DAMage Report - Sex & Art: Alive and Well in the U.S.A.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/411560_burlesque27.html?source=mypi

Recently the Blue Moon Cabaret in Seattle brought burlesque to a high-class Seattle steakhouse. Seattle considers itself the 'sexploration' capital of the U.S. and was able to draw a fair-sized audience for the $225 a plate "intimate" show.

After the multitude of topics bemoaning censorship, sexual repression, and worries that we are spiraling backwards into prudish Victorian hypocrisy, i thought it might be time to celebrate those cities and art lovers who not only continue to embrace sensuality in art but promote it.

"Neo-burlesque" is making a comeback according to a handful of sources. The flashy, cabaret-style entertainment with voluptuous women (and drop-dead gorgeous drag queens) has always been a fascinating form of performance art. More artistically-minded than stripping, while still flaunting the art of tease and seduction, burlesque is a feast for the senses. It encompasses the spectrum of raunchy sass to elegant pageantry.

"Burlesque rose to popularity in the 1930s, hit its peak in the late '50s and is now in the midst of a nationwide revival that local performers swear is making Seattle swoon."

Apparently the burlesque revival has found homes throughout the United States with the large communities on the East and West Coasts. New York City boasts the largest community with notable troops and venues including The Slipper Room, Le Scandal Cabaret, and Pinchbottom Burlesque. In Greensboro, NC, there are burlesque revival performances by Foxy Moxy and her "Cabaret Risque" troupe in the Greensboro Fringe Theater Festival. In Seattle burlesque is queen with Miss Indigo Blue, Miss Trixie Lane, The Queen of Shame, Miss Kitty Baby, Ravenna Black, Paula the Swedish Housewife, Vienna Le Rouge, The Atomic Bombshells, Burning Hearts, The Von Foxies, Glitzkrieg Burlesque, and Sinner Saint Burlesque. In California the San Francisco Bay Area is home of the largest monthly burlesque and variety show the Hubba Hubba Revue.

It is interesting to note that in the 20th century, burlesque and cabaret-type shows gained popularity during repressed/depressed decades in our history. Perhaps Johnny is right, and as one segment of the population tries to restrict behavior and force conformity into a polished little box, there will always be another segment breaking free - loudly and with great flourish - declaring their rights to express.

Since burlesque hasn't made its way down south yet, someone is sooooo taking me to a burlesque show in LA when i come visit in January.

The question for you: what do you think of burlesque as an art form and do you think there are cultural parallels between its rival now and its popularity in the past?

Where to draw the line? DAMage report - Art Censoreship

Recently a sculpture depicting a young girl performing a blow job on a teacher was removed from a gallery on the Bowling Green State University campus. The piece entitled, “The Middle School Science Teacher Makes a Decision He'll Live to Regret” was created by Artist James Parlin as part of a series of sculptures called "A Baker's Dozen."  Parlin says it was inspired by a teacher who was the father of his own children’s friends, and his curiosity about why a person would do something they know will ruin their life. 

Other sculptures in the exhibit included, “The Man Who Hasn’t Seen His Genitals in Years,” “Sami Drops a Deuce,” “Bobbie Put Her Gun in Her Mouth” and “John Put His Head in the Oven.” 

(Ermmm - those seem like pretty strong "topics" to me as well, yet they weren't protested against as being inappropriate for children. What is wrong with this picture...I mean sculpture?)

Unfortunately no one can seem to lay their hands on a photo of the sculpture in question, so the ability to judge for ourselves is unfortunately not available. Descriptions say "there's no genitalia. It's made in such a way that you can't see any sort of ecstasy on the man's face and you can't tell the exact age of the person but the title tells that it's a young teen. It's not pictorial graphic. Is it disturbing? Well sure. Is it hard to look at? Well sure. But it's not explicit."

Palin's work (that i've seen) is quite abstracted and spooky. Definitely not realistic and created in a manner to invoke a sense of discomfort in the viewer. 

So is it the concept rather than the visual that is being objected to? According to the the National Coalition Against Censorship although the material may be inappropriate for children, it is appropriate for a public university.

One student's opinion is: "The removal ... sets a dangerous precedent for the removal of controversial works at the peril of academic inquiry itself. Is the university a business? Or is it an institution of higher learning? If the university is a business, an entity that merely exchanges money for degrees and considers customer satisfaction to be of the utmost importance, then the decision to censor a controversial piece of art makes perfect sense. However, if the university is an institution of higher learning which encourages and expects critical thinking from its students, then the administration has done a serious disservice to the learning process." 

Part of the concern with the sculpture, which was on display within a gallery not in a general public area, is that it was uncomfortably near a children's theatre. I feel very, very strongly that there are concept that young children should not be exposed to... not graphically. But are university students still children? I'm pretty dang sure every single one of the students attending have already been exposed to the concept, if not the reality of pedophiles. For the sensibilities of those that do not want to get a face full of it - there are really simple precautions and advisories that can be implemented. Signage, warnings in advertising, restricted admission based on age, etc.

We do it on a regular basis with our movies and our books. I don't see a problem applying the principle to exhibitions. (This gallery show has been rated R for strong adult content. This gallery show has been rated X for explicit nudity, no one under 21 admitted.) 

As strongly as i feel about not exposing young children to concepts that will rip away their innocence, i also detest censorship. Denying people the choice to view the art is taking away our freedom of choice. The outrage is less to the artist in my opinion - who was not denied his right to create the piece - and more to the gallery that has been denied the right to show it and the audience, that has been denied the right to see it.

How can I, or anyone else, make up our minds how we feel/think/react to something when we're denied access to it? 

The entire "controversy" could have been easily solved, without all the national hoopla and teeth gnashing, by simply using some common sense and restricting access to the show, based on age appropriateness. 

http://www.dailyvanguard.com/sexual-expressionism-1.1642393

http://lakotaphillips.blogspot.com/2009/04/stories-of-interest.html