"A Rush Of Blood To The Head" beyond the "art vs. pornography" clichés
Courtesy Chazen Museum Of Art
Detail from "A Rush Of Blood To The Head," Beth Cavener Stichter.
Madison has abruptly gotten to know Beth Cavener Stichter as the woman who shocked a few patrons of the Chazen Museum Of Art recently, thanks to a sculpture in which two goats—each bearing a quite large, human, ferociously erect penis—hurl themselves into a passionate, humanoid kiss. "A Rush Of Blood To The Head," as it's called, has inspired the obligatory round of "Gasp! Controversial piece of art!" stories in local media that have to talk around things like bulging cocks in family-friendly fashion (but, in all fairness did also take care to get Stichter's side of things and did not get carried away in any sense). Isthmus' Bill Lueders brought some refreshing candor to the whole matter, joyously referring to "goats with boners" and calling the Chazen brave for buying and displaying the sculpture. Here's the full view:
Courtesy Beth Cavener Stichter
It is a shame that such wider public discussions about pieces of art seem to blow up only when framed in "controversy." It all says much more about our society's enduring prudishness than it does about the artwork or the artist. Sex is the most common act on earth, and homosexuality is one of the most common subjects in current social, religious, and political debate. Combine them in any striking fashion and some folks can only see it as a pornographic challenge, and proceed to hold us all hostage in pointless "art or pornography?" arguments. Instead of further discussion about this boring charade of shock, let's talk about "Rush" in the context of Stichter's body of work.
"Rush" is the centerpiece of On Tender Hooks, a 2009 exhibit (browse it all here) that placed Cavener's signature human-esque creatures in situations absurd, passionate, and painful. "Rush" seems to be the only work of Stichter's that really cuts so deeply into a viewer's sexual response, and on the phone, she comes off as one of the least rabble-rousing, most soft-spoken people you could meet. Understandably a little shy and guarded about discussing her art (because she'd rather communicate about her art through, of course, her art), Stichter answered some questions about "A Rush Of Blood To The Head" and On Tender Hooks via e-mail. She also pointed us to an artist's statement that discusses the thought process and motivations behind the works. Whether you're an admirer or a detractor, I hope you'll find this useful.
The A.V. Club: Your statement for the show says you try to point out the humor of the situations depicted in your work. Do you think the people complaining about "Rush" are overlooking an element of humor in it?
Beth Cavener Sitchter: In my statement I do address that humor is one of the ways I try to make the work more approachable, and while there are several pieces in the exhibition that are intended to spark a sense of humor, I don’t think of “Rush” is one of them. However, I am a firm believer in having the work speak for itself after it has left my hands.
AVC: Did you intend this to be one of the gentler pieces in the On Tender Hooks show? Is there a continuum running through the show that parallels the idea of the "four humors"?
BCS: Many of the figures created for this exhibition, are caught in a state of inner turmoil, conflict, and reflection. "Rush," however, focuses more on intimacy and affection—positive human emotions. I know that not everyone will view it that way, but that’s part of what the viewer brings to the piece.
I sought to create characters that exemplified each of the basic four humor types: “Rush” is the sanguine, “Humiliation By Design” is the melancholic, “Loneliness” is the phlegmatic, and the choleric piece ended up not making it into the exhibition due to time restraints (I will be continuing this theme and these characters over the next year and a half). The smaller figures each embody combinations of the four personality types in various social and psychological situations.
In parallel, quite a few of the works in the exhibition deal with some of my own personal struggles in my career as an artist as well as the personal and autobiographical stories. The smaller works in particular seem to provoke a distanced or thoughtful reaction from the viewer rather than evoke a moment of intimacy. The three larger works are meant to engage this more visceral sense of empathy- using both human scale, gesture, and an indirect gaze to seduce the viewer into a sympathetic state. As a group, the medium and smaller pieces in the show return the gaze of the viewer, addressing the frame of the space and the context of the encounter in a confrontational manner. These emotional states require another's presence on which to focus their attention. Conversely, all three of the larger works are locked in private inward moments
AVC: Do you think the work changes when placed in a different context?
BCS: Definitely! I’m always considering the context the pieces will be shown in when I create the work. This includes not only the gallery space where it is first shown, but also how the pieces will relate to one another and create an installation type environment for the viewer. Once the pieces leave that environment and one another, they change, creating new identities for themselves. I find it fascinating to watch these pieces change and form new relationships, not only with the spaces but also with their new audience. My hope is that once these pieces leave their original environment they shed any need to be attached to my own voice or stories.
AVC: Do you think people would sympathize more with "Rush" if they saw it among the other sculptures?
BCS: I assume many people who have difficulty viewing the work alone might be more open to the image portrayed in "Rush" when contextualized with the other work. I also believe that the piece will be better contextualized within the Museum’s collection when the new wing of the Chazen is open next Fall.
AVC: "Your Eyes Have Their Silence" and "Humiliation By Design," among other works, depict the animal subjects in trapped or painful positions. Would you say that's a more prominent them in the show than the sexual theme of "Rush"?
BCS: Sexuality and pain are not so much themes in my work as tools I use to discuss more basic behavior and interaction. Ultimately I’m interested in why we treat each other the way we do.
AVC: In "Rush," one of the goats has his foreleg kind of folded up against the other goat's chest, which makes the motion of it look very sudden and spontaneous. Is there a certain violence or tension mixed in with the passion and tenderness?
BCS: With each element of the gesture between the two figures, I was ultimately striving to capture a complete moment- one that simultaneously displayed a spontaneous emotional response as well as having a very ‘heraldic’ and poised monumentality. I really love the interplay between positive and negative space in the gesture, yet I felt compelled to break the absolute symmetry between the two. With the one figure’s leg bent against the other’s body, I hoped to invoke a sense of spontaneity and immersion in the embrace…that feeling of being lost in the moment.
