“I am not sorry for my art. It would be like saying I’m sorry for being a woman and that I like sex.”
– Sara DeKeuster

“Bedtime Stories,” a photo spread published by Post (the UWM Post arts magazine) Nov. 23 has gotten the campus talking. The controversy has come in the form of several angry emails to our staff, letters to the editor and a top story spot on Channel 18’s nightly news, among others.

Staff writer Rory Sazama interviewed the artists behind the photo spread, Photo Editor Sara DeKeuster and A&E Editor Diego Costa, and Jennifer Curtis Durnall, a University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee graduate student and co-founder of “Fight Back! Men and Women against Rape and Rape Culture,” who opposed the content of the photo essay.

Jennifer Curtis Durnall,

graduate student

1. What do you personally deem as offensive?

   In regards to this article? This article goes beyond the mere offensive and into the realms of misogyny. It depicts an act of sexual violence towards a woman and frames it in a context that says “this is what all women want” and, as the introduction to the article states, this article presents itself as a look into “repressed female sexuality … freed from social and feminist constraints” and it says that it is trying to “confess the unconfessionable.”

   This article is not one artist’s representation of her particular fantasy. It has nothing to do with art or with a single woman. It was put into our student paper and framed with ridiculously misogynist and offensive questions that presume a repressed female sexuality that longs to be raped.

   The language and framing of this article are what are the most offensive, the most irresponsible and the most harmful to women. I personally deem anything that depicts harm to women or that glorifies rape as “unexpected sex” to be offensive and dangerous.

2. Do you feel that there exists universality to “the offensive”? If so, what do you take as common knowledge to all sentient creatures possessing rational thought to be universally offensive to all? Or a self-evident offensive?

   Great question, but you know that one cannot speak in terms of the universal. In this case, for me personally, anything that depicts an act of harm as something that all women long for — speaking of universals, right? — is offensive. Mr. Costa and Ms. DeKeuster presented this photo essay in a way that spoke of a “universal” female desire.

   Thus, it sent the message to the students of UWM and to others who have picked up this edition of the Post, potential students, parents of potential students, potential advertisers, and so on, that the Post thinks that it is OK to create a photo essay, no matter how poorly written or irresponsible, that condones rape and violence against all women, any women.

   This essay trivializes rape, sets it in the frame of “unexpected” but wanted sex. I think that it is more of a universal that women are not safe, or afraid to walk alone at night in dark parking lots — this photo essay shows us the reason for that, yet it trivializes this very real fear and this very real act of sexual violence that a “strange male” commits against a female.

3. Should artistic expression be repressed based on sentiments of “being offensive” to certain members of a given society?

   This photo essay was not artistic expression. It was irresponsible, poorly written and simply misogynist. It would have been artistic expression if it were merely photographs, if the text had been better written, if it had not been placed in our student paper and held up as what the UWM student body should know about or see.

   “Bedtime Stories” goes beyond being offensive, it speaks of the UWM Post’s irresponsibility and of the rape culture that goes by too often unchecked on college campuses. Rape is serious, traumatic and nothing to trivialize. This photo essay presents rape as fantasy, not just for one woman, but also for “every woman” and adds to the rape culture where no does not really mean no and where every woman really wants to be assaulted.

4. What do you believe an arts and entertainment section of a student-run paper should consist of?

   Actual information about arts and entertainment, perhaps. A diverse array of authors, not just Diego Costa, and perhaps, in an ideal world, no Diego Costa at all. One person’s control over what art and entertainment should consist of is not fair to the student population, and with “Bedtime Stories,” the UWM Post and Mr. Costa have gone too far, which might result in a severe loss in popularity for the Post unless serious changes are made.

   Arts and entertainment sections tell people what is going on in the city, on campus, include thoughtful and relevant reviews on movies, books, music and events. They do not include what one guy thinks is art or what one guy thinks is good, bad or important, but what is actually happening out there for other students, the readers of the Post, to check out.

5. What specifically do you perceive as offensive to the “Bedtime Stories” photo spread?

   Need I say more? The rape, I believe, is pretty offensive. The trivialization of this rape is pretty offensive. The framing and context of this rape is pretty offensive. Referring to rape as “unexpected intercourse” and depicting it as something that women enjoy, want and feel “guilty” about is pretty offensive. Saying that women need to be freed from “feminist constraints” is pretty offensive, especially since it is feminism that has been working for decades to get it through men’s heads that no actually does mean no and that no woman wants to be raped, no woman deserves to be assaulted and that every woman deserves to be safe and unafraid when walking to her car, alone at night.

   This photo essay is irresponsible and crude, especially the horribly written text and captions that speak of women having a “need for objectification” and “power disguised as powerlessness,” as if women did not already have it hard enough with the actual realities of rape and our daily fears of walking alone at night. The UWM Post comes along to say that not only is it OK for a man to rape a woman, but that deep down, every woman actually is hoping that he will. And to say that this is merely a few people being “offended” by a “work of art” is to trivialize the realities of rape and the real fears that real women have every single day.

Sara DeKeuster,

UWM Post Photo Editor

1. What was the motivation and/or inspiration behind this piece?

   Let me clarify, this piece is only one of three out of a series of my re-created “sexual fantasies.” Well, this idea to express my own sexual fantasies came from a previous photography class assignment. We were to choose any photographer of our choice and work in the style of that artist.

   I chose Cindy Sherman, a prominent photographer famous for her self-portrait film stills, which in fact are a little different. They play with the elements of self-portraiture. She places herself as a character, a type of female, like housewife, a prostitute, a victim, all relevant to female sexuality, stereotypes, etc. She has been working in this style since the 1970s. Can you image what people thought then?

   I wanted to re-create some of her film stills, but why re-create her ideas and reproduce her art? So I decided to make it my own, to create film stills of myself for myself. I came up with this idea of expressing my sexuality. So, I chose to do so in a film still-esque way. I staged three of my sexual fantasies, and Diego (Costa), as a kind friend and experienced filmmaker clicked the shutter. He included the captions as descriptions from a film scene. Creating these works of art was quite therapeutic, people deal with their emotions in different ways, this is my way and people should respect that.

2. Why do you think this particular piece sparked so much heated debate?

   I honestly didn’t think it would cause such an uproar, especially from feminists. I find it ironic — I thought they supported sexual freedom. I was liberating my sexuality and I think that made people uncomfortable.

   Also, it was hard for people to differentiate re-created fantasies (fake) from reality. Me being a woman, I have the right to express myself, sexually, physically, emotionally and artistically. I think it’s hard for people to look at something and be forced to think about themselves, their past, their secrets, their very own sexuality. It’s a touchy subject for most people.

3. **What would you like the people that have spoken out against this piece to know?**

   That I am not sorry for my art! It would be like saying I’m sorry for being a woman and that I like sex (or to be fucked rather). I took a very intimate part of me and expressed it to an audience. Whether they love it, hate it, find it offensive, that is their opinion. I should be grateful that people even care, really, because a lot of art goes un-noticed and unquestioned. I don’t create art for anyone but myself and I would never let anyone tell me what direction my art should go. This has only encouraged me and helped define myself as an artist. You haven’t seen the last of me yet.

4. Are we an artistically ignorant society?

   Yes, of course. Art is about creating a sensation, getting a reaction, helping people think about things on a personal level. When art is misrepresented, it makes me sad because I sometimes think that the art world is not accomplishing anything. We will never get the recognition we deserve because of ignorance and selfishness.

   Then I realize what famous female photographers like Cindy Sherman, Nan Goldin and Diane Arbus have established for me as a young, emerging female artist. They have pushed the boundaries and got critics and viewers talking. I am thankful I am a living artist today. I am spoiled to have these famous women — no, heroes — start a growing path for female artists everywhere. I say to these people with little art knowledge, open your eyes, the world is changing and people are expressing themselves in new ways. You cannot please everyone with your art, nor will everyone understand. As famous artist Andres Serrano said, “Any critic can have his or her own interpretation.” And Andy Warhol: “Don’t pay any attention to what they write about you. Just measure it in inches.”

5. Are we a sexually suppressed society?

   Oh, are we ever, especially female sexuality. Why is it so hard to understand that it is in fact OK to talk about or express our sexuality as women? I think this whole ordeal just proves that female sexuality is still being repressed — it makes me want to scream. ... Women have freedom of expression, and I choose to express my sexual wants and needs. Is that OK? No wait, I don’t care, I am who I am.

6. What role do you feel acts of violence play in conception of art?

   It depends on what the artist is trying to express.

7. What is your conception of “the offensive?”

   Really, I’m emotionally drained right now!

Diego Costa,

UWM Post A&E Editor

1. What was the motivation and/or inspiration behind this piece?

   It wasn't my piece at first. But Sara DeKeuster was working on these series of self-portrait photographs exploring her sexual fantasies, which I found intriguing. She asked for help clicking the photos because she had to be in them. And then we collaborated in the conceptualization of the text. It was supposed to look like a stylized storyboard for a film scene: Cindy Sherman-esque images with poeticized script directions (Annie Ernaux-like) under them. Post Magazine, the A&E section of the Post, committed to offering what other publications don’t already offer, seemed like a good vehicle to show her art.

2. Why do you think this particular piece sparked so much heated debate?

   The hysteria denounces people’s discomfort when it comes to anything concerning sexuality. And also a horrific symptom of Americans' complete lack of familiarity with photography art, or art in general. Also, our tendency to avoid reading between the lines, our incapability of differentiating news from art, personal statement from generalization, fiction from documentary, article from exposé, questions from statements — our resistance to interpretation. And, of course, our unwillingness to accept truths other than our own. Like filmmaker Pedro Almodovar once said, “Americans are obsessed with trying to control anything that is alive.”

3. **What would you like the people that have spoken out against this piece to know?**

   It's quite sad they seem to be so un-exposed to art, so stuck in looking at the world and at art in very literal terms. “She photographed herself getting raped at a garage and liking it, she must be saying all women really want to be raped at a garage” — that would be like saying Picasso condoned war because he depicted it in Guernica. Or that Nan Goldin condones violence against women because she photographed her bruised face after been beaten up by her boyfriend.

   To think that an artist’s self-portraits vow to speak universal truths of what all women want reveals complete ignorance before artistic representation. I understand they must have certain things stuck in their throats that need to be expressed, and this may have seemed like a good outlet. Perhaps because it was the only available one. The piece gave them an excuse to shout, but what are they really shouting about? Who are they really interested in shouting at?

   This was a very intimate art piece, so it spoke of the artist's truth, which she didn't impose to others — she allowed them to see hers. But the uproar seems a little misdirected. I take pride in having enabled a discussion. I do appreciate the debate all this has triggered. Isn’t that what most good art does? So long as we are arguing, we are thinking, we are evolving, moving forward. Thanks for the free publicity, though. But this kind of misunderstanding of art and the angry reaction actually scares me. Because it denotes the kind of society we live in, one that cannot truly handle plurality of opinions and that is trained to only comprehend things literally. To only grasp the status-quo-inducing truths television and mainstream media offer. It is not surprising we elected the kind of government that we have.

4. Are we an artistically ignorant society?

   Obviously, that is no surprise. And one photo spread cannot compete with hundreds of years of American culture discouraging critical thinking and inducing only the familiar, the easily understood, the obvious as valid. Maybe people who thought it was distasteful should visit the contemporary art museum in Chicago more often, or the Centre Pompidou if they ever get the chance to leave Wisconsin. They can discover the work of Robert Mapplethorpe, Sebastiao Salgado, Helmut Newton, Sarah Lucas, Hiroshi Sugimoto and many others.

   Maybe if they spent more time at the Tate Modern than at Miller Park they wouldn’t have this kind of small-town mentality. More Guggenheim, less Summerfest, I say. Can you imagine how dead art would be if it was to repress itself out of fear of being offensive? If artists hadn't had the guts to respect their IDs, giving less importance to their Superegos, there would have been no Dadaism, no Surrealism, no Futurism, no Cubism or any of the paradigm-defying movements that have contributed to a freeing of art from retrograde social standards.

   It is also interesting to notice that most of the angry e-mails I have got have apparently been from lesbians. Can you imagine what they would feel like if people started to shut down their yearly drag ball at UWM because they found it offensive? Which I am sure lots of people do. Offensive to some, liberating to others.

5. Are we a sexually suppressed society?

   Uh, yeah. It is quite the truism to say that American society is based on Puritanism, dogmatism. Like the whole Janet Jackson nipplegate thing. Also, it is one of the most fundamental Freudian concepts that when something bothers you so much, you are the one who have unresolved issues regarding it, not the thing that triggered your overreaction. It is a fact that rape is a gross, tragic, horrific thing. No one can argue otherwise.

   But it also is a fact that certain people have rape fantasies. And that is why they are called fantasies, because they don't coincide with quotidian sexual behavior. To think that these people who happen to have these fantasies shouldn't be allowed to express them artistically is fascist and preposterous. People are just glib. And naive. Americans don't take ambiguity very well. If things don’t hold obvious, immediate meanings we get lost, confused, angry, offended. Being offended by art is the easiest way out of trying to interpret it. It’s the most childish response before something you do not understand.

6. What role do you feel acts of violence play in conception of art?

   It doesn't have to play any role if it doesn't have anything to do with the reason for being of the piece.

7. What is your conception of “the offensive”?

   I don't know how these people have so much time on their hands. I am worried about the grades they will get on their finals. If I see something I completely disagree with, like that new right-wing publication thingy on campus, I know it's not worth responding to it because it's so null. So I look at it, I toss it and I go about my day. If I was to respond to everything that is null, I wouldn't have time to do anything else.

   And if it bothered me to the point of creating a need of response, it would have to be over a social statement, not a personal, sexual expression. If this photographer desires getting raped, that is her sexuality for her to live out, I have no business telling her what is appropriate or not for her to feel. Nor to tell anyone how they should go about wording their art work. Why don't we react this intensely against truly obscene things? Reacting that way against art seems rather provincial. Like the completely uncultivated person who goes to the museum for the first time, looks at a Dali and says, “But clocks don't melt!”

> Comments