Geekologie I Watch Stuff The Superficial Hedonistica

Art Or Something: Full-Size Lady Mannequin Nutcrackers

nutcrackers-1.jpg

This is an art exhibit (appropriately titled 'Nutcrackers') by Jennifer Rubell featuring 18 life-sized female mannequins modded to crack nuts between their thighs and a one-ton vat of pecans. It's supposed to carry a message. "Like a carrier pigeon?" EXACTLY like a carrier pigeon you f***ing crazy person.

Inspired by nutcrackers depicting female figures - and in particular one found on the internet of Hillary Clinton - these interactive sculptures embody the two polar stereotypes of female power: the idealized, sexualized nude female form; and the too-powerful, nut-busting ├╝berwoman. The work also serves as a prompt to action, encouraging the viewer to transgress the traditional viewer-artwork boundary and complete the work by participating in it.

Oh OF COURSE, the two polar stereotypes of female power -- that's what I got from this too. "Really?" Nope, just an awkward boner and a note to myself that reads, "Investigate current level of lovedoll technology. P.S. -- Not at the library."

Hit the jump for a couple more shots and a worthwhile 10-second video of an older man retrieving his nut fragments from the loins of a mannequin.

nutcrackers-2.jpg

nutcrackers-3.jpg

nutcrackers-4.jpg

nutcrackers-5.jpg

Thanks to beebs, who doesn't crack nuts, she kicks them until they're caught in your throat.

There are Comments.
  • I like these. They make me think lobster phone.

  • gz85tNQ6os

    Busting a nut between a woman's legs. OK. Got it. This is definitely more sexual than empowering.

  • Jadis

    really? really. This is aggravating. I can't say this isn't art because apparently it expresses an idea or something for the artist. But they could have lingerie or something on. And I find the concept rather insulting as a woman. Art is for art's sake and self expression, so... whatever. This is not something I would want my kids to see at an art exhibit. Not something I really want to see either. Whatever happened to art being beautiful and creative and not a cut up mannquin with mechanical crushing parts?

  • You don't really understand art.

  • Jadis

    I do actually. I've taken several classes through out my life, exiting with high marks. I have studied and worked in several forms and media and continue to do so, selling pieces from time to time when I decide to part with my work.
    I don't have to like it or agree with it to understand it, and I didn't say this wasn't art. I said I didn't really care for it and why.

  • weaselmouse

    I agree. As a woman I find this pretty effed up. I don't find the "cracking nuts" analogy as empowering as the artist would have us believe. I find the actual act of a naked woman mannequin being used as a prop exploitative...... to crack nuts for a man as a common utility. This is art, and incredibly shitty art at that.

  • $18922249

    Well you are just going to love Mapplethorpe.

  • Jadis

    some of that I would consider Art. The rest is more like pornography, which I do not think is art despite the industries argument. Most of it is not self expression (porn) it's just people having sex. Usually this happens in a way that is degrading to women to the umpth degree. So if the expression is that women are only here to be used and abused by men, then there is more than enough of that kind of 'art' in a society that supposedly has an equal standard value for women and a desire to increase self esteem in women. This argument could be adapted to Mappiethorpe. Anything that's focusing on sex or sexual organs in a derogatory manner I do not think of as Art, but as porn. It's in bad taste and degrading to all people involved, including the viewer.

  • 1.>Porn is Art.
    Porn is performance art. People don't just have sex in porn. They have choreographed uncomfortable sex so that someone else can watch it. It isn't done for the people fucking it is done for the end consumer. In order to consider porn as being something other than art you have to concede cinema to not being art.
    2.> This was art, good art.
    You may not agree with it being art due to your conservative values but it is. Art is creativity and imagination applied to some physical form. And considering this display got as much attention as it did i would assume it was good art.
    3.> Lingerie wouldn't help.
    Putting lingerie on the mannequins to cover up their non existent genitalia sexualizes them by humanizing them and thus making it really sexist. It also makes one think that there may be sexual characteristics where there are not any. Why isnt there any junk? Because they are dolls. If things were your way things would be warped from being a fun and interactive experience. Because your own mind is twisted. Which brings me to point 4.
    4.> A persons interpretation of an art display says a lot about them.
    I assume you conservative females are the types of people that called Bert and Earnie gay because they lived together. You ruined puppets and now you're going to ruin dolls.

  • Jadis

    1> porn is women and sometimes men allowing themselves to be used/abused/and degraded for the purpose of money and grotesque entertainment. The only people who want to call porn 'art' either watch it, make it, or care more about being socially accepted by those people. Loose moral values are a path to destruction.
    2> I specifically said that it was art. Note my original statement; "this is aggravating. I can't say this isn't art because apparently it expresses an idea or something for the artist."
    Also, getting a lot of attention doesn't make something good. The bombings of the twin towers got a lot of attention. That doesn't make what happened a good thing.
    3> the lingerie comment simply exaggerates the fact that these models of women to represent women as 'nut crackers', and not the kind that actually crack nuts at Christmas parties, are exposed as if in revenge for nagging the husband to take out the trash, or actually getting the job over the man because she's better qualified degrading the form of a woman.
    4>I never considered Bert and Ernie gay and when I heard the idea I thought it was ridiculous. I thought of them more like brothers or room mates... like The Odd Couple. Don't presume to know my mind because I disagree with your misconceptions.

  • Giru

    Well spoken. Art lies in the eye of the beholder. If it causes discussion or thought, chances are, it's a good art work and that was the artists intention from the start.

    This piece is sexist for those who see it as sexist. I'd argue that if anything, there's something wrong with these viewers, not the artist. Personally, I love it, it's a very thought provoking piece and it looks like a fun expo to attend to.

  • Jadis

    fun, ok, sure. But exactly what thoughts are provoked? There is no thought here beyond a nude female representation literally displaying the expressive phrase 'nut cracker' when referring to women who don't let others walk over her.
    Not once did I say there was something wrong with the person who made this. I have not met them. Not every piece an artist makes is good or a lasting impression of the person. This was a idea made manifest and someone thought would draw attention to the establishment to house it, which it did. Hello, this is 2012 and sex still sells. It's a cheep trick to gain publicity.

  • Nanananananana

    That's a lotta nuts!

blog comments powered by Disqus