Three giant ladies in bathing suits, coming to a town near you (as long as you live in Washington, DC). The National Museum of Women in the Arts is installing new public art by the late Niki de Saint Phalle in front of its headquarters on New York Avenue NW; the sculptures are meant to be “showstoppers, as contemporary as the last splash of pop art, as exaggerated as Las Vegas showgirls.” Just what our nation’s capital needs in the form of cultural institution-approved public art: go-go dancers as seen through a distorted Pop Art lens.
Niki de Saint Phalle (1930-2002)
A little background: Niki de Saint Phalle was a French artist who spent part of her youth in the United States (she was dismissed from Manhattan prep school Brearley for painting red fig leaves on statues on school grounds). Marriage and children by her early 20s caused a nervous breakdown; the recommended treatment was that she take up painting. A visit to Spain in her mid-20s instilled a lifelong idolatry of Gaudí, particularly the Park Güell; other artistic influences include her contemporary Jean Tinguely, who would become a collaborator on such projects as a fountain in front of then-President Miterrand’s town hall. (In 1971, she married him.) A particularly notable series of work by Saint Phalle is “Nanas,” life-size dolls of women, such as brides and mothers giving birth, usually dressed in white. In 1998, after two decades of work, her Tarot Garden project opened in Tuscany.
Which brings us to: why would Niki de Saint Phalle be considered as a viable option for a public testament to an American museum touting women in the arts? True, the museum’s scope is actually international in scale. But consider the content. Of the four sculptures, all 12 to 15 feet high, “one represents basketball icon Michael Jordan flying through the air, a hapless opponent unable to stop him.” The Washington Post goes on to say that NMWA “hopes the displays will bring some much-needed zing to its sector of downtown and spark interest in the 23-year-old museum.” (See: even bad press is good press?)
Saint Phalle’s are colorful, yes, and “bold,” in a certain sense, but they require little to no thought beyond the obvious. They certainly don’t represent any journey or progress on behalf of women. The proof? A quote from executive director of the Downtown D.C. Business Improvement District Richard Bradley, one of the “supporters who are banking on the appeal of the ‘Graces’ sculpture’s voluptuous hips: ‘Excitement and fun shouldn’t be out of our vocabulary.’”
The Grotto in Hanover; detail from the Stravinsky Fountain in front of Centre Pompidou, Paris
Comments (9)
A sadly uninformed article by Kelsey Keith. I give you a few keywords to look up in regards to Niki de Saint Phalle and her art: Nouveau Realism, the importance of Nanas (not painted white – those are her assemblages – but colorful, full-of-life women) in the 60′s and what it means world-wide to women and feminists, and the Black Heroes series of sculptures of which the Basketballer is only one (and BTW, the silver sculpture underneath the Basketballer is not a hapless opponent but a spirit that lifts him to unimaginable heights). Apparently, you have never been to the Tarot Garden in Italy…and you shouldn’t go: it’s a place too magical and inspiring for you. You basically rest your assessment of the upcoming installation on one !male! opinion about big breasts and buttocks…really sad for you. Really.
My point was that the only descriptors given for Saint Phalle’s work by the museum and community were “bold,” “vibrant,” “hip,” “fun,” and “zing.” All I’m asking for – which I don’t think is overreaching – is some context for why Saint Phalle is the best pick to represent a museum dedicated to women in the arts.
Jana, you answered that question more fully than anything stated in the Washington Post article.
If the Women’s Museum is indeed international in scope, than Niki de Sainte Phalle’s work is a perfect candidate for viewing. The fact that it is causing so much controversy should be grounds for display. Isn’t that the whole point of art? To inspire conversation, spark debates, and encourage us to consider something outside of our comfort level? I think that Phalle’s work is important, especially in the context of female artists, because of her vibrant use of color and female anatomy.
The sculptures will be changed out every 1-2 years–at least that’s the plan. Maybe they’re only one very small step above those awful painted fiberglass figures (cows, bulls, ad infinitum) that invaded every city, but in the sensory deprivation chamber that is this stretch of new York Avenue–a little art lite may not be so bad.
Couldn’t agree more. This art stinks by a very bad and commercial artist.
A shame they could not get better.
Actually in life Niki de Saint Phalle was very much against the Women in the Arts Museum and refused their approaches. Niki also did not like to show in only feminist exhibits and refused many offers during her life to do so. The supposed Niki “charitable” foundation is only interested in money and usually will show if their is an economic incentive for them to do so. Niki must be turning in her grave!
MAN IS THIS AWFUL STUFF!!! UGH… COULDN’T FIND BETTER/
i perrsonally admire the work of the fond artist before you, we have been anylsing her ork and making it our own and i feel you should not undermind the time it takes to just design one of theese scuptures let alone make one and feel you should also look into what you are sayind, id like to see you do better . i find you comments rater rude and think you should consider my comment . i hope you have not been affended by my post
I am very impressed with the Gnostic Ideas that were presented on this page
Please visit http://gnostictarotcards.blogspot.com to see my blog on the relationships between gnosticism and tarot..
Thank you
Post a new comment