Feminist or Sexist? Examining the Work and Criticism of Vanessa Beecroft

Contemporary performance artist, Vanessa Beecroft, has both shocked and fascinated audiences with her live performance pieces, in which she uses female models, typically in large numbers, that are often completely or nearly, in the nude. In this practice, Beecroft works to create tableaux vivants, or “living pictures,” as her models stay both still and silent[1]. In a few of her most well-known works, VB46 (Image 1, 2001, Gagosian Gallery, Performance) and VB55 (Image 2, 2005, Neue National Galerie, Performance), the artist uses nude female models to complete this living picture. Beecroft’s practices have been deemed sexist by some and daringly feminist by others for her depiction of women in her pieces. By examining these works through a feminist lens while also considering the ideas of her critics, both good and bad, this article will explore whether Beecroft’s practice is degrading toward women, or instead, revolutionary and thought-provoking.

Vanessa Beecroft was born in Genoa, Italy in 1969, and attended the Brera Academy in Milan from 1988 to 1993. She performed her first piece, VB01 at a gallery in Milan during the last year of her education. Beecroft moved to the United States in 1996 at the request of an art dealer and settled in New York City[2]. She has since created dozens of performance pieces and has also worked with sculpture, painting, video art, and photography. Her early works were often autobiographical but began to develop by focusing on larger issues such as gender and race. The artist performed in her very early works and then transitioned to hiring female models. In many of her pieces, such as VB46, the artist casts young, tall, and thin models, whom she refers to as “girls” no matter their age. In her works, she has strict rules for her models, and they are instructed not to interact or engage with the audience in any way.

Performance VB46 took place at the Gagosian Gallery in Beverly Hills and included 30 female models that the artist sought out to fit a particular body type. Beecroft posted advertisements for the roles in various places around Los Angeles. The ad read: “Needed: 20–30 nude models, eighteen plus, skinny, tall androgynous body, very small breasts, available to pose nude. Preferably with short hair, boyish cut, blond, and fair. Will be covered in body makeup. Will wear Manolo Blahnik shoes.” The models were required to stand for hours in high heels, which the artist refers to as “pedestals,”[3] without making any movements or eye contact. Her instructions for the models in this piece stated: "Do not talk, do not interact with others, do not whisper, do not laugh, do not move theatrically, do not move too quickly, do not move too slowly, be simple, be detached, be classic, be unapproachable, be tall, be strong, do not be sexy, do not be rigid, do not be casual, assume the state of mind that you prefer (calm, strong, neutral, indifferent, proud, polite, superior), behave as if you were dressed, behave as if no one were in the room, you are like an image, do not establish contact with the outside."[4]

The artist is fairly ambiguous when it comes to the intention of her work, and as a result, her pieces are up to both positive and negative interpretations. Many considered the work to act as live paintings, in both the way that the female nude is presented to the viewer in a gallery space as well as in how the subject was composed (Image 3). What is more shocking about this appearance of the female nude is that it is live, and the spectator is confronted with a real female nude figure. This frankness may cause more discomfort for the spectator than if they were viewing a female nude depicted on canvas. Additionally, the number of models as well as the way in which they are depicted, does not allow any one participant to appear as an individual. Some critics, such as Bruce Hainley, contributing editor of Artforum, also note that geographical location is important to note when analyzing Beecroft’s works[5]. VB46 was Beecroft’s first piece to be performed in Los Angeles, and the piece may be a response to the idea of the white-washing and beauty standards that are often associated with the city[6].

The models in this piece were given a bleached appearance, using white makeup and bleached blond pixie cuts to give them all a similar paleness and red lips. This could be a nod to whiteness or the purity of the female nude. Others have felt that this piece works to highlight the blatant objectification of women in the entertainment and fashion industry, making the work intentionally provocative. While some felt that the artist was making a statement about the beauty standards women face in culture, others, such as art critic Jason Miller, felt that in doing so, she was objectifying her models proving that the artist lacks “ethical awareness”[7] in creating her work. Some remarked that in choosing to make her models passive and in the nude, they are objectified or presented as if though they are “for sale.”[8]

Critics such as Ken Johnson of The New York Times felt that similar to that of her other works, the audience is allowed whatever fetishization they desire towards the passive female nudes, which only emphasizes the issue of power dynamics when it comes to gender and class in society and popular culture and makes her work offensive[9]. The artist herself admitted of the piece that the more “minimal and pure” she tries to make her subjects “the more fetishistic it looks.”[10] However, many critics also point out that the works say more about society than the models themselves, and that the real goal of the piece is to force the public to confront our negative beliefs and standards of women in order to assess our values as a society. In doing so, some, such as Maria Elena Buszek, an art historian at the Kansas City Art Institute, feel that the artist is the “poster girl” for the “current third wave of feminist art history.”[11] The issue for some seems to be that the artist chose to express concerns over gender inequality by using the nude female body of others.

However, using the female body is not a new medium in feminist performance art. It has been used by many female artists, including the “Grandmother of Performance Art,” Marina Abramovic, who often used her own female body in the nude to explore issues such as gender, politics, and identity. In her performance titled Thomas Lips (Image 4, 1973, Krinzinger Gallery, Performance), the artist even went so far as to self-mutilate in the nude to explore issues involving her upbringing in a strict Serbian Orthodox household[12]. However, unlike Beecroft, Abramovic chose to use her own body to explore issues of objectification, gender, and religion in her work. While many female performance artists have used their own bodies as the subject of their pieces, Beecroft uses other’s bodies instead of her own, which may only add to the issue that her fans praise her for highlighting.

Whereas artists like Abramovic use their own bodies to explore these issues, some feel that by using others in her works, Beecroft is putting them in a situation that is potentially “exploitive and demeaning.”[13] Some models later recalled that the practices that occurred in preparation for the performance were in themselves demeaning, as the models all had to endure hair bleaching and full body hair removal, which was only revealed to them to the full extent at the last minute and came as a surprise. The models were subject to both a physical makeover as well as strict guidelines to how they would behave during the performance. Additionally, some models felt that the way in which Beecroft directed them put the artist in a place of male authority, dominance, and power.[14]

Indeed, the proof of the exploitative quality of the work itself may be apparent in Beecroft’s own guilt regarding her process. In an interview about her work, the artist stated, “I have never come in contact with the models before. It makes me feel guilty.”[15] It’s also interesting to note that all of Beecroft’s performances are documented through film and photographs, allowing photographers to zoom in and immortalize the pieces, as well as the nude bodies of the models, an idea that viewers such as reporter Luke Harding feel “verges on creepy.”[16]

While many criticize Beecroft and her practices, some praise her work and consider her work to be that of a very contemporary feminist. For example, art dealer Jeffrey Deitchthat stated that in using the female nude, the artist is able to display sexual imagery from the female point of view, allowing the female the power that can work to “intimidate the male,” and that the presentation of the models is not erotic, but instead, intimidating. This is an interesting opinion to note, as the models represented in the work were willing, and auditioned for parts in the piece. It’s not as if the models participated against their will, they chose to, perhaps putting the power in their own hands as they “dare to bare.”[17]

Beecroft created the piece VB55 a few years later, and while the piece was slightly different, the issue of exploiting female nude models was still a topic of conversation amongst viewers and critics. In this piece, the artist hired 100 female models to participate in the performance, but rather than transforming the models’ appearances, she wanted to keep their appearance “as natural as possible,” and the models only wore nude sheer tights (Image 5). Additionally, the participants were not professional models but were rather ordinary women ranging from ages 18-65. The artist said she wanted her models to seem “removed and detached” from the audience and that the piece dealt with issues of “embarrassment, shame, violence, and abuse” while also stating that she, herself, is embarrassed by her own performances. The performance was 3 hours long and the women were instructed to stay as still and silent as possible. The performance took place in the New National Gallery in Berlin, a see-through glass venue, that allowed those passing by to see the performance, adding another level of exposure.[18]

Of her performances, the artist stated that her models appear before an audience in a way that is “almost brutal and violent” and that part of the purpose is to “create embarrassment and shame.” The real question is then, embarrassment and shame for whom? Women, who have had to deal with issues of embarrassment and shame surrounding their bodies for decades, or for men, that have placed this shame upon women through the male gaze? With the ambiguity of the artist’s works and statements of intentions, it is difficult to say.

What is clear, is that Beecroft’s work is full of contradictions, which may be the actual intention, as well as the reason for her success. While the artist has stated in interviews that she hates being photographed, she is fine with putting other females, in the nude, on display in public spaces. On one hand, her practices seem somewhat abusive and cruel in terms of what she asks her models to endure, yet on the other hand, perhaps she is giving them a platform for liberation. In a certain light, Beecroft’s work could appear misogynistic in itself, perhaps allowing the artist some kind of “power trip” that she may desire in reaction to her own anxieties and insecurities towards gender imbalances in society.

Beecroft has spoken about her issues with her own image and appearance in terms of societal acceptance and has been open about her struggles with eating disorders and depression as a result. As Beecroft has stated, the purpose of her works is to bring up issues of shame and embarrassment, and perhaps forcing her audiences to face the issues of gender inequality and beauty standards that women still face today allows for an uncomfortable reaction that forces us to examine uncomfortable truths within our society. What is certain is that the contradictions within Beecroft’s work reflect the contradictions in our modern society. Like all great artists, Beecroft’s work reflects current and “uncomfortable truths” right back at us, forcing us to confront them.[19]

Citations:

“Centre for Contemporary Culture at Palazzo Strozzi.” CCC Strozzina. Accessed November 11, 2020. http://www.strozzina.org/en/artists/beecroft/.

Hainley, Bruce. “Bruce Hainley on Vanessa Beecroft.” Bruce Hainley on Vanessa Beecroft - Artforum International, June 1, 2001. https://www.artforum.com/print/reviews/200106/vanessa-beecroft-48549.

Harding, Luke. “Ruthlessly Exposed.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, April 8, 2005. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/apr/08/worlddispatch.germany.

Heather Cassils, 'Conversation during a break between photo and video shoots at the Sony sound Stage, Culver City, CA., October 2003', (ibid), 760.

Johnson, Ken. “Vanessa Beecroft -- 'VB45/VB48'.” The New York Times. The New York Times, April 12, 2002. https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/12/arts/art-in-review-vanessa-beecroft-vb45-vb48.html.

Johnstone, Nick. “Interview: Vanessa Beecroft.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, March 13, 2005. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2005/mar/13/art.

Julia Steinmetz, Heather Cassils and Clover Leary, 'Behind Enemy Lines: Toxic Titties Infiltrate Vanessa Beecroft'. in Signs, 31:3, New Feminist Theories of Visual Culture (Spring 2006)

“Lips of Thomas.” The Guggenheim Museums and Foundation. Accessed November 10, 2020. https://www.guggenheim.org/artwork/5176.

Marcella Beccaria, Vanessa Beecroft: Performances 1993-2003, (Milan: Skira; London: Thames and Hudson,2003), 325.

Miller , Jason. “Activism vs. Antagonism: Socially Engaged Art from Bourriaud to Bishop and Beyond.” FIELD. Accessed November 12, 2020. http://field-journal.com/issue-3/activism-vs-antagonism-socially-engaged-art-from-bourriaud-to-bishop-and-beyond.

“Vanessa Beecroft: VB46, Beverly Hills, March 17, 2001.” Gagosian, April 24, 2018. https://gagosian.com/exhibitions/2001/vanessa-beecroft-vb46/.

“Vanessa Beecroft.” Castello di Rivoli. Accessed November 11, 2020. https://www.castellodirivoli.org/en/artista/vanessa-beecroft/.

[1] “Centre for Contemporary Culture at Palazzo Strozzi.” CCC Strozzina. Accessed November 11, 2020. http://www.strozzina.org/en/artists/beecroft/. [2] “Vanessa Beecroft.” Castello di Rivoli. Accessed November 11, 2020. https://www.castellodirivoli.org/en/artista/vanessa-beecroft/. [3] Johnstone, Nick. “Interview: Vanessa Beecroft.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, March 13, 2005. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2005/mar/13/art. [4] Julia Steinmetz, Heather Cassils and Clover Leary, 'Behind Enemy Lines: Toxic Titties Infiltrate Vanessa Beecroft'. in Signs, 31:3, New Feminist Theories of Visual Culture (Spring 2006) [5] Hainley, Bruce. “Bruce Hainley on Vanessa Beecroft.” Bruce Hainley on Vanessa Beecroft - Artforum International, June 1, 2001. https://www.artforum.com/print/reviews/200106/vanessa-beecroft-48549. [6] “Vanessa Beecroft: VB46, Beverly Hills, March 17, 2001.” Gagosian, April 24, 2018. https://gagosian.com/exhibitions/2001/vanessa-beecroft-vb46/. [7] Miller , Jason. “Activism vs. Antagonism: Socially Engaged Art from Bourriaud to Bishop and Beyond.” FIELD. Accessed November 12, 2020. http://field-journal.com/issue-3/activism-vs-antagonism-socially-engaged-art-from-bourriaud-to-bishop-and-beyond. [8] .Julia Steinmetz, Heather Cassils and Clover Leary, 'Behind Enemy Lines: Toxic Titties Infiltrate Vanessa Beecroft'. in Signs, 31:3, New Feminist Theories of Visual Culture (Spring 2006), 777. [9] Johnson, Ken. “Vanessa Beecroft -- 'VB45/VB48'.” The New York Times. The New York Times, April 12, 2002. https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/12/arts/art-in-review-vanessa-beecroft-vb45-vb48.html. [10] Marcella Beccaria, Vanessa Beecroft: Performances 1993-2003, (Milan: Skira; London: Thames and Hudson,2003), 325. [11] Johnstone, Nick. “Interview: Vanessa Beecroft.” The Guardian. [12] “Lips of Thomas.” The Guggenheim Museums and Foundation. Accessed November 10, 2020. https://www.guggenheim.org/artwork/5176. [13] Julia Steinmetz, Heather Cassils and Clover Leary, 'Behind Enemy Lines: Toxic Titties Infiltrate Vanessa Beecroft'. in Signs, 31:3, New Feminist Theories of Visual Culture (Spring 2006), 765. [14] Steinmetz, Cassils and Leary, 'Behind Enemy Lines', 760. [15] Heather Cassils, 'Conversation during a break between photo and video shoots at the Sony sound Stage, Culver City, CA., October 2003', (ibid), 760. [16] Harding, Luke. “Ruthlessly Exposed.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, April 8, 2005. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/apr/08/worlddispatch.germany. [17] Johnstone, Nick. “Interview: Vanessa Beecroft.” The Guardian. [18] Harding, Luke. “Ruthlessly Exposed.” The Guardian. [19] Johnstone, Nick. “Interview: Vanessa Beecroft.” The Guardian.