MASTER THESIS
A PHOTOGRAPH AS SITE OF INTERSECTING THEMES
DASHA ZHUKOVA SEATED ON CHAIR INVESTIGATEDMaster Thesis Art History, University of Amsterdam supervisor: Dr. Miriam I.D van Rijsingen date of completion: July 2014
student: Uttam S.H. Raktoe student number: 6124267
email: uttamraktoe@mac.com words: 20.559
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 VISUAL ANALYSIS 6
3 INTERSECTING DISCOURSES 10
3.1 BJARNE MELGAARD, RECEPTION HISTORY 10
3.2 CHAIR (2013, BJARNE MELGAARD) 12
3.3 ALLEN JONES 13
3.4 FEMINISM 16
3.5 A CLOCKWORK ORANGE 18
4 DARIA (DASHA) ZHUKOVA 21
4.1 THE LIFE OF DASHA ZHUKOVA 21
4.2 WHAT PEOPLE THINK ABOUT DASHA ZHUKOVA 22
5 THE ART WORLD AND DASHA ZHUKOVA 26
5.1 DASHA ZHUKOVA AND FASHION 26
5.2 GARAGE CENTER FOR CONTEMPORARY CULTURE 27
5.3 MERGING ART AND FASHION THROUGH MAGAZINES 28
5.4 NEW HOLLAND 30
5.5 THINKING BIG, CROSSING BORDERS 30
5.6 THE WARHOL ECONOMY 31
6 THE ANTHROPOCENE 37
6.1 WHAT IS THE ANTHROPOCENE? 37
6.2 THE ANTHROPOCENE AND THE ARTS 39
6.3 THE ANTHROPOCENE IN RELATION TO CHAIR 41
6.4 AFFLUENZA, AN ABERRATION OF THE ANTHROPOCENE 42
CONCLUSION 45
LITERATURE AND SOURCES 49
1 INTRODUCTION
One particular image (image 1) is taken as the point of departure for this masters thesis. It is the photograph of a woman, Dasha Zhukova (1981, entrepreneur and gallery owner), seated on a remarkably designed chair. The photograph of the seated woman itself can be considered as a work of art. However the reactions to the disclosure of the photograph have sparked initial interest in a deeper research to what is to be seen. The analysis of the subject matter in the photograph has proved to be most stimulating to write this thesis on. A flood of reactions the photograph evoked after being published on January 21 2014 is what made it widely noted. It was the website of Büro 24/7 where the photograph first was published, the reactions were expressed in various media of which many online.1 The reactions to the photograph were varied and some were perhaps strong.
This does not surprise me, given the combination of elements shown. Even though most reactions are understandable, very few attempt to view the photograph as a starting point for further thinking. Few try to gauge what the intention of its separate elements as well as them combined, might be. I regard the photograph as a site where different themes and lines of discussion intersect.
First I will discuss a selection of these reactions to represent the general inclination in most. This selection is intended to emphasize that an in-depth interest and analysis of the visible elements in the photograph is lacking. 'Ultimately, Zhukova and the 'racist chair' remind us of imagery's potential to act as mirror, barometer, provocateur, and its tenuous existence as fodder at the
intersection of art, the internet, the media, and popular culture – powers Zhukova will no doubt be intensely mindful of in the future.'2 This remark ends suggestive without being explicit. In the
following case the possible intention of the artist behind the chair, Bjarne Melgaard (1967, artist) is guessed: 'His art may be in bad taste, but I am fairly sure that in making this chair he was not intending to denigrate black women.'3 Another reaction suggests the opposite: 'This is incredibly
racist,' As Helen Pow quotes the Organizing for Women's Liberation.4 Another one states: 'Russian
fashion editor sits on a black person posing as a chair; apologizes.'5 Thereby simplifying the image
to a spectacular headline that can be mistaken as news. A reaction of a different and more original kind is proposed by Alexander Kargaltsev (1985, artist). He reacted by creating a counter image (image 2). Original and titillating, he does not touch on the broader meaning of the offered visual information, reacting as most others did, from his own perspective. Some of the articles and reactions go into more detail of the chair as artwork. Others target the controversies of the artwork
1 Buro247.com. 2 Murray 2014. 3 Jones 2014. 4 Pow 2014. 5 Chan 2014.
of Melgaard. Racism as well as the pop art character of the chair is touched on. But little is being said about the chair as artwork, the meanings it contains and the reactions to existing discourses it offers us.
The relevance of this thesis will be demonstrated by analyzing various characteristics of the image in relation to each other, which have until now been underemphasized. The research has a starting point in the online outrage, which is unfortunately centered on the so called racist element of the chair. Unfortunate because, when focussing on racism alone, the art historical and socio-political discussions are neglected. Racism is part of cultural imagination, but I believe that in this photograph racism should not be regarded as separate field of research. Further exploration of the photograph will enable better understanding in a more comprehensive context. The image is relevant to discuss in relation to the work of Allen Jones, the artist behind the 1969 Chair (image 3). The spirit of his time determined the context of that artwork. The long lasting effect of Jones' work leading to Melgaard making his Chair in 2013 is necessary to explore further. Necessary to understand the photograph better. Melgaard revived the existing discussion as well as enriching it with new fuel for thought. He appropriated Chair. Melgaard used an existing artwork in order to voice a cultural critique. He made an artwork about culture, a pastiche. Pastiches nowadays are challenging the viewer to detect and decipher the fabric of a work without which many artworks today would offer only a banal aesthetic experience. The question whether a pastiche is recognized as such may determine the work's reception to a high degree.6 This thesis intends to offer an insight
in what lies beyond the aesthetic experience. While using Chair to express critique, it is at the same time an homage to an admired artist. It is an object to put forth an ideological critique which
transcends the codes of a parody.7 I believe Melgaard wanted to contribute to the feminist debate
and to the pop art element in Chair, by making a pastiche. By doing this he proves Chair to be an instrument to continue these discourses today. Furthermore I hopefully will clarify the relevance by analyzing Zhukova and how she positions herself in the world today, as celebrated art promoter, as pretty woman, as socialite-oligarch for whom there seems to be no limit in what is possible or even as courageous woman who makes things happen.
The theoretical framework of this thesis is composed of several elements, namely what is visible in the photograph and which discourses are being addressed. First a genealogical
investigation of the visual and contextual elements in the image is performed. Certain questions supported this investigation. For example: What do we see and which discourses are touched upon with this visual information? Who is in the photograph and why is she relevant? What is written
6 Hoesterey 1999: 82. 7 Hoesterey 1999: 86.
about Zhukova and the chair she is sitting on? The answers to these questions together with new questions that arose form a landscape of intersecting histories, stories and discourses. Some of these have been grouped to form research topics that lead to the chapters in this thesis. The research performed was of a predominantly art historical nature, while also borrowing from anthropology and the social sciences. A specific emphasis will be placed on the object Zhukova is sitting on,
Chair by Melgaard. Melgaard referred with his version of Chair to an artwork by Allen Jones
(Chair, 1969) which in itself was a reaction to contemporary changes in society being reflected in the art at the time. Another point of attention will be the woman being portrayed, Dasha Zhukova, and how she positions herself in the contemporary art scene, globally and generally but also in Russia and Moscow in particular. Because Zhukova and Chair are considered to be the most important elements in which various discourses intersect, these two will be investigated and revealed.8 All encountered information will be analyzed. To bring the acquired information to a
higher level, it will be researched what the photograph tells us about the relatively new idea of the Anthropocene. The Anthropocene is a discourse which in the past two decades has gained
momentum. During this time mostly scientists have engaged in the debate, but within the arts it is increasingly felt the Anthropocene needs to be reflected on. Chair can be seen as reflection on the Anthropocene. Whereas the actions of Zhukova can be seen as an extreme consequence of the Anthropocene.
Having laid out the focus and outline of the research topics, the following research question can be formulated. In what way does the photograph of Dasha Zhukova seated on Chair (2013) by Bjarne Melgaard relate to existing discourses? Certain supporting subquestions can be formulated as well. What do Chair (Allen Jones, 1969) and Chair (Bjarne Melgaard, 2013) tell us about third and second wave feminism? How does Dasha Zhukova and her art practice relate to contemporary art and the blurring of boundaries between art and other cultural practices? How does the
photograph relate to the notions of Anthropocene and affluenza? When focussing on Zhukova,
Chair in both versions, feminism, the Anthropocene and affluenza, other themes are not addressed.
These include the history beyond Chair by Jones and the mannequin as surrealist object.9
The structure of this thesis will be as follows. In chapter two a visual analysis of the photograph will be presented. This analysis will be initially of what is objectively visible in the image. In addition to the objective mentioning of visual cues a cautious interpretative view will be offered. Following the visual analysis, in chapter three more attention will be given to the chair and
8 The research centers around the person Dasha Zhukova and her practice as art entrepreneur, as well as the reception history of Allen Jones and Bjarne Melgaard.
9 The woman in Chair is sometimes referred to as a mannequin. A mannequin is a human made into an object, sparking conscious and unconscious dreams and thoughts. A mannequin is also a surrealist object which is not being investigated in this thesis.
Zhukova, followed by other relevant discourses such as pop art and feminism. A genealogical research forms the basis of this chapter. For this part of the thesis the reception history of the work of Jones as well as the work of Bjarne Melgaard has been investigated. The reception history of Jones has predominantly been distilled from exhibition catalogues, whereas the reception history of Melgaard was derived from catalogue texts as well as articles in newspapers and magazines.
Furthermore feminist theory has been researched with a focus on how second and third wave feminism have succeeded each other and how this sequence is represented in the photograph. For the feminist wave theory 'The Decentering of Second Wave Feminism and the Rise of the Third Wave' has been the most important supporting article.10 The fourth chapter will try to look further
behind who the person of Dasha Zhukova is and where she, metaphorically speaking, is coming from. This will help to sketch a context out of which her achievements will be explained. In this chapter most information is drawn from the few, mostly online, articles available about Zhukova. In chapter five Zhukova's accomplishments, especially in the art world, will be discussed. What did Zhukova achieve in the field of contemporary art? How did she do this? Where did she materialize these achievements and at what scale and impact? Besides, the wanderings of Zhukova in the fashion world will be brought to the attention and tried to connect to a broader understanding of how the contemporary art world functions around Zhukova and why it suits better to speak of a cultural scene. For this chapter many online articles have been used. For the last part of this chapter the book by Elizabeth Currid The Warhol Economy: how fashion, art, and music drive New York
City proved to be useful. Especially useful was the objective and scientific approach of Currid
towards analyzing the intertwining of art and other cultural practices.11 The chapters two till five
describe and analyze the information in the photograph. For these chapters a combination of genealogical, art historical and sociological research was performed. In the following chapter an interpretation will be presented. Chapter six introduces the notion of the Anthropocene and links this notion to contemporary art, in particular to the photograph. A theoretical understanding of the Anthropocene will be outlined. The article 'The Anthropocene: conceptual and historical
perspectives' contributed to create a general description.12 To see the Anthropocene in relation to
contemporary art the article 'Visualizing the Anthropocene' gave new insights.13 Supported with
other articles I will clarify what the Anthropocene entails and how this notion is applicable to the photograph and the actions of Zhukova. Towards the end of this chapter the notion of affluenza will be discussed and brought in relation to the Anthropocene and the practices of Zhukova. Hopefully
10 Archer Mann, Huffman 2005. 11 Currid 2007.
12 Steffen, Grinevald, Crutzen, McNeill 2011. 13 Mirzoeff 2014.
this connection will lead to an understanding of how the photograph can be seen as an outcome of what Zhukova advocates and in which context her manifestations can be placed. It will clarify why Zhukova went too far in having herself portrayed seated on Chair. And it will intend to explain the limitations of her practice. The relation between affluenza and the Anthropocene will be elaborated on as a possible extreme result of mans interference and therefore a contemporary and relevant phenomenon worthy of its own place in the discussion of what is key of our time. All of the above will come together in the conclusion and will be brought in relation to each other. The conclusion will attempt to answer the research questions.
2 VISUAL ANALYSIS
To come to a better understanding of what is conveyed by the photograph, a visual analysis is the starting point. The agency of a single photograph is considerable, when taking into account the varied reactions to it. The photograph shows a scene of different elements together. Each element has its own meaning and history and together they create a new set of meanings. This visual analysis is presented in segments. Firstly a formal description of the photograph is attempted. Next an analysis of the separate elements is given. The analysis is considered to be of paramount
importance for the research topics of this thesis. Thirdly an interpretative view of the visual information will be given. The goal is to lay the foundation before certain phenomena and
discourses related to elements in the photograph are explored in greater depth. Following from the analysis it will become clear that the photograph is initially considered to be an object in itself carrying its own merits. When describing two elements in depth, namely the person portrayed and the object she is seated on, these will be considered additional sources of information and
importance.
The photograph was published on January 21 on the website of Büro 24/7, which is described as: 'a cutting-edge, contemporary news website which covers the latest events from around the world and regionally in fashion, art, music, film, books, cars, travel, social life and much more'.14
Consequently the photograph gained considerable fame through this website as well as it being visible on the instagram account of the editor of the website, Miroslava Duma. Becoming an object of heated discussion, the photograph was reproduced in numerous articles in magazines,
newspapers and journals, both printed and online. These reproductions show a wide variety of dimensions, the photograph in the initial publication however was 223 x 301 and was published in color.
The photograph shows a scene of a woman in a domestic atmosphere seated on an object that functions as a seat or chair. The scene appears to be domestic because of the wall behind the seated woman, painted in a cream color including plinth. Hanging on the wall behind her, is a frame with an unclear image. It seems to be an out of focus black and white photograph, with three
persons posing in a domestic environment. Domestic because of yet another framed object hanging on a wall behind the three figures. In our photograph, the wall rests on a floor of a non contrasting color, probably covered with carpet. In front of the wall stands a long and narrow table. The table consists of a polished metal frame and what appears to be a wooden tabletop resting on it. On top of
the table are mounted three identical round mirrors on single polished metal feet which are assumed to be revolving, given the different positions of the mirrored plains. The set of table and mirrors could be functioning as a dressing table.
In front of the table on the floor lies an irregularly shaped pile carpet, white in color, which possibly is the prepared skin of an animal, a sheep for instance. Situated on the pile carpet, is the object on which the portrayed woman is seated. The object is made up of the shape of a woman, with a dark brown skin, wearing short black leather pants, long black leather high heeled lace-up boots and long black leather gloves. Since it is obviously not a living creature, it will be referred to as a mannequin. The mannequin lies on her back, with her legs bent onto her chest, leaving her lower legs pointing upwards. The position appears to be unnatural and uncomfortable to adopt and this assumption is underlined by a belt holding the legs tightly together against the chest of the mannequin. Consequently her breasts bulge out from underneath her legs on the sides of her torso. The mannequin has her arms lying flat on the floor next to her torso and she is lifting her head off the floor. By doing so, her gaze is clearly in a specific direction, namely towards the seated person. Furthermore the mannequin has a full head of hair, black and curly, hanging from her head onto the pile carpet. From what is possible to make out from the face, her mouth is slightly held open and her lips are pink. The eyes are wide open and the mannequin has pronounced eyebrows. On her cheeks as well as on arms, breasts and legs lines of darker purple paint or make up have been applied. What strikes in the photograph is the flawlessness of the mannequin. Her hair, even though it is hanging loose, is maintaining an almost perfect curl. Her skin is unblemished and shining. The boots and clothes she is wearing are form fitting. Despite her uncomfortable position, there are no signs of physical deficiencies, discomfort and no excess fat. The purpose of the painted stripes on her arms, legs, breasts and cheeks as mentioned earlier remains unclear. Possibly they serve to enhance the image of a woman, at least a perfected model of a woman made into an object which has been transformed into a piece of furniture. Looking more closely at the part of the mannequin designed to function as a seat, her lower legs are parted and pointing upwards. They serve as a backrest. Resting on the backside of her upper legs is a padded cushion, covered in black leather. The entire seat is seen from the side, slightly turned in a way that it shows more of the back of the chair. The chair is fabricated of mixed media (fiberglass resin, human hair, leather, sheep skin, steel, acrylic paint, enamel paint, glass, lucite) and the dimensions are approximately 147 x 76 x 66 centimeter, including the pile carpet.15
Seated on the chair is a woman. Starting from the bottom and moving upwards, she is bare feet. Her toenails are painted red. She is wearing a pair of tight blue jeans, leaving the ankles and
lower part of the legs uncovered. She is also wearing a white blouse, closed towards the neck except for two or three buttons, with a high double collar, covering most of her neck. Her hair is brown and tied at the back. Regarding the pose of the woman, she is seated on her own left leg, with her right leg folded over the other. Her arms loosely hanging down and resting on her legs. In order to be visible for the camera, her seated position is turned towards the left, taking into account the
orientation of the chair. Her face is turned towards the camera and also her eyes look to the left into the lens. She is keeping her lips slightly apart. Now that the image has been visually described in detail, let us take a general look. What strikes one is the lack of bright colors. Browns, white and off-whites, as well as black are seen. The only hint of color is the light blue of the jeans the woman is wearing. Somehow naturally the darker colors are concentrated at the lower half of the
photograph. The blouse of the portrayed woman, is a clearer white than the rest of the light colors and therefore her upper body stands out as the visual center of the image.
In the next chapter the chair and its genealogical history will be outlined. In addition the relevant discourses the chair refers to, will be researched. In order to make the transition between this visual analysis and the art historical explanation a logical one, a closer look will be taken at the relationship between the woman and the chair. Following the description of the chair, there is more to be said about the mannequin. The physical position she assumes is not an easy one. Not
impossible in real life, but also not easy nor comfortable. The leather belt, keeping the legs bent against the torso seems to emphasize the difficulty it would take to keep such a position, once in that position it needs fixing, in order not to move back to a pose corresponding to a relaxed state. By lying on her back with the legs in the air and apart, the mannequin looks exposed and
vulnerable. Irrespective of the clothing covering her nudity, the emphasis lies on the lack of space for her breasts under the legs as well as her behind, which is turned away from us, but sparks some interest as to what it will look like. Having her head turned slightly upwards together with her facial expression add to the transcendence of the chair as just being an object to sit on. It shows she is not a lifeless woman. In fact, she is looking up, from underneath her difficult pose, to the sitter. With parted lips, pretty features, well made-up face and her black leather clothing, the mannequin appears to be a figure in a functional way as if she were instrumentalized. Her pose, clothing, exposed vulnerability, make up and facial expression together render the mannequin a distinct sexual connotation. A person made to serve a purpose, to be subordinate, to be more object than subject. The sexual connotation is enhanced by the mannequin as supporting element for a chair. The chair is an example of applied art and the use implies touching the artwork, even sitting on it. Therefore sitting on the scarcely dressed mannequin becomes a possibility, as is demonstrated by Zhukova.
Focussing again on the seated woman. She is in some ways the opposite of the object she is sitting on. She appears to be in a comfortable position. Her clothing does conceal her nudity well, while at the same time appearing unmistakeably feminine. She chose to wear no shoes, as opposed to the uncomfortable high heels of the mannequin. Her facial expression is charming and elegant, not servile in any way. Her hair is nonchalantly put together with a few hairs out of place. In short, the portrayed woman seems to be relaxed, she exudes calmness and control. And she is seated on the mannequin. She is using the mannequin as a place to rest, relax and pose. Using the mannequin to sit on connotes a reference to racism. The racist reference was reflected on by the many reactions to the photograph. The comfortably seated caucasian Zhukova and the uncomfortably positioned black mannequin point at an hierarchy between the two just because the one is sitting on the other, using it to rest.
To summarize, there exist contrasts between the two female figures. A contrast between being in service versus being in control. A contrast of the contorted position versus being relaxed and comfortable. A contrast between artificially perfected appearance versus nonchalant elegance. A contrast of ethnicity, showing through their different skin color. And a contrast of object versus subject. Keeping in mind the subjective character of these last two paragraphs, they are meant to be bridging the space between the dry visual description of the photograph and the art historical elaboration that will follow in the next chapter. I believe these contrasts are exactly the reason why so many reactions were evoked following the photograph's publication. Therefore the individual elements as well as their interrelation need further investigation.
3 INTERSECTING DISCOURSES
At first in this chapter the reception history of Melgaard and Jones will be researched. Being from different eras, it should be realized that the written sources for both of them are of a different character. In Jones' time public reception and critique were separate realms. Art critique functioned as gatekeeper and value giving forces, critics determined what was valuable. Compared to now, there was relatively little attention in publications for public reception of art. Art critique in our time has become more opinionated than before, besides there is more attention for public reception. As announced in the introduction, feminist discourse in relation to Chair will be investigated. I will argue that the photograph and especially Chair represent a development in feminist theory. To further illustrate the spread of references following the genealogical research, the last part of this chapter will be dedicated to the appearance of forniphilia in the film A Clockwork Orange.16
3.1 BJARNE MELGAARD, RECEPTION HISTORY
Having presented an analysis of the chair and its sitter we will now take a closer look at the chair as object. The chair looks like a woman lying down, the fabricated character of it make the chair more object than woman. Since the work was made by the artist Bjarne Melgaard, the historical line of references to other artworks is clearly traceable and therefore the chair is to be regarded as art object. The knowledge brought forward by analyzing the genealogy of Chair may help for a more comprehensive understanding of the photograph and consequently in possibly answering some of the research questions formulated in the introduction. The genealogical research will tell us more about the discourses the artwork is both addressing and representing. As point of departure is chosen the here and now, after which references in the past will be investigated. The here and now starts with the artist behind the chair, Bjarne Melgaard. Melgaard was born in 1967 in Sydney, Australia, from Norwegian parents. At present Melgaard lives and works mostly in New York, the United States of America. At first a general glance at the reception history of Melgaard will be given. An unsurprising sketch of the artistic practice of Melgaard is found in the catalogue of a group exhibition held in 1995-1996 at the Arken Museum of Modern Art, which states:
If these artists deal with form, it is to challenge cultural codes or violate social formalities. […] it is not to find clarity in the act of seeing or thinking, but to act out the mental and emotional
contradictions that confound our so-called real world.17 […] Bjarne Melgaard envisions the tragic
narrative of a gay martyr as an elaborately melodramatic mutant waxworks tableau populated by hybrid monsters and freaks, who internalize social prejudices and fears while externalizing an
16 A Clockwork Orange 1962. 17 Levin 1996-1997: 13.
eroticized delirium. They test the limits of the physically and psychically tolerable.18
Levin describes here, years before Chair was realized, how Melgaard uses visual language to test physical as well as psychical limits. To look for the limits of what is tolerable is not surprising, when comparing it to his recent work and Chair. It appears this characterization remains present throughout his artistic practice. Melgaard's practice seems the outcome of a deep crisis in his artistic existence, as investigated by Stijn Huijts (1959, artistic director and writer): In 1995 Melgaard wrote Casanova in de South Pacific: a novel, marking a turning point in his career. Before writing it, he wanted to abandon being a visual artist, but afterwards he chose to continue, following a new path. From then on Melgaard rejects imposed artistic taboos in his non categorical approach.19 The
novel itself is only partly narrating a coherent story. Chapter numbers are sequenced like the outcome of a lottery, as if Melgaard wants to underline the non chronological character of his words, in order to emphasize the fragmented way of having put his words on paper. What strikes when reading Casanova in the South Pacific: a novel is at one point the use of stereotypes within a single conversation, namely Casanova, Hitler and Jock.20 This is an example of a strategy in his
artistic practice not attempting to influence nor criticize tendencies or phenomena in the outside world but to communicate his inner, semi-private obsessions to the world outside. Melgaard seeks to find a form and a visual strategy by which to translate the individual into a work that can be grasped by a collective entity such as the public. Although he makes no clear statements, his suggestions have a peculiar penetrative force.21 Ann Demeester (1975, artistic director, critic)
describes the practice of Melgaard while circumnavigating the resulting clash in public reception of his works, unlike Clémentine Deliss (1960, curator). Deliss stated in the same catalogue about Melgaard that he is not ready to play into the hands of the current overriding legitimation of
consensus. Political correctness, or sympathetic and concerned interventionism could not be further removed from his specific preoccupations. He is looking for impulses that he can use to pin-point the world around him, to make sense of attraction and repulsion, and educe the dissenting
mechanics of desire.22 In a sociological way of reflecting on his practice, Beate Ermacora (curator)
says: Melgaard asks himself urgent questions about identity and the construction of identity and this is precisely his point of departure. How people position themselves in society. This path leads him to subcultures in which instances of the production and representation of the self play a major role.23
18 Levin 1996-1997: 15-16. 19 Huijts 1997: 13-14.
20 Melgaard 1995: pages not numbered. 21 Demeester 2002: 28.
22 Deliss 2002: 71. 23 Ermacora 2002: 66.
In a relatively recent description retrospectively looking at the practice of Melgaard the effect of his art is estimated by virtue of the continuous attention it receives.
We can say that Melgaard's art has been positively received by Norwegian critics. Even though he sometimes pricks their sense of morality, the serious and consistent reviewers continue to pay attention to his ongoing artistic project. His work represents something different in the Norwegian art scene, for which it is both valued and criticized. The fact that Melgaard immediately placed himself on the outskirts of the Norwegian art milieu certainly provided him with an aura of independence and originality. He has continued to provoke both disgust and admiration, but at the same time he has remained something of a mystery, a personality about whom there are many rumors but few firm facts. His anti-minimal, anti-conceptual works dwell on cruelty and excess. [...] Melgaard's concern is aesthetics, not ethics, and throughout his career he has moved towards the borderlines of the sexual impulse.24
In this section the artist practice of Melgaard was reviewed by ways of its reception. In the next part I will look more closely at what has been written about Chair.
3.2 CHAIR (2013, BJARNE MELGAARD)
The first time Chair was exhibited, was at an exhibition, curated by Melgaard at Venus Over
Manhattan, GANG BUST.25 Here paintings of William N. Copley (1919-1996), who dubbed himself
CPLY, were exhibited. CPLY mixed eroticism, symbolism, whimsy and darkness and in doing so emerged as a mediator between European postwar art and American pop art. Melgaard for this exhibition using the pseudonym Big Fat Black Cock Inc. (BFBC), repainted Caucasian figures from the paintings of CPLY, in the same style but as African-Americans. Besides the paintings by the two artists furniture was also exhibited. This furniture is an appropriation of the work of Allen Jones (1937), who emerged as a contemporary of CPLY. BFBC made objects borrowing from forniphilia or human furniture, Hatstand, Table and Chair. Originally shaped according to idealized Caucasian female figures, BFBC again used African-American bodily characteristics. Melgaard is regarded as an artist who rejects the status quo in politics, sexuality, morality, good taste, good citizenship and the accepted values of the art world.26 Following this exhibition came the usual reviews, but without
the outcry of disgust nor a widespread expression of non acceptance because of the use of the African-American imagery.
Less than a year after GANG BUST the photograph was published. The reactions represent a plethora of opinions and emotions, as has been laid out in the introduction. Some of the reactions
24 Ueland 2010: 26-27.
25 GANG BUST. Exhibition, New York: Venus Over Manhattan, 2013. 26 GANG BUST. Press release. 2013: pages not numbered.
however stand out. Wieteke van Zeil (critic) emphasizes the importance of looking at it in a certain context. It is an object, by an artist who is known for his transgressing art. Some find him too provocative, others find his work an effective confrontation with moral ambiguity and that of society. The chair is a comment on existing conventions and hypocrisy, not an affirmation of it.27
What certainly is worth mentioning is the reaction in name of the artist.
I think Bjarne would probably be entertained by this. He has not apologized. I don't think the furore will worry him, acceptance is not the goal and he doesn't subscribe to the European politically correct attitude of placating cultural expectations. He's certainly not racist, and used to have a black boyfriend.28
What strikes is that Melgaard does not get seriously involved in the discussion about what the implications of the photograph with Zhukova on his Chair could be. Melgaard thereby stays faithful to the agency of his visual language. The art critic Ashton Cooper stated that the sculptures by Melgaard exist to destabilize and unhinge our notions of race, sex and power. They expose the latent and residual self hatred in a culture where the inhuman and overpowering presence of violence and catastrophe is imminent. Our tragedy is so evident in our daily experience that Melgaard has nothing left to portray but society in its utter decay. We see this photograph to be extraordinary, but the sculptures are based on the Allen Jones originals.29 In the next section the
work and reception of Jones will be researched.
3.3 ALLEN JONES
In our process of discovering the meanings behind the photograph a leap in time will be made. According to the press release of GANG BUST, the pastiches of the sculptures of Jones by Melgaard happened side by side with the reworking of paintings by CPLY.30 Jones and CPLY emerged during
the same period after World War II. This period sees a concentration of attention towards Abstract Expressionism. A few years later, around the mid fifties, another artistic phenomenon emerges, pop art. Pop art is used for art wherein visual language is borrowed from popular culture. This term is linked to the change in lifestyle of the fifties and sixties in the United States of America and
Western Europe. Influenced by the beat generation and sexual emancipation, pop art changed modes of perception and behavioral patterns and rendered new concepts of objects and art. Pop art takes
27 Zeil 2014.
28 Butter quoting Pollock 2014. 29 Cooper 2014.
over shapes from the commercially oriented mundane world in order to transplant them as
dispassionately as possible into the minds and perception of its viewers. Pop art accepted the world of commodities and mass media and turned it into the object of their artistic endeavors, avoiding mostly a direct criticism.31 In those days wealth grew explosively. Magazines with sensational news
items sprung up. Stardom grew enormously, bringing icons with them. These icons were used in advertisements in television, magazines and cinema. The icons became models of the face of consumerist culture. Traditional role patterns of women were enlarged through these
advertisements, creating favorite themes for pop art. The glorification of unrealistic beauty ideals where women were depicted as sexualized beings were parodied.32 As such pop recognizes that
consumerism had changed the appearance of the world. Art had to draw on the new contents and developed new forms accordingly.33 Jones followed in this mode of artistic use of public imagery
and mocked the depiction of female models.34 Besides feminists, others reflected on Jones as well.
Jones allegedly succeeded in disguising his artistic intentions. As such the perception of the art and the psycho-physical reaction to the sexual shock helped to suppress rather than awaken or even answer the question about the art and its special qualities.35 The visual themes in Jones' work
developed after a year spent in New York, during the mid 1960s. After this time his work changed, his subject matter became explicitly erotic, inspired by the wealth of sexual imagery in American popular illustration. Here Jones explored a sexual world of fetishes and fixations populated by icy fantasy women dressed in stockings and stiletto heels.36 Jones learned from the use of color by
American pop artists.37 His methodology concerned drawing of the human figure, produced outside
of the realm of fine art. Jones started collecting images from mail order catalogues. His intention was not to make an anti art statement but to see if it was possible to be original in imagery without relying on personal expressiveness.38 The non-reliance on personal expressiveness is a characteristic
of pop art in general.39 From 1965 onwards Jones started making three dimensional objects. In his
intention Jones does not differ from other pop artists. Jones does not want to show the world surrounding us. Jones is searching for solutions of painterly problems such as what space is and how to portray speed.40 In his work Jones, like pop in general, registers alterations in conflating the
31 Schrage 2001: 39-40. 32 Wouterse 2012-2013: 49-50. 33 Foster 2005: 18. 34 Wouterse 2012-2013: 50. 35 Peters 1979-1980. 36 Gilmour 1997: 23. 37 Livingstone 1995: 19. 38 Livingstone 1995: 21. 39 Foster 2005: 18-19. 40 Allen Jones 1969: 1-3.
painterly and photographic and the handmade and ready-made.41 This search works two ways, on a
flat canvas painted forms appear sculptural and his three dimensional works are painterly.42 Besides
by approaching his art as a quest searching for the overt eroticism, Jones intends to capture the attention of the viewer, before intellectual preconceptions take over. Jones believes people often glance at an artwork without examining it with any real interest. Therefore the immediate
involvement, acquired through the use of eroticism, may be usefully solicited on a level other than purely aesthetic.43 Jones is not appealing to the spectator's lust. Jones wants with a physiological
impulse to trigger an intellectual understanding.44 What Jones comments on is the notion of women
as objects and on strongly contested issues of the active feminist movement.45 The irony inherent in
the work of Jones is that personality and details are eliminated for perfection of image. The
variations within the human form are masked in Jones' work while still suggesting fidelity to natural appearances. Thereby the figures are not counterfeits but exaggerations of the truth.46 Jones is
neither promoting nor condemning any particular aspect of sexuality, rather he is reflecting back society's own concerns to spark deliberation and discussion of questions of fundamental social importance. With exaggerated anatomy and idealized and therefore non human shapes,
expressionist involvement of the artist was not required, underlined by the use of a professional sculptor for manufacturing, Dick Beech. The result was furniture, Hatstand, Table and Chair. In these pieces Jones mocks the depiction of women as sexualized beings. Feminists accused Jones of showing the woman as subordinate beings. They argued that the stylized women with perfected features, wearing high heels and little clothing could be seen as objects of fetishization.47,48 There
was however no intention to gesticulate violence towards women.49 The idea of human figures as
furniture was meant to dislocate expectations of the viewer. Eroticism, as said before, is part of an urge to draw the viewer into the experience of the work of art. The figures are not people but painted signs in order to arouse and manipulate various emotions.50 Eroticism provoked by the
mannequin was mentioned before. Furniture as applied arts creates the possibility of touching the art. This implies an eroticizing effect as well. And with Chair the touch becomes even more salient compared to an object without a human figure.51
41 Foster 2005: 19. 42 Sculpture.org.uk. 43 Livingstone 1979: 78. 44 Livingstone 1979: 83. 45 Koutsomallis 2005: 15. 46 Livingstone 1979: 71-72. 47 Wouterse 2012-2013: 50.
48 This is the only written source I found which mentions critical reception of Allen Jones by feminists. It can safely be assumed that this critique was supported by a broader public.
49 Livingstone 1979-1980: pages not numbered. 50 Livingstone 1979-1980: pages not numbered.
3.4 FEMINISM
Having discussed the artist practice and reception of Melgaard, the maker of the chair in the photograph and Jones, the maker of Chair in 1969, another discourse needs to be broached:
feminism. Depending on the background of the individual looking at it, the photograph will contain different meanings. This variation shows through the angry reactions after publishing the
photograph, reactions that Zhukova probably did not anticipate. There are various ways of
approaching feminist theory and the history and development of feminism. The approach chosen in this section will be described first. Thereafter the theory is brought in connection with what we see in the photograph.
Often the history of feminism is referred to in waves. Even though the struggle for equality on multiple levels and fields has been a perpetual and ubiquitous one, dominant structures can be deciphered in which achievements were made and metaphorically referred to in waves. The added value of thinking in waves helps to describe mass based feminist movements.52 First wave feminism
mainly occurred in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. During this period feminists fought for equality in for instance marriage, parenting and property rights. The main achievement during this wave was the gradual implementation of female suffrage. Second wave feminism gained momentum in the early 1960s and continues to the present. In second wave feminism, among a multitude of issues, the main goals concerned ending discrimination of women, improve
emancipation and create a consciousness of female sexuality and self determination. The second wave meant a broader take on the issues of the first wave. Third wave feminism is different in that it did not follow up as a continuation of its predecessor. The generation following the second wave feminists felt that certain issues were under addressed, wrongly voiced and by people not connected to their problematics. Third wave feminism emerged in the 1980s out of the second wave but also in many ways against second wave feminism. This development will be elaborated on taking as
guidance the article 'The Decentering of Second Wave Feminism and the Rise of the Third Wave.' by Susan Archer Mann and Douglas J. Huffman.53 The article is rooted in American feminist
discourse. I argue that American feminism is relevant here, since Zhukova, Melgaard and Jones either were or are based in the United States of America for an important phase during their careers.
Third wave feminism contained four major perspectives: intersectionality theory, postmodernism and poststructuralism, feminist postcolonial theory and the agenda of young
feminists. These new perspectives are grounded in Marxist-feminist thinking, being that theories of emancipation can be blind to their own dominating and restrictive tendencies. The effect of
52 Archer Mann, Huffman 2005: 58. 53 Archer Mann, Huffman 2005.
emancipation, especially talking about second wave feminism, can evoke counter discourses producing new knowledge and constituting new powers. What is meant is that emerging out of second wave feminism, new powers emerged, which decentered the very second wave of feminism. Inadequacies within second wave feminism gave rise to criticism, not to undermine the feminist movement, but to reconfigure and enhance it, to make it more diverse and inclusive. Early third wave feminism is marked by pioneering women of color and ethnicity, whereas second wave feminism is a mainly essentialist approach ignoring differences among women.54 White women
focussed on their oppression and ignored differences in race, sexual preference, class and age, as if there was a homogeneity of experience by women.55 It was felt that second wave feminism contrary
to its goal to unify, achieved the opposite. According to Wini Breines (sociologist) an abstract anti racism characterized much of the theory and politics of white feminism. White feminists wrote about other women but seldom interacted socially with them.56
Roughly between 1975 and 1985 feminist perspectives shifted from being based on politics towards being identity based. Identity politics means that your identity is taken as political point of departure, making it difficult to build connections based on differences. The advocates of identity politics were critical of the categorization of women based on race, ethnicity, class and sexual orientation. This development, which was characteristic of American feminism, lumped women together in the political arena while focussing less on their diversities. Patricia Hill Collins in the 1990s started using the term intersectionality theory. Collins wrote that no one group possesses the theory to discover an absolute truth or normative theory. This reasoning forms a new epistemology, sharing with postmodernism and poststructuralism assumptions about power and knowledge. The postmodern approach following identity politics lead to politics based on non-identity in order to undermine hegemonic regimes of discourse. Politics based on non-identity sees identity as a
construct of language, discourse and cultural practice. Identity politics affirm identities, reproducing dominant discourses and power. Intersectionality theory wants to show the failure of essentialism through deconstruction. Different sources of knowledge can exist next to each other as opposed to a hierarchical ordering. This approach bypasses master narratives while simultaneously elevating marginalized voices and moving them to the center, effectively decentering dominant discourses.57
Together with globalization in the 1980s feminism was also affected. Analysis of feminism transformed from a societal to a global level and included theories and descriptive accounts of how relations between local and global processes affect women in different social locations across the
54 Archer Mann, Huffman 2005: 56-59.
55 Archer Mann, Huffman quoting Lorde 2005: 59-60. 56 Archer Mann, Huffman quoting Breines 2005: 60-61. 57 Archer Mann, Huffman 2005: 61-65.
globe.58 Again essentialism is deconstructed during this period based on differences. Women seen as
homogeneous category does no right to women worldwide, robbing them of their historical and political agency. Chandra Talpade Mohanty demanded recognition of heterogeneity of women in the third world to undermine essentialism. Gayatry Spivak stated that there is nothing essential about categories like working-class or third-world women. Women must think of themselves as agent of change and not as victim. Otherness according to Mohanty reveals how binary thinking entails hidden hierarchies. Implying that besides being different, you are seen as lesser.59,60
Women of color and ethnicity belonging to the younger generation feminists felt condescended on and being excluded. These feelings fostered the decentering of second wave feminism. They embraced a prevailing of mini narratives over theory.61 Personal stories functioned
as bridge to larger political and theoretical explorations of the third wave. Clever use of media was used to convey and expose the social construction of reality through contradictions. The new generation embraces hybridity and contradictions are celebrated as a way to resist identity and categorization. What makes the difference between second and third wave feminism evident, is the openness and freedom of the younger generation, where vigilante violence, eroticized violent rape and supermodels are ways to deal with plurality. Power feminists advocate pretty power, pussy power and sexual energy without derogating the subject as lesser, unintelligent or incapable but instead as powerful and intelligent. Others criticize power feminism, seeing it as a disguise for conservatism, consumerism and sexism.62 In post-Fordist times mass culture intertwined with
consumerism, resulting in a sea of signs and symbols blurring the line between artifice and reality. Following social, economical and political changes the production of knowledge of difference within feminism thought partly moved from activism to academic discourse. Third wave feminism created the possibility to relate discourses, knowledge and power. Blindness towards concerns of colored women lead to feelings of domination and restriction. Counter discourses emerged which undermined the second wave. New ways of understanding gender relations were produced.63
3.5 A CLOCKWORK ORANGE64
In 1962 Anthony Burgess (1917-1993, writer and composer) wrote a novel called A Clockwork
Orange. After having made and exhibited his sculptures Chair, Hatstand and Table in 1969, Jones
58 Archer Mann, Huffman 2005: 66.
59 Archer Mann, Huffman quoting Mohanty 2005: 67. 60 Archer Mann, Huffman quoting Spivak 2005. 67-68. 61 Archer Mann, Huffman 2005: 70.
62 Archer Mann, Huffman 2005: 71-72. 63 Archer Mann, Huffman 2005: 82. 64 A Clockwork Orange 1962.
was approached in 1970 by Stanley Kubrick (1928-1999, film director, screenwriter, producer, editor). Kubrick asked Jones to design part of the film he was planning to make, based on the novel by Burgess. In this story a future passive socialist state with totalitarian overtones is sketched. The thesis of the story is that the only means of self-expression or freedom left to the individual is hooliganism. The protagonist, Alex, is an almost adult schoolboy who leads a nightmarishly violent life at night with a gang of three other young men beside him. They attack defenseless people, loot, rape, fight and destroy. The hangout of this group of men is the Korova Milk Bar (image 4). When Kubrick approached Jones he explained that the bar in its design would be the pivot around which the ideas expressed through the forniphilia would emerge.65 However it did not come to a
collaboration between Jones and Kubrick. According to Jones, Kubrick thought his fame would be enough credit for Jones' work, making a fee unnecessary. Jones refused, however the idea of the Korova Milk Bar and its furniture designs materialized. Ironically many continue believe Jones made the pieces.66 Besides the anecdotal value of the history of the forniphilia and without
explaining the plot of the film, it is worth realizing the importance of the forniphilia. I have
discussed several examples of applied arts which are supporting a critical view on what the future of society might look like.
In this chapter I have tried to sketch the varied discourses that Chair is commenting on. The reception history of Melgaard should clarify why his version of Chair fits in his development as visual artist. Being an artist who wants to question phenomena and offer possibilities to the viewer for critical reflection. Jones created his Chair as comment on changes in society then. Pop art reflected on mass culture and consumerism. Jones applied eroticism as part of a strategy to capture the attention of the viewer. At the same time Jones investigated painterly and sculptural problems. With the section on feminism what has hopefully become clear is that within feminist thought over the years major changes have taken place. The result is a diversified and more inclusive arsenal of knowledge analogous to changes in general theory and knowledge production. Chair in both the version of 1969 as well as the one from 2013 is an exponent of how these changes have seeped through in society and reflected on in the visual arts. In 1969 Chair reflected on feminist discourse by questioning female emancipation in relation to how women were depicted in popular culture. In 2013 other dimensions are discernible. Power feminism is enhanced in comparison to 1969 letting the mannequin look straight at the sitter while simultaneously women of color are being
represented. The visual arts being a way of testing, provoking, titillating and evoking physical and
65 Messina, Boston 1971: 18. 66 Gayford 2007.
psychical limits in the individual, while at the same time able to be grasped by a collective public. Visual arts also make it possible to touch on discourses without necessarily making a clearcut statement, as is the case with Chair. However the question of identity and its construction is laid bare demonstratively. In 1969 the work of artist Jones was categorized as pop art. In 2013 Melgaard is seen as a contemporary artist, gay and known to provoke with his work. In his work smaller narratives are being addressed. This makes his Chair containing more layers, or at least not part of a single discourse. What is also clear is that through pastiches of previous artworks older discourses are raked up and the development of them over time gets a visual impulse. The voids that existed in second wave feminist theory are being questioned by this photograph. Voids which were felt
through individual contexts and which are progressively addressed in third wave feminist theory. In
A Clockwork Orange a critical voice is uttered towards elements or developments in society and the
criticism is given a platform through the artistic work of a celebrated film director resulting in the film and the book being well known until today. To strengthen the critical voice, the human figure as furniture created by Jones, served a supporting role. Now that the object in the photograph has been elaborated on in four strands of theory and practice, it is time to focus on the portrayed women, Dasha Zhukova, as well as looking closer at her practice as art promoter.
4 DARIA (DASHA) ZHUKOVA
Who is Dasha Zhukova? What kind of person is she? Some see her as a socialite and It-girl.67
Others see her as one of the best known figures on the international art scene, the art world's prima czarina or fashion impresario.68 In order to create a picture of her as comprehensive as possible at
first we will look at the personal background of Zhukova. Which ways did she follow in order to become the person she is known to be now? My intention is not to create a full biography. To give an overview of her life, the available sources have been used, being mostly online articles.
Subsequently I will try to sketch the personality of Zhukova through the articles of others about her. How have others experienced or analyzed the woman portrayed? In the following chapter a closer look at her practice in the art world will be given. These two chapters combined are intended to enhance the understanding of how the photograph of Zhukova on Chair fits in her thinking and practice.
4.1 THE LIFE OF DASHA ZHUKOVA
Daria Zhukova is often referred to by her nickname Dasha. She was born in 1981 in Moscow, Soviet Union and consequently spent her childhood there. Her mother, Elena is a molecular
biologist who met Zhukova's father, Alexander, while they both studied at university. They divorced three years after they got married. Zhukova in her young years in Moscow was surrounded by scientists, writers and linguists through her family ties and acquaintances. Her mother calls this the usual normal Moscow intelligentsia. After her divorce, mother Zhukova left for Houston, United States of America, in 1991. Mother Zhukova took her then ten year old daughter with her. In the mean time Zhukova's father formed an energy trading company which became the industry's most important and gained considerable wealth, enabling Zhukova to live a privileged life.69 In Texas
Zhukova attended private school, later they moved to Los Angeles where she studied Slavic studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara and majored in Russian literature.70 Professor Katia
McClain remembered Zhukova as a thoughtful and unassuming student. After graduating in 2003, Zhukova showed interest in medicine, but instead of studying medicine, she decided to direct her attention towards alternative medicine. This period is remembered by her mother as if Zhukova was in search for her own identity, a time of trial and error. Her father, invited her to London where he lived at the time.71 Father Zhukova taught his daughter to have an attentive eye towards her
67 Ioffe 2010: 62. 68 Silva 2010. 69 Ioffe 2010: 62.
70 Some sources mention Slavic studies. 71 Ioffe 2010: 62.
surroundings, by looking at architecture.72 In London Zhukova enrolled in the College of
Naturopathic Medicine. Having lived a privileged life until then, in London it turned truly glamorous, spending her free time partying with royalty and children of other tycoons. Together with childhood friend, Christina Tang, they launched a clothing line Kova & T, in 2006. During this time she learned about the fashion industry, fabric, distribution and sales. The brand was noticed by Hollywood celebrities. At the same time she made artist friends, enjoying their creative spirits and inspiration.73 In 2005 Zhukova met Roman Abramovich (1966, businessman, investor and
politician), then the wealthiest man in Russia. Abramovich gained his fortune mostly in the oil industry, being CEO of one of the biggest oil companies in the world.74 Until 2008 Zhukova was not
known to be actively engaged in arts, only during a party that year she announced the opening of the Moscow gallery Garage Center for Contemporary Culture. In the following year she was chosen to be editor-in-chief of Pop magazine, for her strong sense of style and points of view on the
modern world and magazines.75 This position she maintained for less than two years. Zhukova
herself says that in order to learn about art, she is not afraid to ask questions, listen and learn. Her interest in art grew naturally, while appreciating architecture with her father from an early age. In addition to making friends with artists in London, she went to openings and did studio visits. During this period she felt the need to redefine what it means to be Russian and what the Russian identity is. Now she even says she feels closer to art than fashion, however she stayed in touch with Marc Jacobs (1963, fashion designer) and Miuccia Prada (1949, fashion designer and entrepreneur), to name a few key figures in fashion.76
4.2 WHAT PEOPLE THINK ABOUT DASHA ZHUKOVA
It has often been noted that Zhukova comes across as neutral during photo-shoots and interviews, which makes it difficult to gauge her emotions, intentions and temper. Her partner, Abramovich, being a wealthy oligarch and herself always kept a low profile. Abramovich is even said to be press-shy and their press corps excel in obstructiveness and obfuscation. Once an interview is granted, Zhukova is notorious for her evasive answers as well as possessing a quality of being infinitely unquotable. In order to be able to create a clearer picture of Zhukova we will look at her through what has been said by others.77
One view by Irina Prokhorova, who runs a philanthropic foundation is about understanding
72 Blasberg 2009. 73 Helmore 2011. 74 Ioffe 2010: 62. 75 Sawyer 2009. 76 Blasberg 2009. 77 Ioffe 2010: 62.
oligarchs. When trying to understand oligarchs, you need to think in terms of Napoleonic France. There existed a social vacuum, the blood aristocracy was gone, France lost a natural elite.
Extravagance was the way of expression for a new self made class. Talented people without birthright were grasping opportunities as a product of the French Revolution, leading to glamour and opulent beauty, together with an interest in style. The same goes for the 1990s in Russia. Money was made fast, without a template on how to spend it. The only way to legitimatize themselves was to find or create an own style. Opposed to this view of French Napoleonic times is a comparison with American historical key figures. Prominent families such as the Carnegies and the
Rockefellers, taught themselves how to behave with regard to their newly gained wealth.7879 They
did this by emulating Western European examples. Their wealth was partly used in a philanthropical way, investing part of it into cultural, scientific and educational projects.80 Zhukova herself feels
more comfortable with being compared to Pavel Tretyakov (1832-1898, patron of the arts and philanthropist). He shared art with and made it accessible to a wider audience.81 In the recent
Russian history, philanthropy is becoming more systematic and organized. Initially when Zhukova became known in the Moscow scene as the partner of Abramovich, she was thought to be just another socialite, according to Marat Guelman (1960, gallery owner), living the glamorous life.82
Strangely enough, only when Abramovich started buying art, people started respecting Zhukova. This could be explained by Abramovich's past during which he gained a reputation for being systematic and trustworthy while active in Russian politics. He is known to start something and to carry through.83
Zhukova is not an art historian, but has many connections in the art world. She is not shy to seek advise when needed, for example through the American dealer Larry Gagosian (1945). She sometimes lets herself be guided by curators at exhibitions who explain her the significance of the artworks.84 This may sound impossible to be enough ground for building success in the international
art world, however there is more to it. According to Gagosian Zhukova embodies a combination of genuine passion and intelligence, together creating the ability to attract and engage creative people, making her irresistible.85 Wendi Deng Murdoch (1968, businesswoman) says it is because Zhukova
78 Carnegies are the wealthy descendants of Andrew Carnegie, industrialist, scholar, activist and philanthropist. 79 The Rockefellers are a family who gained their wealth and power during the end of the nineteenth and beginning of
the twentieth century in industry, banking and politics and were also known to be philanthropists. 80 Ioffe 2010: 62.
81 Silva 2010.
82 A socialite is someone who is well-known in fashionable society and is often seen at parties and other social events for wealthy people: according to Merriam-webster online dictionary.
83 Ioffe 2010: 62. 84 Ioffe 2010: 62.
gets things done.86 Glamorous as she is, she is not standoffish and not afraid to work hard and get
her hands dirty, which is underlined by fashion designer Lazaro Hernandez who says Zhukova is at the same time passionate and has the knowledge and guts to take initiatives which enable her to get things done that others may seem daunting.87 In the same string of argumentation fits what Armand
Limnander (fashion editor W magazine) says, namely that Zhukova is the most influential member of a pack of bright young things, helped by her persistence, good instincts and unlimited financial resources. She also understands that nowadays art, style and popular culture are intrinsically intertwined.88 This is probably also why Zhukova says about herself that she has multiple interests
and she does not want to be limited doing only one thing. Therefore she struggles describing herself. What Marina Goncharenko (gallery owner) finds important to emphasize is that in the current Russian climate where contemporary art is poorly understood and hardly supported by the government, Zhukova with her youthful celebrity profile is the ideal ambassador.89 She is not
regarded as a stereotype of Russian rich woman. Everything she does was in spite of being advised not to do it, she likes to have a plan and materialize it. Her upbringing in different worlds is seen as an advantage. As a result she may reside in one place but stays involved in the other. It allows her to take a healthy distance from the politics of the local situation and her endeavors.90 These examples
possibly explain why Zhukova is sometimes referred to as the young woman who possesses qualities that many young women would envy. She receives extensive media attention, which are not necessarily related to her achievements, she sometimes is seen as an It girl.91 Close to be
regarded as an idol, Zhukova understands what young girls want and in Russia many girls look up to her.92
Having sketched these characteristics, a different approach of how to engage with
contemporary art in Russia will be introduced. Maria Baibakova (1985), just like Zhukova, comes from a rich family and emigrated with her mother to the United States of America. But Baibakova studied art history with a master at the Courtauld Institute of Art, London. On paper Baibakova is to become Russia's equivalent of Peggy Guggenheim, launching a nonprofit gallery in an abandoned factory. However, in her practice she does not focus on the high end market value artists. Instead Baibakova tries to bring emerging artists to the attention. She explains that her audience already is familiar with artists like Damien Hirst (1965). This is why she would like to show alternatives, like
86 Blasberg quoting Murdoch 2012. 87 Blasberg quoting Bhernandez 2012. 88 Limnander 2012.
89 Groskop August 2008. 90 Blasberg 2009.
91 It girl is an expression which became widely known after the 1927 movie It. 92 Groskop January 2008.
Cyprien Gaillard (1980) and Thomas Hirschhorn (1957). By choosing to be less mainstream, with limited budget, Baibakova has a considerable smaller workforce than Zhukova, who employs gallery owners and famous curators. Asking Baibakova about Zhukova she describes her as sharp, well mannered, modest and tactful, while at the same time one of the hardest people to read, hiding emotions and passions.93
From an artist who worked with Zhukova and who exhibited at her Garage Museum of Contemporary Art (100 Years of Performance 2010), Kalup Linzy (1977) says she is a true advocate of the arts.94 Zhukova is not concerned over the increasing conflation of art fashion and luxury,
possibly because of how she relates to and became involved with art. According to Jeffrey Deitch (1950, art dealer and curator), this conflation is resulting from individual efforts which are key to pushing movements forward.95 And still it may be that critics are not taking her seriously, even
though at the same time she can not be ignored anymore. Zhukova continues to engage in new enterprises of which some will be discussed in the next chapter. What drives her is to really progress contemporary culture in Russia in combination with entertainment and education. Zhukova has a rebellious streak and a love of the extreme.96 This is reflected in the photograph central in this
thesis. Of which Zhukova says that the artwork, Chair, is intended as commentary on gender and racial politics, she abhors racism and the photograph is published out of context.97
What can be concluded after learning the variety of meanings over Zhukova? People writing about her can never know her very well, she remains enigmatic about herself. The lack of transparency in her activities works to her disadvantage. Zhukova grew up a privileged life and continues to do so. There are individuals who worked with her who admire her inquisitiveness and drive to make things happen. On a critical note, most of the sources writing about Zhukova and her life are from online magazines and sections of websites dealing with fashion and glamour news. Often these lack a critical evaluation of her endeavors.
93 Ioffe 2010: 62. 94 Rao 2014. 95 Helmore 2011. 96 Dougary 2012. 97 Manuel-Logan 2014.
