can blackball them throughout the whole area if necessary.” Quammen says he’s been forced to ban only a few artists for inappropriate behavior. He’s also ejected a handful of models from the Guild, for mostly mundane reasons—absenteeism or tardiness at modeling sessions. But Quammen says that the awkward sexualization of nude modeling isn’t only a symptom of unprofessional artists. “There’s a younger model who will get an erection on purpose,” says Quammen. “He’s like a rooster just crowing out there, saying, ‘I’m a big man. I’m an alpha male.’ He’s very popular."

Artwork by Keli Anaya

It's been a banner week for Sexist History! First, we revisited an 1893 New York Times piece which informed us why children are the sexiest swimmers of all. Then, we wrote some Sexist History of our own and discovered why male models may inhabit sexism's final frontier. Now, for some Sexist Art History: Why we should give a shit about Judith Leyster, some painter lady who was born like 400 years ago.

Because even centuries after Leyster's death, Sexist Art Historians just didn't understand.

Leyster's work is currently on display at the National Gallery of Art, but as recently as 1893, nobody knew who this lady even was. So it was only about 100 years ago that the art world got to take a look at The Proposition (above), painted in 1631.

Pretty straightforward, right? Dude in the fur hat could not possibly by skeevier: he's inappropriately clutching at a blouse with one hand and offering up some precious coins with the other. Lady in the floor-length skirt, on the other hand, is a classic case of Asking For It: That sensual display of wrist! That awkwardly averted gaze! That mortified blush of the cheeks!

Wait, no, she's actually like, "I see that you are offering to pay me to fuck you. However, I'm more interested in keeping up my stitching. Also, shave your mustache."

And yet, despite the clear and obvious rapiness of this painting from 1631, Sexist Art Historians had trouble understanding just what it all meant—hundreds of years later!

Male art historians have commented on Leyster's The Proposition, 1631, as reflecting a "powerful image of temptation and resistance" and that the young woman's virtuousness "would appeal to men and attract many suitors," implying that Leyster's interest was more on the male market and less on reflecting a woman's discomfort with unwanted male attention.

Ah yes, we can all identify with the young woman who only decides not to prostitute herself to this particular specimen of unfortunate facial hair because she wants to be able to fuck other dudes in the future and not get paid for it.

I wonder how Leyster would respond to that particular interpretation:

Self Portrait, 1630: "Eat it, douchebags."

What can I say? I give, and I give, and I give. If you've always wanted to thumb-wrestle D.C.'s most illustrious drag queens—and who hasn't!—your wish can come true tomorrow afternoon. Transformer Gallery, in order to celebrate the final night of its "Summer Camp" exhibit, is staging a drag queen thumb wrestling tournament refereed by Nellie's female impersonator Shi-queeta Lee. Not to be missed: The headlining bout, a battle of the thumbs between Summer Camp and Heidi Ho.

Official deets are after the jump.

PLEASE JOIN US IN WISTFULLY CELEBRATING THE END OF SUMMER WITH DRAG QUEEN THUMB WRESTLING AND AN "END OF SUMMER" DANCE PARTY!

Thumb Wars!
Saturday, March 7
2 – 4pm

Nellie's' female impersonator, Shi-queeta Lee, will be refereeing simultaneous thumb wrestling matches amidst projections of the Thumb Wars film on our wall. A headlining match between CRACK's Ms. Summer Camp and fellow drag performer Heidi Ho will take place at 3pm. Prizes to be awarded to champion thumbs.

End of Summer Dance with DJ Solomon Sanchez
Saturday, March 7
5 – 9pm

It's the last day of camp! Time to say your teary goodbyes to friends you won't see again 'til next summer. Kiss someone down by the lake (er, bathroom), and dance the night away (er, til 9pm) to the musical stylings of DJ Solomon Sanchez. Colorful party ambiance guaranteed. BYOB

Transformer
1404 P Street NW
Washington, D.C.
(202) 483-1102

The blogger over at Teaching Artist knows it's tough. It's all about ladies. It costs ten bucks. It took Teaching Artist a year and a half to make a visit. Still, TA says just suck it up and go to the National Museum of Women in the Arts:

I’m aware that there may be some apprehension among you out there that you’ll buy a (relatively cheap) ticket only to find the museum is a case of gender politics going too far. Maybe you don’t have art in a museum and you’re bitterly delusional about reverse discrimination. I don’t know. In the least you’ve probably seen art exhibitions that fall short because they assemble a bunch of very different art works on the single unifying principle that they were all made by artists who have similar, non-phallic, genitalia.

It took me five years in D.C. to get over there. Yesterday, I finally did. I'll have a review of one of the NMWA's current shows, "Role Models: Feminine Identity in Contemporary American Photography," in next week's paper.

Photo: Nikki S. Lee, "The Ohio Project," 1999

Ask The Sexist "is this sexist?" and she will whisper back softly, "maybe." Contact The Sexist with your queries.

Dear Sexist,

What is a woman to do when sexist decor appears in one's office? My government office uses art "on loan" from the artists. When we moved into the office two years ago, a bizarre picture of fat, smirking, hairy men was placed between the office doors of two "high feminist" workers. Bad enough. But now a new picture has appeared in the reception lobby. It is placed directly over the head of the receptionist. It has a bright yellow background. The object in the picture looks like a bright blue tattooed penis. The original title, "Welcome," had been crossed out and changed to "Lady of the Lake." An unusual nickname for one's penis.

Upon exiting the elevator and looking up, a common response is "Whoa!" I find that this oppression is hurting my productivity and that of my fellow workers. I believe a guerilla incursion is required. Your thoughts?

—A Reader

Dear Reader,

Is a man's penis implicitly sexist? It is not. Are fat, smirking, hairy men implicitly sexist? They are not. Is the placement of a collection of fat smirking hairy man penis art in your feminist work environment sexist? Maybe.

Typically, I will defend the right of any individual or institution to display any piece of art, anywhere, regardless of the art's quality, the artist's pedigree, or  the patent offensiveness of its subject. Nevertheless, seeing as you work for the government, I'm sure you can find some way to have the artwork removed through official channels. Perhaps former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft can direct you to the proper series of forms through which you may file a complaint.

But consider this: While your office's art collection is quite possibly sexist, it is most certainly hilarious. The absurdity of this situation must be exploited for as long as the penis remains on your walls. The office lurker who revised the name of your government-sanctioned tattooed penis has set the precedent for tomfoolery in this case. I suggest that you and your feminist cohorts brainstorm a host of ridiculous names for the penis. Daily, cross out the former name of the artwork and write in the new title. You might begin mildly, with "Bright Blue Tattooed Penis," then proceed with increasingly ridiculous titles, many of which will invoke the names and personal habits of your supervisors. Soon, your office will have no choice but to replace the artwork with a shoddy O'Keefe knock-off.

—The Sexist