Sarah Lucas – Transfiguration of Food Objects into body parts

4
1
views

This post is about one of my favourite artists, the British sculptor Sarah Lucas (born in 1962). I present some of her works that focus on the transfiguration of food objects into body parts.

Eating a Banana (1990)
Eating a Banana (1990)

Sarah Lucas has challenged sexual stereotypes in a series of provocative self-portraits. She turns against the art-historical tradition of the female seductress or muse, and presents herself in a deliberately androgynous, and occasionally aggressive, series of poses. She adopts masculine gestures and stances, and shows herself in unisex clothing like jeans and T-shirts.

These images also raise questions about the role and appearance of the modern artist. In contrast to the stereotype of the artist as an anguished male, Lucas shows herself as an ordinary person in emphatically ordinary surroundings. “
Source: Tate Gallery, London, England

Two fried egs and a kebab (1992)
Two fried egs and a kebab (1992)

Two fried eggs and a kebab (1992) – Tranfigured female body parts.

Au Naturel (1994)
Au Naturel (1994)

“Lucas has a wicked sense of humour – conjugal bliss, for instance, might be depicted by propping a soiled mattress against a wall, and letting a bucket and two melons stand for the woman and a pair of oranges and a cucumber for the man (Au naturel, 1994) – but her work often displays a feel for traditional artistic concerns; sculpture and materiality, weight, composition. It’s a combination that pissed off all the right people – those who thought found materials should speak of the ‘poetry of everyday existence’, or some similar mawkish sentiment.”

Dan Cox, Frieze Magazine, March 2009

Got a salmon on 3
Got a salmon on 3

No comment.

Chicken Knickers (1997)
Chicken Knickers (1997)

Chicken Knickers (1997)

“Following the Surrealist tradition, Lucas places familiar objects in shocking or unexpected arrangements. Many of these exploit the sexual innuendo that is a key feature of popular British comedy, from Carry On films to Viz magazine. In this photograph, the humour has a troubling edge. Displaying a plucked chicken in place of a young woman”s genitals, Lucas hints at the violation and gender stereotyping that underlies such jokes.”

Source: Tate Gallery, London, England

4 COMMENTS

  1. The difference between an artist (of any gender) and any other person is this “out of the ordinary” expression. We all carry both genders inside maybe not anatomically, but definitely sentimentally. This is another characteristic of the artist. They must allow feeling evolve from the dual nature. Then he or she will be understood. The type of dressing you mention is a characteristic of the women artists of her generation.
    I find the creations very imaginative or I should say a great visual representation to ordinary peoples thoughts. But not everyone can express their thoughts. Then when they realize what the artist means, they agree. Sometimes I wonder if the ability to express yourself is natural or depends on how you communicate with yourself.
    Excellent presentation, extremely interesting subject for analysis. Thanks dearest.

    • Dear Despinarion,
      Creation is the artist’s gift and charisma, and is what it is, with or without the personality elements and the experiential background
      I am very happy because you enjoyed the post and promise to bring more like it in the future

Comments are closed.