Fetishism and the Surrealist Object - Essay Example

Fetishism and the Surrealist Object: An Inquiry into Works by Meret Oppenheim and Hans Bellmer Introduction Variously defined as 'the displacement of sexual arousal or gratification to a fetish' and 'the act of using a fetish for sexual arousal and gratification',1 fetishism is a provocative concept, especially in the realms of art production and criticism. Specifically in terms of a potential physical art object, it can be considered 'paraphilia in which erotic interest and satisfaction are centred on an inanimate object or a specific, non-genital part of the anatomy'.2 What emerges as essential in these definitions is a sexual urge that transferred to a thing or non-sexual part of the body. Invoking ideas of personal sexual fantasies outsides the realm of polite society, fetishism primarily exists in the world behind the world, and its public expression in the form of art can be a brazen and shocking thing. Contemporary artists such as Mona Hatoum, Rebecca Horn and Nobuyoshi Araki have created significant art that falls into the space of fetishism. However, considering the concurrent societal norms, earlier, less accepting epochs demanding conformity have produced some of the most provocative pieces touching on this taboo, primarily the Surrealists. Indeed, few movements invoke the overall inner landscape of dreams, desires and unconscious more determinedly. Primarily functioning between the two world Wars, Surrealism was a movement motivated by the writings of Andre Breton and dedicated to exposing the desires of the subconscious and fighting the bourgeois society surrounding them in many different avenues of expression.3 In addition to writing, Surrealist artists utilized painting, collage, photography and sculpture to advance various Freudian driven concepts. Among these was the idea of the object. Although Breton had called for the creation of Surrealist objects earlier, it was only during the 1930's did the debate and production of these objects truly gain momentum within the group. Distinct from the contemporary concept of sculpture, these homemade montages of distinct yet everyday elements transferred these works from the utilitarian to the realm of dreams. In this manner, 'the object created therefore constitutes the intrusion into daily life of a desire that moulds and transforms matter according to its requirements, meticulously creating the synthesis of extreme intimacy and the outside world'.4 For this essay I have chosen two famous yet utterly distinct surrealist objects to demonstrate the breadth of fetishism in this movement. Although the "furry teacup" of Meret Oppenheim might seem completely unrelated to Hans Bellmer's notorious doll, they are both objects emerging from the Surrealist school that revolve around fetishism. Object (Le Djeuner en fourrure)5 Introduced to the Surrealist group when she was only eighteen, Meret Oppenheim began as a model for photographer Man Ray before embarking on her Oppenheim, Meret (1936). Object (Le Djeuner en fourrure). Fur-covered cup, saucer and spoon. 7.3 cm tall. On display at The Museum of Modern Art, New York. own artistic endeavours.6 Apparently, the concept for the work emerged from a conversation in a Parisian caf with Pablo Picasso and Dora Maar in 1936:7 he happened to be wearing one of the bracelets she had been making for Schiaparelli out of lengths of fur-lined, polished metal tubing. Talking and joking about the bracelet, Picasso quipped that one could actually cover anything with fur, to which Meret replied, "Even this cup and saucer" Shortly afterwards, When Andr Breton invited her to contribute to an Exhibition of Surrealist objects at the Galerie Charles Ratton, she recalled the conversation and, without further ado, bought a large cup and saucer with spoon at the Parisian department store, Uniprix, and lined the three objects with the fur of a Chinese gazelle. It was Andre Breton who named the work.8 Somehow, this simple concept erupted into the canons of twentieth century art, and what could be seen as a casual object 'has been transformed into a fetish of historical impact'.9 From the very first critic to write about this Surrealist object, Marcel Jean in Cahiers d'Art,10 the sexual connection was made. Not only does this piece answer Breton's demand for 'the subversive redefinition and mystification of the use values of objects, and ultimately, the undermining of rational conceptions',11 but it makes a turn towards fetishism. Accosting the viewer with the perfectly normal shape of normal, standard objects, this cup, saucer and spoon and suddenly covered with dark, unmistakable hair. This combination speaks to something 'bristly and inaccessible',12 and speaks to subconscious urges. It 'appears as the unlikely offspring of the physical union of a crockery set (the hollow forms of female sex organs) and the wild beast, a hybrid creation of illicit intercourse, like the monstrous Minotaur'.13 Whatever the imagined basis of this illicit union, somehow the inanimate kitchen objects have become engulfed in fur, transcending reason and provoking even more fetish-driven thoughts. One of the most published artworks of the Surrealists, Object (Le Djeuner en fourrure) is an intriguing and inoffensive glimpse into the realm of Surrealist fetishism, a small object which hints at many things by the very nature of its composition yet transgresses no overt taboos. The same cannot be said for the best-known work of Hans Bellmer. La poupe (The Doll)14 At best, this series can be referred to as 'Hans Bellmer's extraordinary works'.15 After seeing a performance of the play Tales of Hoffman in 1932,16 Bellmer found an artistic outlet for his fetish. Using wood and various other items, Bellmer built two dolls, made to resemble young teenage girls. 'He photographed the doll, in parts or whole, naked or semi-clothed Mutilated or monstrous the doll's forms (Bellmer provided the second doll with two sets of hips and legs, doubling its implicit sexual possibilities)'.17 It is this second doll that is now on permanent display at the Muse national d'art moderne. The primary innovation between the first doll and the second was the utilisation of the ball joint, and the torso, belly and all other joints were made out of them. 'This allowed all sorts of positions, even the least plausible or natural-provided that they satisfy fantasy'.18 And his "fantasy", transferred to Bellmer, Hans (1932-1945). La poupe (The Doll). Painted wood and hair; shoes and socks. 61 x 170 x 51 cm. On display at Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris, Muse national d'art moderne. these inanimate objects, was from a disturbing subterranean sphere of his own fetishism. He certainly took memorable photographs, in gelatin silver print glory. Over thirteen years he published approximately one hundred images, mostly titled simply La poupe, which remain shocking in this era. One of the earliest photographs has the doll's head turned over the shoulder and the false eyeball irises also properly aligned, as though this wooden and wigged creation is flirtatiously addressing the viewer. Most of these works feature excessive ball points and body parts, along with the additional hips and legs already featured. The doll is posed on pillows and beds, twisted on patterned sheets of cloth and even hung on door frames. If feet actually appear, they are mostly clad in white socks and paten-leather shoes, which speak of schoolgirl uniforms. At other times, the dismembered mannequin is tilted against a tree, slung over a chair or curved in a wooden crate. As the extended date of creation on his second doll indicates, he would alter the doll as he needed to for his photographs-this object was regularly assembled, dismembered and rearranged. For me, the photographs are a record of the situations he placed his doll into. What truly involves the fetish is the doll itself, made by hand and constantly adjusted and altered by its creator. With its removable breasts, multiplication of sexual areas and the age-defining schoolgirl shoes, Bellmer is clearly transferring his sexual desires onto this Surrealist art object. Yet what is being replicated Although it has been claimed that both the object and the photographs of La poupe are a protest against his father and the growing Nazi regime,19 this is difficult to believe. Although 'Andr Breton and Paul Eluard described as 'the first and only Surrealist object with a universal, provocative power',20 it goes beyond the manifesto of an art movement. Bellmer wrote: What oozed through the staircase or the cracks in the doors when these girls were playing at being doctors, up their in the attic, what dripped from these clysters filled with raspberry juice, or if I dare say so, with raspberry verjuice, all this could easily take on, on the whole, the appearance of seduction, and even arouse desire But confusion was complete when those legs grew suddenly stiff, with moves suggesting a fleeting hoop, and in the end they hung bare, out of transparent lace and rumpled pleatings, relishing the aftertaste of their game.21 When I read this (very alarming) passage, one of the 1936 La poupe photographs flew through my mind. In it, the doll is posed as though it has just fallen down a set of simple wooden stairs. The head focuses on the camera, and it is attached to a piece resembling an upturned ass, then comes a torso with an exaggerated sexual area. The right leg is missing, while the left follows the stairs down, falling out of sight at the ankle, featuring a heavy cord tied around the knee. In both his writings and work with La poupe, there is obviously some sort of dark desire moving through this artist's mind about young girls, and the fetish of the doll serves that sinister voice. In fact, it moves beyond the realm of fetish. 'Clearly, a sadism is inscribed in the dolls as much as a fetishism, and it is hardly hidden Although Bellmer may claim other desires are figured here, it is clear who the masterful is, and what the mastered object'.22 It is this element, how far he takes his fetishism, that raises La poupe to a level far beyond the far more playful and palpable work by Oppenheim. Conclusion Although both works are Surrealist objects that deal with fetishism, the similarities practically end there. Object (Le Djeuner en fourrure) emerged out of a casual conversation in a caf, and expanded on the fur-lining concept Oppenheim was already utilizing for bracelets. Done once, and on the spur of the moment, this breakfast in Fur raised to prominence because it 'presented the basic principle of the Surrealist object with classic simplicity'.23 In addition, it was accessible to a wider public-looking at this work cause interest as it challenged the functional rationale, yet it managed not to offend. The sexual connotations were present, put never overwhelming. On the other hand, Bellmer's La poupe is at the other side of the spectrum utterly. His almost full-scale replication of young, teenage girls managed to horrify men and women alike. When his first doll did not have the incredible flexibility and positioning option he required, Bellmer went so far as to redesign it with ball joints. For over a decade he played with this object, occasionally capturing in photographs the scenarios his fantasies created. His tactile involvement with this artwork over such a long period of time clearly demonstrates the long-lasting power of this fetish over him, and his desire to express it to the world via photography created images as unique as they are profoundly disconcerting. Both of these artworks involve fetishism, and the expression of those ideas clearly formed how they were produced. One is a comfortable foray into dreams, desire and the unconscious, while another is an all-consuming fantasy landscape which allows for little peace. Despite these clear distinctions, both operate in fetishism and thoroughly integrate this concept in the artistic endeavour. Bibliography Artworks Bellmer, Hans (1932-1945). La poupe (The Doll). Painted wood and hair; shoes and socks. 61 x 170 x 51 cm. On display at Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris, Muse national d'art moderne. Oppenheim, Meret (1936). Object (Le Djeuner en fourrure). Fur-covered cup, saucer and spoon. 7.3 cm tall. On display at The Museum of Modern Art, New York. Books Burckhardt, J. and B. Curiger, editors (1996). Meret Oppenheim: Beyond the Teacup. New York: Distributed Art Publishers. Curiger, B. (1989). Meret Oppenheim: Defiance in the Face of Freedom. Zurich: Parkett Publishers. Durozoi, G. (2002). History of the Surrealist Movement. A. Anderson (Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago. Levy, S., editor (1996). Surrealism: Surrealist Visuality. Keele: Keele University. Mundy, J., editor (2002). Surrealism: Desire Unbound. London: Tate Publishing. Rubin, W. 1979. Surrealismus. Stuttgart. Tythacott, L. (2003). Surrealism and the Exotic. London: Routledge. Articles Bellmer, Hans (2001). From "What Oozed Through the Staircase". Surrealist Painters and Poets: An Anthology. Edited by M. Caws. Cambridge, MIT, p. 115. Burckhardt, J. and B. Curiger (1996). An Enormously Tiny Bit of a Lot. Meret Oppenheim: Beyond the Teacup. Edited by J. Burckhardt and B. Curiger. New York, Distributed Art Publishers, pp. 15-21. del Renzio, T. (1996). Un Faucon et un Vrai. Surrealism: Surrealist Visuality. S. Levy (ed.). Keele: Keele University, pp. 149-156. Foster, H. (2002). Violation and Veiling in Surrealist Photography: Woman as Fetish, as Shattered Object; As Phallus. Surrealism: Desire Unbound. J. Mundy (Ed.). London: Tate Publishing, pp. 203-225. Helfenstein, J. (1996). Against the Intolerability of Fame. Meret Oppenheim: Beyond the Teacup. J. Burckhardt and B. Curiger (Eds.). New York, Distributed Art Publishers, pp. 23-33. Mundy, J. (2002). Letters of Desire. Surrealism: Desire Unbound. J. Mundy (Ed.). London: Tate Publishing, pp. 11-53. Rascina, F. (1996). Picasso, Surrealism and Politics in 1937. Surrealism: Surrealist Visuality. S. Levy (ed.). Keele: Keele University, pp. 125-147. Websites Fetishism (2001). Bartleby.com. Retrieved on 07 December 2005 from http://www.bartleby.com/65/fe/fetishis.html. Fetishism (n. d.). Dictionary.com. Retrieved on 07 December 2005 from http://dictionary.reference.com/searchq=fetishism. Hans Bellmer 1902-1975 (2004). Tate Collections. Retrieved on 07 December 2005 from http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWorkcgroupid=999999961&workid=921&searchid=7707. Harber, J. (1996). Meret Oppenheim: Beyond the Teacup. Harber Arts. Retrieved on 7 December from http://www.haberarts.com/meret.htm. Read More