In 2000, Sarah Lucas constructed a number of works for an installation called Beyond the

Transcription

1 1 In 2000, Sarah Lucas constructed a number of works for an installation called Beyond the Pleasure Principle at the Freud Museum in London. 1 This museum was the home of Sigmund Freud and his family after the Nazi annexation of Austria in Freud's study and couch remain preserved from his lifetime, in addition to other furniture and art objects. Lucas' installation in such a loaded setting is the extreme opposite to the neutral museum interior put forth as the ideal of modernism. 2 Instead of viewing her installation as autonomous entities separate from their environment, the location of the Freud Museum is integral to Lucas' layering of meanings. Characteristically evasive concerning meaning and interpretation in interviews, Lucas seeks a level of ambiguity that allows the viewer to use their experience to generate their desired meaning. In Freud's study, Lucas installed Hysterical Attack (Eyes) and Hysterical Attack (Mouths), as well as the large photograph Prière de Toucher (figs. 1-2). The two Hysterical Attack sculptures consist of papier-maché legs covered in cut-out images from magazines, one all mouths and one all eyes, that are made from tights and attached to chairs. The legs of both sculptures are splayed open and grow seamlessly out of the chairs. Also in the study is a large 1 This installation was on view March 9 to April The modernist appreciation of works of art as aesthetic objects autonomous from their surroundings is a notion famously championed by formalists such as Roger Fry and Clement Greenberg. Derrida, however, famously attacked the notion of autonomous art in "The Parergon" by deconstructing the idea that a work of art can be contained and kept separate from what Kant calls parerga, or that which is outside the work. When discussing the impossibility of making any absolute aesthetic judgments, Derrida states that it is first "necessary to know this is the fundamental presupposition, the foundation how to define the intrinsic, the framed, and what to exclude as frame and beyond the frame. We are thus already at the unlocatable center of the problem." If there can be no absolute distinction between the internal and external, no universal aesthetic truth is possible. The Parergon, trans. Craig Owens, October, no. 9 (Summer 1979): 26. Derrida rejects the possibility of an impermeable frame, suggesting that a distinction between the intrinsic and extrinsic can never be attained. Lucas' installation at the Freud thus literalizes the impossibility of separating works from their environment.

2 2 photograph, Prière de toucher, which shows Lucas' headless torso in a grey T-shirt with a nipple showing through one of the holes. These works were purposefully placed in meaningful locations in the study. Prière de toucher was placed above Freud's psychoanalytic couch. The artist revealing herself both parallels and parodies the vulnerability of Freud's patients. The two Hysterical Attack sculptures serve as spectators to Lucas' exposure, perhaps mimicking the role of psychoanalysts like Freud. Lucas installed The Pleasure Principle in the dining room (see fig. 3). This installation made use of Freud's actual table and chairs. One chair, placed on top of the table, was dressed in underpants and a bra with two illuminated globes serving as breasts. On the ground, the second chair is dressed in underpants and a man's undershirt. From the underwear, a long cylindrical phallic fluorescent light extends toward the underside of the female-gendered chair on top of the table. This installation places the female above the male figure suggesting a power imbalance, and the female chair's position on the dining room table alludes to the parallel between women and food. Although this interpretation was not Lucas' declared intention, it corresponds to the idea shared by both Freud and Lucas that sex is everywhere and is completely unavoidable. In Freud's upstairs bedroom, Lucas installed Beyond the Pleasure Principle (see fig. 4). This installation consists of a large red mattress suspended from a large metal garment rack above a white cardboard coffin. A long cylindrical fluorescent light, suggestive of a penis, pierces the mattress. In addition, there is a female counterpart consisting of two electric globe lights as breasts above a bucket with an orange bulb inside with legs suggested by long white electric cords dangling to the floor. Although the mattress, glowing lights, and sexually suggestive objects connote pleasure, the coffin creates tension between gratification and

3 3 morbidity. Due to the location of Lucas' installation, it is necessary to consider how her work engages with Freud's psychoanalytic theory. The materials Lucas uses in her installation bring to mind those described by Freud as fetishistic. Central to Freud's theories concerning fetishism is the belief that the fetishists displace the sight of women's imaginary castration onto a variety of objects such as shoes, belts, and underwear, which serve as signs for the lost penis and divert attention away from the shocking and disconcerting sight of female genitalia. 3 Lucas' use of fetishistic objects such as underwear and even furniture draws attention to one of the main parallels between the artist and Freud the belief that sex is everywhere. 4 A visual comparison between Lucas and Freud was drawn in the invitation card for the installation (fig. 5). The wellknown photograph of Freud with a cigar and the office chair from his study at the Freud Museum 3 Freud: "Thus the foot or the shoe owes its preference as a fetish or part of it to the circumstance that the inquisitive boy peered at the woman's genitals from below, from her legs up; fur and velvet as has long been suspected are a fixation of the sight of the pubic hair, which should have been followed by the longed-for sight of the female member; pieces of underclothing, which are so often chosen as a fetish, crystallize the moment of undressing, the last moment in which the woman could still be regarded as phallic." See "Fetishism," in The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (SE), trans. James Strachey, vol. 21, In her interview with the curator of the Freud Museum, James Putnam, Lucas does not criticize Freud's theory. Instead, she emphasizes similarities between herself and the psychoanalyst: "All living things, not just animals but also plants, are entirely sexual, as Freud recognized and it seems amazing the lengths people go to deny that.... I do see my work interacting in some way with this house. I suppose it's essentially the whole Freudian thing which is most paramount, both the sexual dimension and the hidden elements. I think people can go and look at the work there because they've got all that stuff about Freud in mind. They can actually begin to see some of the broader aspects of my own work that they hadn't necessarily considered when placed in this context." For the rest of the interview, see "Sarah Lucas in Conversation with Curator James Putnam," Freud Museum, London, interview from January 21, 2000, accessed October 15,

4 4 are juxtaposed with Lucas smoking a ubiquitous cigarette and one of her Bunny figures. 5 The result is engaging and humorous, but also speaks to the real similarities between the artist and the psychoanalyst. Lucas both parodies Freud and honors the aspects of his theories that relate to her artistic practice. Lucas constantly references the work of others, both in subjects and titles. Throughout her career, she has made allusions to a wide array of artists such as Manet, Duchamp, Rauschenberg, Warhol, and numerous others. In Beyond the Pleasure Principle, Lucas references not only Freud but also Duchamp in the titles of her works. Her reason for making these references is ambiguous. Often, it seems possible to interpret her works both as honorific and also parodic, and even confrontational. Lucas' title Hysterical Attack likely refers to Freud's seduction theory, which suggested that the necessary precondition for hysteria is early sexual abuse or molestation. 6 Prière de toucher refers to Duchamp's catalogue cover, which consists of a naturalistic foam-rubber breast surrounded by black velvet and mounted on a cardboard cover. The cover was designed for the cover of Le Surréalisme en 1947, the catalogue that accompanied the Exposition Internationale du Surréalisme, which was the first post-war Surrealist art exhibition to be staged in Europe. Thus, this photograph becomes not only an allusion to Duchamp but also surrealism. Lucas' installation, and her work in general, brings to mind surrealism. As an avantgarde movement, the surrealist practice of disrupting viewers' perception and senses is similar to 5 Lucas has created numerous Bunny figures for various installations, which are similar in form and construction to Hysterical Attack (Eyes) and Hysterical Attack (Mouths), although they are not papier-maché. 6 Freud outlines his seduction theory in three articles from 1896: "The Aetiology of Hysteria," in Freud, SE, vol. 3, ; "Further Remarks on the Neuro-Psychoses of Defense," in Freud, SE, vol. 3, ; "Heredity and the Aetiology of the Neuroses," in Freud, SE, vol. 3,

5 5 that of Lucas. 7 The title of Lucas' Pleasure Principle refers to Freud's pleasure principle, which states that the driving force guiding the id is the instinctual seeking of pleasure and avoidance of pain in order to satisfy biological and physical needs. 8 By using this title, Lucas calls upon the viewer to consider the relationship between Freud's theory and her installation. The Pleasure Principle can thus be seen as a visual representation of two human figures seeking sexual pleasure. The use of Freud's furniture for this project and the existing objects in the room should not be ignored. On the wall behind the fornicating furniture are hung two pictures one of a normal table and chairs, emphasizing the unusual qualities of this set of dining room furniture, and also a solemn photograph of Freud serving as a witness to this sexual act. Beyond The Pleasure Principle is named for a book published by Sigmund Freud in While Freud previously attributed most human behavior to the sexual instinct, Freud developed this theory by incorporating the death drive. 9 Lucas clearly alludes to this Freudian theory by including a coffin. The context of the installation, the title, and the combination of sexualized figures with a coffin combine to emphasize the tension between sex and death, which serves as a main theme in Freud's book. Are Lucas' allusions to Freud and Duchamp honorific, or do they constitute a critique of these figures? If asked, Lucas would likely say neither but she also tends to emphasize the 7 In his defense of surrealism, Andreas Huyssen states that it "included the concrete human subject and his/her desires in its artistic practices and in its notion that the reception of art should systematically disrupt perception and senses." See "The Search for Tradition: Avant- Garde and Postmodernism in the 1970s," New German Critique, no. 22 (Winter 1981): 38; also Peter Bürger, Der französiche Surrealismus (Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum, 1971). 8 Freud discusses the pleasure principle in: The Interpretation of Dreams, in Freud, SE, vol. 4-5, (originally published in 1900). 9 See Freud, Beyond the Pleasure Principle, in Freud, SE, vol. 18, 7-64 (originally published in 1920).

6 6 similarities between her work and those she references. These similarities are readily apparent and Lucas avoids openly criticizing both Duchamp and Freud. Despite Lucas' consistently neutral, non-critical declared positions, her work can often be interpreted as potentially disparaging. 10 For example, Prière de toucher could be interpreted as both a criticism of Duchamp's perceived glorification and objectification of breasts and also Freud's inability to understand women as sexual beings. Although Lucas does not directly state such an interpretation, she would be unlikely to reject it as she emphasizes the possibility of layers of meaning within her works. Lucas' installation can be viewed, unsurprisingly, as subversive and confrontational. Although Lucas' work cannot sweepingly be characterized as feminist, she does engage with gender ambiguity and emphasizes women's sexuality. This runs contrary to Freud, who essentially believed that women were sexually passive, engaging in sex only for procreation. Freud famously spent his life asking, "What does a woman want?," and never found a sufficient answer. His theories are inevitably flawed as they both marginalize and misunderstand female sexuality. Freudian theory asserts that male and female sexuality are the same until the phallic stage of psychosexual development, but because women lack a penis they experience penis 10 Usually when Lucas is asked if her work is criticizing some aspect of society, she clearly states that is not her intention. During an interview with Ingvild Goetz, when asked if her work is "a kind of protest against society," Lucas responded: "It's not a direct protest against society. I mean, my feelings about society are that you shouldn't be complacent and that the society is only what most people think it should be. And if you think something is wrong, you should stand up for that. But on the other hand, I would hate to be bitter about things. I want to enjoy life, even if life can be ugly." Ingvild Goetz, "This Work is My Description of the World: Interview with Sarah Lucas," in Art From the UK (Munich: Sammlung Goetz, 1997), 135. Despite her declared neutrality, Lucas' work is often interpreted as critical. For example, Claire Bishop suggests that in using fluorescent lights, Lucas' reference to Dan Flavin may have been meant "as a critique of Minimalism's macho posturing" and that her Prière de toucher "complicates Duchamp's decadently chauvinist gesture..." See "Sarah Lucas: Sadie Coles HQ and Freud Museum, London," Artext, no. 70 (August-October 2000):

7 7 envy. 11 Freud could not resolve the problem of penis envy, and thus implied that all women are condemned to underdeveloped superegos and will always be morally inferior to men, who are capable of having fully developed superegos. 12 Freud's views of women are generally criticized for being phallic-centered, which made any true knowledge of women's sexuality impossible. 13 Freud's theories have been widely criticized by feminists. 14 He illustrates his inability to understand women, stating that in men alone is "the sexual life... accessible to investigation, whereas in the woman it is veiled in impenetrable darkness, partly in consequence of cultural stunting and partly on account of the conventional reticence and dishonesty of women." Such willful ignorance and distrust of women is an underlying theme throughout Freud's theories. Viewed in relation to Freud's utter inability to account for women's sexuality, Lucas' installation becomes a revelatory celebration of women's sexuality within an environment that symbolizes its 11 Freud first introduces this concept in: "On the Sexual Theories of Children," in SE, vol. 7, (originally published in 1908). 12 Karen Horney, a psychoanalyst, famously broke away from Freudian theory criticizing his work, especially his theory of penis envy, for its innate incomprehension of women's sexuality. For a discussion of this break, refer to Lisa Appignanesi and John Forrester, Freud's Women (London: Penguin Books, 1992), Freud reveals both his fixation on phalli and his complete misconstruction of women's sexuality in statements such as: "Probably no male human being is spared the fright of castration at the sight of a female genital." By emphasizing binaries such as man versus woman, phallus versus castration, and ultimately normal versus other, Freud's theories become irreconcilable with society after second-wave feminism. 14 Numerous feminist theorists have condemned Freud's theories. Simone de Beauvoir criticizes psychoanalysis, noting that Freud saw an "original superiority" in men that is a social construct. Betty Friedan criticizes Freud's Victorian view of women. Kate Millett attacks Freud s concept of penis envy. See Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010), 59; Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique (New York: Norton, 1963), ; Kate Millett, Sexual Politics (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970), However, Lacan revolutionized psychoanalysis by using Freudian theory not as a manual but as a linguistic system to decode the rhetoric of desire. Lacanian psychoanalysis, with its basis in poststructuralism, is argued to be reconcilable with feminism. Juliet Mitchell attempted to defend Freud against his feminist critics, citing Lacan and suggesting that there could be implications of psychoanalytic theory for feminism. Freud, as interpreted by Lacan, has also influenced French feminists Julia Kristeva and Luce Irigaray.

8 8 repression in the past. Prière de toucher no longer simply mimics Freud's psychoanalytic process, but confronts his inability to understand the sexuality of women. The fluorescent phalli of The Pleasure Principle and Beyond the Pleasure Principle become overt illustrations of Freud's obsession with penises. Although Sarah Lucas' work often deals with gender, and therefore can be effectively interpreted through feminist critical theory, her work has closer associations with postmodernism, poststructuralism, and deconstruction. Feminism itself has a tenuous relationship with theory and philosophy because of its basis in socio-political critique and activism. In fact, a number of feminists are anti-theory, believing that all theories constructed in our current society are inevitably patriarchal. Craig Owens cites this as a possibility, stating that "the fact that few women have engaged in the modernism/postmodernism debate, suggest that postmodernism may be another masculine invention engineered to exclude women." 15 Also, some feminists who have engaged with critical theory have realized its inadequacy to engender revolutionary social change. It can be argued that this quality of seeking social change is what defines true feminism and feminist theory. Despite this tension between feminism and critical theory, feminism does exist as a theoretical framework grounded in the aims of social criticism and social change. As social critics, feminist scholars reveal knowledge as gendered and seek to redress gender imbalance by offering alternate theories and methods of creating knowledge. Because this process involves reevaluating history and revealing it to be a social construct, feminist theory can parallel poststructuralism. As poststructuralists problematize binaries and master narratives, feminist theorists problematize the binary between men and 15 "The Discourse of Others: Feminists and Postmodernism," in The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture, edited by Hal Foster (Seattle: Bay Press, 1983), 60.

9 9 women and view master narratives as patriarchal constructs. 16 However, many pragmatic feminists are reluctant to dispense with binaries realizing there will always be a binary between men and women. Owens suggests that the gender binary will always exist, and that "what we must learn, then, is how to conceive difference without opposition." 17 Although some artists, like Lucas, embrace androgyny as a progression towards gender neutrality, others believe gender division is inevitable and there will thus always be an imbalance of power. Lucas has a problematic relationship with feminism. She does not label herself a feminist artist and at times her work is considered to be willfully misogynistic. When Linda Nochlin asked Lucas whether she considers herself a feminist, Lucas responded: I didn't give feminism much serious thought until my mid twenties. I came across a book by Andrea Dworkin called Intercourse and another called Pornography. I was drawn in by the titles. And they were pornographic, that is, they trawled through pornography and other atrocities committed against women. Fighting fire with fire. I hadn't had a look around like that before. I didn't really know what to do with it. It caused a schism in my feelings towards men. At that point I started using tabloid newspapers. And really I didn't have to add any comment. I just blew them up and put them in a gallery. And people, most of whom must have seen this stuff everyday of their lives, felt in the self-conscious atmosphere of the gallery, that I was criticising them in some way. And maybe I was. 18 This suggests that in works like Seven Up, Lucas intended to criticize magazines that glorify pornography and sexualized representations of women (see fig. 6). However, Lucas is not consistently this open concerning her intended criticism of society and when asked about these 16 Owens discusses feminist suspicion of master narratives: "For what made the grand recits of modernity master narratives if not the fact that they were all narratives of mastery, of man seeking his telos in the conquest of nature? What function did these narratives play other than to legitimize Western man's self-appointed mission of transforming the entire planet in his own image? And what form did this mission take if not that of man's placing of his stamp on everything that exists that is, the transformation of the world into a representation, with man as its subject (64)?" 17 Owens, Undated interview in Sarah Lucas, Sarah Lucas: After 2005, Before 2012, ed. Sadie Coles HQ (London: Koenig, 2012), np.

10 10 works at other times, she deemphasizes this feminist reading of her work. Instead, often she embraces an androgynous laddish persona characterized by lowbrow humor and shockingly sexualized imagery. 19 Her emphasis on androgyny is often perceived as a criticism of feminist artists like Cindy Sherman who seemingly offer no alternative to the socially constructed objectified woman. Sarah Lucas tackles big questions in her work such as sexuality, death, gender, love, and religion. Although often appealing viscerally to lowbrow humor, Lucas' works are never easy to resolve. She offers no answers or definitive interpretations, instead creating layers of meaning through her use of appropriation, found objects, references to linguistic puns, and allusions to other artists. Although frequently labeled a feminist artist, Lucas has a problematic relationship with both feminism and critical theory. Many contemporary artists deal with this tension between feminism and critical theory. Some gravitate towards one extreme or the other, but others attempt to engage with both in their work. Sarah Lucas is an example of the latter and examining her work illustrates that although reconciling feminism and critical theory is impossible, alluding to both can allow the viewer to construct their own interpretation. 19 Lucas considers this constructed artistic identity as essential to her work. In an interview, Jean Wainwright asked her where she places herself in women's histories. Lucas responded: "One of the things that struck me as a much younger artist, looking around at people like Andy Warhol, Gilbert and George, Francis Bacon and Pablo Picasso, was that personality played a huge part. The bigger the artists, the more their personality played a part. It hadn't really happened so much with women's art, but perhaps one of the reasons for that was that women hadn't been as big as men. It must have been a social thing as well as an art thing, because their personality didn't seem to enter into it as much. That was something I was ambitious about, but I just hit into the right moment when enough groundwork had been done already. Now I suppose it's characteristic of my generation of women artists that their personality plays a huge part in their work." "Sarah Lucas: Interviewed by Jean Wainwright," in Speaking of Art: Four Decades of Art in Conversation, edited by William Furlong (New York: Phaidon, 2010),

11 11 Bibliography Appignanesi, Lisa and John Forrester. Freud's Women. London: Penguin Books, Beauvoir, Simone de. The Second Sex. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Bishop, Claire. "Sarah Lucas: Sadie Coles HQ and Freud Museum, London." Artext, no. 70 (August-October 2000): Bürger, Peter. Der französiche Surrealismus. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum, Derrida, Jacques. "The Parergon." Translated by Craig Owens. October, no. 9 (Summer 1979): Originally published in La vérité en peinture. Paris: Flammarion, Freud, Sigmund. "The Aetiology of Hysteria." In Freud, SE, vol. 3, Originally published in Beyond the Pleasure Principle. In Freud, SE, vol. 18, Originally published in "Fetishism." In Freud, SE, vol. 21, Originally published in "Further Remarks on the Neuro-Psychoses of Defense." In Freud, SE, vol. 3, Originally published in "Heredity and the Aetiology of the Neuroses." In Freud, SE, vol. 3, Originally published in The Interpretation of Dreams. In Freud, SE, vol. 4-5, Originally published in "On the Sexual Theories of Children." In Freud, SE, vol. 7, Originally published in The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. Translated by James Strachey. 24 vol. London: Hogarth and the Institute of Psychoanalysis, Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. New York: Norton, Goetz, Ingvild. "This Work is My Description of the World: Interview with Sarah Lucas." In Art From the UK, Munich: Sammlung Goetz, Huyssen, Andreas. "The Search for Tradition: Avant-Garde and Postmodernism in the 1970s." New German Critique, no. 22 (Winter 1981): Lucas, Sarah. Sarah Lucas: After 2005, Before Edited by Sadie Coles HQ. London: Koenig, Millett, Kate. Sexual Politics. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Owens, Craig. "The Discourse of Others: Feminists and Postmodernism." In The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture, edited by Hal Foster, Seattle: Bay Press, Putnam, James. "Sarah Lucas in Conversation with Curator James Putnam." Freud Museum, London. Interview from January 21, Accessed October Wainwright, Jean. "Sarah Lucas: Interviewed by Jean Wainwright." In Speaking of Art: Four Decades of Art in Conversation, edited by William Furlong, NY: Phaidon, 2010.

12 12 Illustrations Figure 1. Sarah Lucas. Hysterical Attack (Eyes) (2000). Chair, papier maché. Installation view at the Freud Museum (study), London. Figure 2. Sarah Lucas. Hysterical Attack (Mouths) and Prière de toucher (2000). Chair and papier maché; C-type print. Installation view at the Freud Museum (study), London. Figure 3. Sarah Lucas. The Pleasure Principle (2000). Chairs, fluorescent tube, light bulbs,

13 13 underwear, table. Installation view at the Freud Museum (dining room), London. Figure 3. Sarah Lucas. Beyond the Pleasure Principle (2000). Futon mattress, cardboard coffin, metal clothes rail, 2 fluorescent tubes, light bulbs, metal bucket, and wire coat hanger. Tate Museum, London. Figure 4. Farrow Design invitation card for Sarah Lucas Beyond the Pleasure Principle at the Freud Museum, London (2000). Figure 5. Sarah Lucas. Seven Up (1991). Black and white photograph. Tate Museum, London.