Venus & Venus: More Fat Art
We recently talked about some fat art spotted in the wild, and I was reminded of that post when I was in Antwerp visiting the Rubenshuis.
The Rubenshuis (Rubens House) is a fabulous little museum, a home and studio designed by Rubens in the 17th century in which he lived and worked. The building itself is spectacular, and it’s also chock full of amazing art by Rubens and others. A definite “don’t miss” if you’re ever in Antwerp. And on the back facade is this statue of Venus looking—well—Rubenesque.
When I got home from the trip, I had an email waiting for me from Mary about this sculpture, a tactile, interactive piece meant to feel like rolls of fat. And it’s also called Venus. The artist, Nick Turvey, says:
“This [is a] recently completed sculpture, currently on exhibition outside the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge. It’s carved from a block of upholstery foam, and coated in a rubber skin, so when you grab hold of those rolls of fat you find they are actually soft. Some people are disgusted, others love it, but it’s certainly provoking reactions. It’s one of a series I’m making about the materiality of the human body.”
I love that both of these pieces, created centuries apart, have the same name—the name of the goddess of love and beauty. And I also love that they both deal with voluptuousness as a theme. And I also love the challenging and provocative nature of Nick’s piece. Yay art!
Posted by mo pie
Filed under: Art, Fat Positive, Feel Good Friday
Email us
(Longs to visit Antwerp)
I would so love to visit this museum. I’m a big fan of Ruben’s work and frequently look at it when I’m feeling bombarded by the ‘not pretty/thin enough!!!’ messages of today’s ads and television.
I’m really interested in that second, modern Venus. One of the things I noticed is that she is, of course, headless–faceless–without personality. She is defined entirely by rolls of fat.
Insofar as FA has worked hard to talk about fat people as people who are fat–as not entirely defined by our fat but with it being one of many elements of our lives–I tend to see Turvey’s piece as maybe a bit problematic.
On the other hand, as it encourages touching, it may well be a way of getting people to recognize that fat does have tactile pleasure. So… I’m conflicted.
It is basically the “headless fatty” but I saw it more as an abstract piece, so I guess it didn’t bother me that much? It’s also “flesh colored” if “flesh” = “light-skinned flesh” which is also worth noting.
Twistie, Antwerp is AWESOME, especially if you like Belgian beer. Or chocolate.
Like Miriam, I am not comfortable with Nick Turvey’s piece. To me it is just another way of “othering” fat people.
The Rubens Venus however is beautiful, her stance is just divine.
The second one shows a fat female-shaped body as passive, helpless and just “naturally” open to touch from anybody who views her. Where is her head? Where is her agency and strength? You can see all that in the sensual power of the first statue. The second one is a beautiful blob or an ugly blob, but a blob, not a human.
Sleepydumpling and Lilacsigil, I looked again at the Rubens Venus’ stance and thought about the way that she fits in with a common element in nudes, which is that she is looking away even as she’s the subject of the male gaze. She doesn’t confront the viewer’s gaze directly or in any way challenge it.
So, arguably (and I think John Berger did argue this), all of Western art has codified the relationship as “submissive female body as object of the gaze,” with the gaze always assumed to be a male one who, by virtue of his power, has constant right to look at both her and all women.
That said, I do think that having a head on a sculpture coded as female definitely is a good thing and I’ve been really liking how the Adipositivity Project is including more bodies with heads and even faces, and I like those best where the woman is actually looking at the viewer or otherwise suggesting that she is looking back out at the viewer.
I’m going to put in a dissenting voice in favor of the contemporary Venus. First, because I think tactile art is awesome; I want to go and give this sculpture a big squishy hug! Plus, I think the work is promoting the idea that fat flesh is touchable, squeezable, and lovable. She’s not called Venus for nothing.
Second, it’s not just an isolated sculpture; according to the artist it’s part of a series about “the materiality of the human body.” To me, that blunts the “headless fatty” issue quite a bit. Presumably, te sculptor is exploring (or objectifying) a variety of bodily tissues, states, or substances. So, to me, this reads less as “fat people are defined by their fat!” and more as “fat is one of many normal and natural bodily tissues.”
I’m going to say that I really like the modern version because it’s tactile, it invites people to touch what so often is considered untouchable in our society.
I mean, Venus, the goddess of Love and Beauty. The theme is traditionally supposed to be about that aspect of womanhood, about the sensual body so in that aspect as abstract modern art I think it works to actually go beyond the “headless fatty”.
It reminds me of how my husband and my daughter love to touch my belly. It’s a part I often hated about myself…the rolls the folds, the softness..But my husband and my young daughter love that part of me.
It’s interesting then that these rolls of flesh that people are invited to touch are named for Love and Beauty, it seems then more a call to re-examine what those words mean in our modern culture.