Łódź Kaliska How shocking! Look at that woman!

300th Anniversary of Łódź Kaliska

Malgorzata Butterwick

How shocking! Look at that woman!
Beneath her dress she´s stark naked! *

I like a psychoanalytical perspective, according to which I see art as pleasure in the sense of a lacanian imperative of "juissance", therefore a pleasure not necessarily "pleasant", but one that leads to fulfilment even against the "rule"...

I shall begin with the formal issue. The form of this text is unusual because - similarly to my art practice - it is a result of a process, of an exchange between the conscious activity and the way of things that happen (apparently) out of our control. Together they create a constantly self-renewing cognitive effect.

I think that art always has its source in the "ego", but the final effect is the result of a transformation, manipulation, of the action/cognition/action...etc process. What emerges is a new and somehow autonomous quality. And form.

As a verbal form this text has its roots in an earlier one, which I wrote spontaneously just after the premiere of the "Let men rot" exhibition at the CCA in Warsaw, and after the publication of the first fiercely critical review in the Wyborcza newspaper. But as a medium of "performative" communication it carries multi-layered messages about the situation, its genesis etc...

And this very contrast between the experience and representation, the intension and the interface is what lies at the base of my argument...

For sure you can invite Lodz Kaliska to discussion, what's the problem? I'm not their advocate.

Current thoughts are written in bold font. With normal font I marked fragments of the original text, published by the Obieg Internet magazine on the 26th May 2009. The consequences of this publication were more colourful than could have been expected. It would be hard not to give account of it in the present version of the text, therefore in italics I have placed selected quotations of my own comments from some internet discussions, and from my e-mail correspondence. I do not quote the words of other disputants (because of the copyrights as well as the concept of this text).

I would be careful with the idea of psychoanalyzing the view on art, it is one of the primal mistakes. Art is also a manipulation, a play with form - similarly to speech (concerning art, but not only - here also we can cheer Lacan).

You know, this kind of situations set free not only the expression of our usual views, but also some other resources, as well as a bit of contrariness, perverseness, some extra adrenaline. Additionally, the battle is led not just for Lodz Kaliska, but for "the cause" :). Naturally, I am defending this work of art, but I mean more than this. And this whole action is altogether spontaneous, not planned.

I decided to use this quite complicated formal trick because I believe that - however singularly, individualistically and fragmentally - it will give evidence of a particular moment in Polish art, of its relation with "customs", and so called current discourses. Especially considering the character of the publication, in which this text is being placed.

In the whole course of this discussion I am trying to de-politicize erotica. In art also.

As soon as the door shut behind so numerous participants of the opening of the "Let men rot" exhibition, the "protest song" of Dorota Jarecka appeared in the Wyborcza newspaper. Undoubtedly there were more complaining voices, however not as many official ones as could have been expected - the subject is as hot as it is uncomfortable, and more nowadays then years ago, when the group was beginning to work with the "muses".

... for sure it would be better if gender theory was a paradigm in economy, religion, education etc INSTEAD of in art. Maybe you should shift all this abundance of persuasive energy there :).

I don't think that looking for arguments that undermine one compact ideology is also "an ideology"". I do not use a single selected "apparatus". I understand that the accusation of "conservatism" is supposed to be to me as a red rag to a bull, but it's absurd. My attitude, as it is some ATTITUDE, I would describe as sceptical, a bit hedonistic, based on curiosity and investigation of statements that are too easily and commonly accepted (I think they respond to expectations only partly, and in particular spheres of life).

- conservatism, neo-liberalism ...these are not the terms in any way adequate in this discussion.

The popularisation of this approach to art results in taking shortcuts. Because of this strategic domination of gender theory in art interpretations it is almost impossible to propose artwork in which a body (especially female) takes part - in a way that (despite of artist's own intensions) it wouldn't be scrutinized according to gender categories (power, domination, objectivization, universalization etc.), which are problems justly undertaken in the social/political terms.

And...I do not fight gender theory in the political sphere. I strongly support concrete issues of feminism, equal rights etc.

- naturally, everything that happens around us can be analysed according to a chosen and well mastered arsenal - ideological and rhetoric. I consider gender theory one of them. However, it does not exhaust the whole of the truth about human being (excuse this bombast) and human relations, it is only one of many tools of search or interpretation. There are others, less intentional but penetrating deeper. Nuances are more interesting to me than clean-cut claims of gender studies. For don't we make art to look into some shady corners...?

On the margin I will add that this form of text also reflects my own experimental polemic with a concept of "intertext" - lately popular in art criticism and generally correct conviction that all textual expression is merely a cluster of many others. Trying to save some pieces of my belief, that we still can add "something from ourselves", I am bringing into play this shamelessly tautological excess. In this light the text's original title gains a new, meaningful dimension

With this in mind I was talking about pleasure in a sense of fantasy, and here - in the project (of Lodz Kaliska) - a symbolic situation based on seduction. This is the real point of my text - the ambiguity of intention in art seen through the manipulation that reminds seduction. The "guilty eye" mentioned earlier is equally "guilty" towards all the images - here: of a certain type - whatever the intention of their creator.

Sometimes I have an impression that - independently of my "communication skills" - everyone will take from what I say only what fits them at the time. I like our discussions, they are important, but I simply think that in my writings there are more reflections on art in general than those on particular artists. Those are more important.

While preparing the present text I took a closer look at the bibliography of Lodz Kaliska and I was surprised that only this jubilee exhibition caused such lively reactions as to the naked muses considering that they are The trademark of the group for those 30 years. The subject has never been elaborated upon in any serious way although the members themselves have always been very eager to remark on the inspiring role of womenor rather their bodies (?) in their work.

I consciously didn't use the word "ordinary", I simply do not consider the parameters of the body as a proof of someone's extraordinariness. Also, they don't seem to be SO important in this project. Apparently, you didn't care to take a closer look - this span of "types" is much wider.

- I will be tempted to remark that the fact of Lodz Kaliska "doing the same" for years coupled with the observation of how the world around them changes - is a damn good art. Especially while it is surely their own original patent, not the opportunistic imitation as it happens in the case of many today's artists who take off their clothes under the cover of ideology - that is as effective as the anecdotic cloth of the "naked king".

Novelty? What novelty? But we already "agreed" that LK has been doing the same for years. It was a new thing once, when happy naked muses were offensive to anybody (well, maybe to a few of those who "didn't understand art", but how many people knew about this art back then?). Now the times have changed, art became trendy and widely discussed, and the muses "offend" (in a discursive, not moral sense, naturally:), but paradoxically we could have an impression that everybody is copying them, as art is full of naked bodies. This was also one of my main conclusions. That nobody takes offence at the sight of the 99% of those nudes, and at these ones - yes. This is mega-inconsistent in my mind. And also interesting asart is not the best possible "place" to look for consistency and logics. But it is worth to discuss what appears within it, not necessarily with the aid of discourses that appear outside of it.

I am not interested in piling up some politically correct investigation on the subject of the IQ levels of each lady and their achievements outside of the photo shoot. In my experience (which means being "chatted up" by the group at the opening in Bunkier Sztuki) the muses are recruited on the basis of visual, not character investigation, and it would be somehow naive to believe a popular saying of LK members, that the muses should be "talented". However, if we are capable to appreciate our own personalities (and real talents) without complexes, then we can let ourselves be convinced that they "shine through" our physiognomies with this inspiring, muse-like light :).

My participation in the project came out spontaneously, as I was approached as someone unknown to them, without trying so it was even more uncanny as it actually agreed with my long-proclaimed views on those issues mentioned in my text. I didn't even intend to write it, it was only after those first offended voices appeared that I scribbled something like this. And in fact a lot of it links with my performance work, which I guess is apparent...

I actually wondered why in this post-exhibition discussion about women it is the discourse that wins, not the women. Almost every time that the "women's issue" is touched upon, the question of their actual physicality and sexuality seems to be pushed aside in favour of the "values". For sure, there should be and there is a place for this important subject in social/political terms, but it is becoming so omnipotent that it tries to take away from our "lightness of being". And life without it, however correct, would be somehow poorly and pathetic.

The stuck out bums are decidedly a sexual encouragement - it would be hard to see it otherwise. But unlike you I consider every bum like this as encouragement, despite of the intension of the one who sticks it out (which is rather freudian, and in consequence lacanian - what the gender theory trying to interpret Lacan easily forgetsbut that's a subject for another occasion.)

Cause a muse is someone who inspires while the ""substance" of this inspiration is rather independent of the muse herself (quite like what she respires with :), but totally dependent on the susceptibility of the inspired one to the impulses sent by her. Therefore, the role of the muse is somehow passive and accepting, that nothing can be done by force... But isn't being admired just for the way we are one of the most common wishes of women? Should we consider such a role as unpleasant or insulting? Should admiration or desire for physical assets automatically mean disregard of other qualities?

Well, it's the muse's problem that it should not be the case!

Ridicule, objectivization, universal woman - apart from the cases of using force (which is not the case here, everything happens with everyone's consent) that should be strived against by law, politically - the perception of those concepts lies on the side of the subject, is a question of self-awareness.

In this project of Lodz Kaliska women consistently thrown off the "protective clothing" " - which could have been actually useful in the case of "working" in dangerous conditions :). Butnobody was really working there!

Still, I think that all this industrial scenery was only a trick used to "dress" the naked truth about the ideological fashions that rule the artworld, and their shallowness in relation to the real meaning of feminism which has little to do with cautious artistic attempts, and which does not aim to reduce our joie de vie!

I wouldn't classify the work of LK as "erotica" () they are not pictures that are supposed to (more or less subtly) excite the viewer, however - like in case of ALL such images with erotic context, and whatever the author's intension - we have to allow such possibility. That's why this comparison seems inadequate to me. I was just commenting on many possibilities of interpreting this piece, on not dividing fantasies into "male" and "female". I was also speaking about a certain experience, as I took part in a few of the photo-sessions. But it is no proof of my or anybody's preferences. It's just a fragment, one of the options, which does not deserve such a simplified categorisation as the gender theory indicates - all this shouting about the patriarchate, machos etc. Many shades, richness, fluidity of relations between life and art, opennesshere are my "Easter" wishes for my co-debaters.

I think on Wednesday or Thursday we will go to Lodz for holidays.

If we get suggested by the sterility of language of today's art criticism, we could believe that even strongly realistic representations of the body in art make any impression only on uncontrolled erotomaniacs, and all the rest is just boredIs it really the case? No doubt the official criteria of the judgement of nudity in art are no more formal, but became contextual. The new contexts (often introduced by modern ideologies with a good reason), determine not only interpretations, but also intentions of the artists - but going so far, that nudity as one of the essences of humanity and still one of the attributes of sexuality lost its impact - at least in a discursive sense. "A nude" as an aesthetic category and an attractive subject fell out of the contemporary art dictionary (apart from declared gay art as a new context), but the form itself survived, only in a newly imposed function - "critical" - thus being because of the common presence of nudity in our everyday field of vision - media, advertising e etc...

I will repeat here a well-known and liked truth, that we are deluged by erotically charged phantasmats. Art doesn't stay behind and has been exploiting the human body all the way, formally as well as ideologically. Artists, especially female, while using their body argue, that in art it becomes an object of experiment, a tool of transmitting messages. The problem is - it's more and more difficult to find new ideas, but the body is still interesting, we are still curious of its statistics and fetishes. While the context of art does not give immunity from simple, or even brutal judgements awaiting the body exposed to the public view.

The kinds of nudity can be more or less "subtle" at the most, and their ideological categorisation is always tendentious or simply biased. Of course, it can be done, but with great difficulty in holding on to consequence, which seems to be so precious to you.

Maybe looking at the photographs at CCA we should ask why so many women - with an encouragement of men-artists - agree to show not only their bodies untouched by Photoshop, but also their faces. Why, without the safety net of their own "art project" invented to cover their exhibitionism, they take part in the staging of a sexual fantasy?

we can take it further and ask, why the projects of, say, Vanessa Beecroft, as well as many other ones which use female nudity, are OK, and this one is not? I understand you think that it's the intension that counts, already having made a judgement what is the one of the LK artists - because they are men. I argue quite strongly in my text why I do not agree. "There is no innocent eye" - quoting a nice title of Wojciech Wilczyk exhibitionand being looked at belongs to this incontestable pleasure principle, which resists all the theories. Why the right for pleasure in the queer spirit is being widely defended, but the same right of a heterosexual woman is being excluded?

Therefore, art often uses the same visual language as the phenomena it criticises (similarly to many other critical discourses), but it forgets that our reactions to nudity and sensuality are not simply the question of judgement or choice, as human libidinal functions don't evolve as fast as ideas. So, we have here a case of a kind of violation of our nature confronted with art discourse. It is particularly evident in the situations created by the presence of nudity in live art, while the aspect of the different reception of male and female nudity by both sexes is also being neglected.

So, the question of nudity in art is becoming yet again a question of honesty of intensions - for the artist-manipulator towards her/himself, as well as towards the audience. And what I am writing here is an attempt to decode certain hypocrisy.

All I can specify here is: the perception of so called "power" in social relations, or even personal once in everyday life can be different than their perception in fantasies and in sex itself, can't it? (there appears a kind of edgy assumption between the fiction and the real, a bit similar to the assumption towards art). This "game" and exchange of conventions of power is a basic rule of seduction and a very strong erotic impulse. Are we supposed to resign of them for the sake of "higher" (are you sure) aims?

- and why is it so hard to articulate a supposition that it could be possibly their own fantasy, part of which is the eye of an artist as creator, and the one of a beholder as voyeur? Therefore - a classical situation of seduction, rejoicing in the process itself, in the play of roles and the trial of two mental forces, still beyond discourses despite of so many attempts against its primal independence. This relationship has also been filtered through the gender discourse of power with a leading question "who's on top?". But we know, that in order to all being fine, it has to be both ways round, as well as sometimes side-by-side. Together.

Already in the New Pop project Lodz Kaliska related to this kind of falsehood within the function of art criticizing reality - in a very direct, almost mimetic way. Then, for the first time, unlike in the previous surreal and aesthetized realizations, the naked muses were shown totally realistically. They stopped appearing as phantoms, heroines of amazing parodies of famous works of art, and took on the well-known roles of advertising models. While in early works this intentional denial of the romanticized persona of the muse still carried a certain uncanny massage, here we deal with a total resignation of this admiration (lined with a slight fear) for the sake of parody and leg pulling.

What really seems to perturb in the project of LK is the fact that women "let themselves" to be thus photographed. Like in the Mobil King adverts, like in Playboy. Wellnot quite the same way. Firstly, they are unlikely to earn on this project - financially or medially. It is clear that LK muses are not so called "models". They are different - like people tend to be () they are not impersonal phantoms, but themselves - themselves in the staging of a fantasy about a modern harem, or burlesque.

I already admitted, that it is an influence of culture, the question is - is there any sense to fight against this "juissance" that I mentioned earlier. Isn't it better to work within this "social" sphere, and leave fantasies (also art, although I don't put the sign of equality here, maybe one of parallel) to their own courseif they depend on culture - they will naturally evolve together with them without limiting us here-and-now.

Despite of this a woman who undresses as a "private woman", "sexual object", a "muse" within the space of art causes more of an "official" repulse then the one who does the same as an artist or activist - while the effect is the same. I know this for sure after some years of observing the "behind the scenes" comments directed towards artists who decide to appear nude. First, there are comments concerning the body - of varying subtlety, and from both sexes. Later, sometimes, appears some question of merit. This is a fact that confirms a status quo, not a kind of wishful thinking according to which the libido factor should disappear as an element of our perception - also of art. Is this The disappearance we really want?

In this recent project we can see a conjunction of those early visions - multiplied female figures calling to mind old masters' paintings - with the new realism of digital photography. This effect is quite uncanny, not only in a formal sense. The "cloned" women almost loose their individuality - like the rose of the Little Prince confronted with the whole garden in bloom. The image denies the speciality of a muse as "the chosen one". It is difficult to attribute to them the soul-inspiring qualities, although their bodies can be still admired, or rather observed, with no touch-up. However, the experience of being photographed in industrial scenery seems to be perversely pleasant to them, it can be seen on the photos. Does it tell us something about the nature of modern muses? Or rather about today's artists looking for inspiration?

Still, I think that the project of Lodz is quite close to the "camp" aesthetics, but enclosed in this - so difficult to accept by "correctness" - hetero-mode, and close to the fantasy well known to many women. Women's sexual fantasies are a very trendy subject, aren't they? So I don't know why such visualisation is so repulsive for people who seem to be enchanted by the same kind of stylistics as long as the relation of the sexes is changed. This looks to me as a strange kind of "denial syndrome" that uses nice new rhetoric just to cover it all. () It shows that the confrontation in art with a situation actually based on voyeurism and a certain (one on many possible) perversion causes a rebellionbut a theoretical, discursive one. Strange

Those fantasies, despite the suggestions spread by the "western" gender theory, are not necessarily as discordant. In the LK project we are dealing with a visualization of a fantasy. I wouldn't so hastily consider it as solely male. But, as we know, the attraction of fantasies often (not always) is based on the fact, that they are not realized in the real life. And - important - no sex is anachronistic!

Naturally it can turn out, that it is not quite our kind of fantasy and that we prefer more individual climates, but this kind of simple striptease still is a refreshing situation within art full of nudity sold in the name of "an issue". Not to mention embarrassment, which is pseudo-nudity sold as nudity in politics (like the poster of the Party of Women).

But you are mixing a situation (or rather an act of imagining of being in a situation - which is in fact a fantasy) with an image itself, or someone's stirring; as well as art with life; and the functions of art with porn.

I perceive both fantasies and art as symptoms, not tools. In relation to the rubbish bin of information - that we live in - let's leave these spaces as free as possible.

- we should be giving evidence of our freedom with our lives, not with "projects" (that don't always reflect practice). Into this frame of freedom we can also fit art, which - as long as any sort of the artist-viewer relation exists (and it exists always, regardless of the level of interaction) - is always and invariably a multi-layered seduction(however, not unlike a sexual fascination, it should not be identified just with nudity!).

This attractive subject of nudity and muses can easily be overshadowed by another inspiring aspect of Lodz Kaliska's art, truly crucial for all their works. I didn't relate to it strongly enough in my text - however, it came out in full in the discussions. Maybe 300 years is actually enough to remind to many today's - meaning: raised on undemanding rhetoric of "critical art"- members of audience, that manifestos and comments of the Lodz formation are recommended to be taken with distance, and to remember, that "nothing is what it seems to be". Treating them too literally can result in being caught by the wicked trap of absurdity.

My text should be seen in a wider perspective than only the LK project. What I price in it most highly is its total irreverence and the absurdity of accompanying words in relation to the artwork itself. This is artistically very attractive to me, as much as almost absent in today's art which gives it all on a plate. Art is not a universal set of keys assuring satisfaction and ideological comfort to all.

You are so worried about the audience, like about those teenagers that just might possibly soak in some ideas. Take it easy. If they go to see art at all, and they come across, say, the exhibition of Lodz Kaliska, then they will probably come across some other ones, also those with a gender theme. They might also read something. Let it all be a proposal to think about, to reflect upon.

The most precious function of this indefinable space called art is to show alternatives of well-established orders, ideas and meanings. In this field, the group from Lodz has realized a 300 years plan in 30. And there is still so much to door maybe even more and more

OK, the work of Lodz is winking, and is not a-gender, as it carries a message towards the gender theory. But I would insist that whatever "happens" in this work of art is not a proposal of being transferred into life. This is a basic misunderstanding of message-based art, as well as a fault of its interpretations that end up in acts of censorship - they establish some absurd relationship of "moving" values from art to life. If I defend a (for you traditional, in my mind libidinal) representation of gender relations in the phantasmat, which is a work of art, then it does not at all signify that I take the same step towards the existing social relations.

My earlier proposed interpretation of art based on seduction, fantasy and intellectual game does not belong to the sphere of law and social norms, but to the one that is beyond them. I know some would like to rule minds and souls, or at least to prove that fantasies are conditioned culturally andI guess they are butso what? And what are we to do with it?!

Here we are dealing also with the questions of private and social lives, those two areas of the most serious conflict known to culture.

And in the end it shows that we really bother only about things that concern us directly.

But I don't want to play the role of some heroic defendant of LK, some muse on the barricades. I lead this discussion because it has a close connection with my openly proclaimed views on art. But, somehow, nobody has ever paid attention. Well, it only confirms the rule that a woman has to get naked to actually achieve something ;))

For sure it relates to my own work, but I deliberately didn't mention it in the discussion.

This is just what my recent performances "sedu/a/ction" are about. This is a PR moment as it fits here very well ;))

Małgorzata Butterwick, Kraków, 31.05.2009

* source : Jacques Lacan, The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, The seminar - book VII, s.17 ; transl. from French - D.Porter. Lacan is quoting a joke of Alphonse Allais in the reflection on the phantasmats of desire in relation to the anecdote about the "naked king".