Woman artists against men’ s privatization of erotic themes

The Mystets Gallery on Velyka Vasylkivska Street opened a traditional exposition timed to St. Xenia’s Day. Also traditionally the exposition represented four woman artists: Oksana Milovzorova, Oksana Stratiychuk-Berbeka, Oksana Kyrpenko, and Oksana Khodakovska. Writer Andriy Kurkov, a great fan of the four, held a round table with the celebrities. The subject, however, was not traditional. Andriy discovered that their works were different, but for the first time this year the theme was the same, an erotic one. The fashionable author wondered if Oksana had a special erotic connotation in Ukraine, making it different from other first names.

Milovzorova: There isn’t anything especially erotic about Oksana compared to other names. It all depends on the woman. Actually, I think that pictorial art seldom reflects the woman artist’s attitude toward the erotic theme and how she visualizes erotica. It is either seeing herself as a subject of inspiration and desire, or immediately switching to the noble subject of maternity.

A. K.: Yet there is a definite sensual touch to your exposition. There is an old anecdote about a sexually unbalanced patient being interviewed by a psychiatrist. He shows the patient pictures from magazines with pieces of furniture, chandeliers, tables, and things, asking him to describe what he sees. Naturally, all the patient can see is sex. Finally, he accuses the shrink of showing him nothing but pornography. Getting back to the exposition, what is actually erotic about Stratiychuk-Berbeka’s works? Is it her brightly colored flowers or parrots? Or vases? All one can see in her pictures is a beautiful decadent world.

Stratiychuk-Berbeka: I didn’t know it myself, but then Olha Lahutenko came and said, “There is nothing to be imagined here; a parrot is Yahweh’s travel companion and a major erotic symbol.”

A. K.: I myself have never considered the possibility of a woman as an observer of erotica. Usually, a woman is the object of erotica and only for men’s eyes. Remember what was considered sensual pictures in the early eighteenth century? Nicely dressed damsels with the skirts lifted slightly above the ankles. So what is erotica in women’s eyes?

Kyrpenko: Unfortunately, erotica has long been defeated by tasteless pornography; of course, there is no sense comparing a woman with her skirts slightly lifted to modern love scenes. Erotica is something with a piquant flavor hidden or half-disguised. A nude top model cannot have that flavor, especially if there is nothing you can’t see. There is nothing to look for. As for the erotic in a work of art, everything depends on our vision and whether we want to find it in a given picture. Erotica is a virtual notion, it is everywhere, in everything, but not for everyone to see. It is easier hidden than shown, and it is very personal.

A. K.: In other words, we’ve suddenly landed on the subject of not erotica as such but sensual understatement. So that now your exposition looks to me like a way to protest against erotica being debased by rude video products and photos, the kind we find in the Playboy or Lel.

Milovzorova: I protest only against men being the only ones to discuss the subject of erotica. Why should they privatize it? Can they understand beauty better? Erotica can only be beautiful. It’s time that women had their say on the matter. After all, women are bolder in showing their attitude toward erotica in music and literature.

Khodakovska: I don’t use the notions of erotica and pornography. Well, something could be present in my work, at the subconscious level, but consciously I never paint anything erotic.

A. K.: Yes, but it is also true that a lot of objects and subjects in literature and history are known to have become erotic symbols. That picture of yours shows three fountains with water running. In the Middle Ages water was considered a luxury and a fountain was an erotic symbol, let alone flowers and plants, especially if they looked as rapacious as they do in your pictures.

Milovzorova: Flowers are associated with women anyway, and I believe men should also be objects of erotica. They ought to regard themselves from the sidelines to see how sensual they look. As it is, they always want beautiful women with shining eyes and flowing hair, forgetting what they look like themselves: fat and flabby. We woman artists take an aesthetic view of the male body. We can admire it if it deserves it. I wish men thought this over and tried to measure up.

A. K.: Indeed, all men want to see nice forms and beautiful faces, slim figures, and at the same time seem not to notice their own reflections in the mirror.

Milovzorova: Yes, your principle is love me the way I am.

A. K: Granted, but erotica is something external after all is said and done. Outward attraction, an impulse carried by an image. What kind of men do not cause this impulse in you?

Kyrpenko: The outwardly unattractive ones.

A. K.: Say, could you assess a male passerby’s erotica?

Kyrpenko: I am for complete equality. A man could be regarded as an erotic object just like a woman. If he looks attractive I could be interested at first. Meaning that he has passed the first selection phase at the level of biocurrents. After that comes the time of deeper intellectual probing. If he passes muster — well, we could move further.

A. K.: And if he proves real handsome but empty-headed?

Kyrpenko: That’s not interesting, but there is a customer for every sort of merchandise.

A. K.: I’m glad to know you’re looking for quality goods. So far we have arrived at the assumption of the equality of the sexes, in terms of external reaction of one gender to the other. Now this is democracy reigning supreme! Even in the 1920s Soviet society never reached the level of erotic equality between men and women, although it was a time when the free love campaign turned into one under the motto “Down with Shame!”

Stratiychuk-Berbeka: Well, our exhibit is considerably more restrained. I am more interested in how an erotic still life is created than in the folds of flesh.

Khodakovska: It’s just that the girls wanted to paint something erotic but what came out was an exhibit about love in general.

A. K.: Meaning that male photographers are better at erotica than female artists?

Kyrpenko: No, simply that the word erotica is firmly associated in your mind with porno magazine pictures. Therefore, everything we may create will be received as soft porn. Yet we all agree that there will be more aesthetic elements in our soft erotica and this is what we must try to achieve. Such soft erotica is interesting in general, without distinguishing between the male watcher and female object.

A. K.: In other words, we are for raising the level of enigma in the sensual realm?

Milovzorova: Rather for raising the level of romanticism. Pornography can’t be romantic and erotica can.