The Critical Corpse:

Re-(inter)preting the Abject Dead Animal in Visual Art

Frances Phoenix
Dip. Art Ed., Grad. Dip. Vis. Arts.

Written component of thesis submitted in the partial fulfillment

of the requirements and for examination for the
Degree of Master of Visual Arts by Research.

South Australian School of Art

Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences
University of South Australia

February 2002
What is abject, ... the jettisoned object, is radically excluded

and draws me towards the place where meaning collapses.

Julia Kristeva, Powers of Horror, an Essay on Abjection, p. 2.

Beuys was concerned with ... the redemption of matter through an

engagement of the human spirit in the transformation of the earth.

Marion Briggs, 'Contemporary Art, Joseph Beuys

& The Second Goetheanum. The Unity of the Arts', Transforming Art, p. 60.
 Abstract

The Critical Corpse: Re-(inter)preting the Abject Dead Animal in Visual Art

The twentieth-century saw a rise in the phenomenon of art incorporating the actual animal
corpse, in found, processed and preserved forms, by artists such as Robert Rauschenberg, Joseph
Beuys, Annette Messager and Damien Hirst. The curators of the Whitney Museum's 1993
exhibition, Abject Art: Repulsion and Desire in American Art, Ben-Levi, Houser, Jones & Taylor,
claimed that Abject Art incorporates 'abject subject matter' and 'abject materials' such as the
dead animal. They also suggested Abject Art is 'subversive' of conservative culture and politics
because it transgresses societal taboos and asserts the body, the Other and the liminal against
societal repression.'

The term Abject Art was coined after Bulgarian psychologist, Julia Kristeva's Powers of Horror:
An Essay on Abjection2 was first published in English in 1982. 'Abject Art' refers to art that
elicits a physical 'convulsion' or tension between fascination and horror, or desire and disgust.
This thesis aims to explore the relationship between art that incorporates the animal corpse,
theories of abjection and Abject Art. The thesis takes the form of both written and studio
components.

The Written Component

The written component of the research thesis demonstrates, through textual analysis, that art
incorporating the animal corpse shares with Abject Art in being a 'postmodern phenomenon',
and does indeed incorporate 'abject' materials and subject matter. However it finds that artists
have a wide range of aims for their use of the animal corpse in their art, and that viewer responses
and societal outcomes are not limited to subversion. Artists' aims and viewer responses are
shown to include not only the dichotomous categories of subversive and normative, but also to
include the paradoxical and transformational.

The thesis discusses a disjunction between Abject Art and abjection as such. Abject Art is
defined, following Ben-Levi et al., as 'subversive' of conservative society, while abjection,
following Kristeva, is described as both 'subversive and normative' of subjectivity, society,
culture and politics. The thesis discusses the limitations of both views, resulting in a critical
stance regarding the convention of Western binary thought. Finally, it proposes a wholistic
conceptual model to account for a fuller understanding of the use and effects of the abject. Such a

Ben-Levi, Houser, Jones & Taylor (eds), Abject Art: Repulsion and Desire in American Art; Selections from the
Permanent Collection, Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, 1993, pp. 7-8.
2 Julia Kristeva, Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection, translated by Leon S. Roudiez, Colombia University
Press, New York, 1982.
more complex approach might replace Western binarism, which Zuigmunt Bauman, a world
authority on postmodernism, explains, creates the abject in the first place.' This transformational
model also makes possible a more socially and environmentally responsible art practice.

The Studio/Artifact Component

The Studio/Artifact component of this thesis has involved a series of 'experiments' using animal
materials, such as bones, fur, 'blood and bone', and a taxidermied rabbit. The work has changed
over time as I have come to understand more about Kristeva's concept of the abject, and as I have
come to realize the findings of the written thesis. The three parts of my final assessment
exhibition reflect these changes. The first exhibition, Playing Dead, explores childhood abjection
as described by Kristeva: 'abjection... reaches its apex when death, which, in any case, kills me,
interferes with what, in my living universe, is supposed to save me from death: childhood, (and)
science, among other things.'4 Becoming Animal (exhibition no. 2) attempts to physically involve
the viewer in an identification with the abject, not as 'other', but, in the words of Stephanie
Radok, as `another'.5 Momento Mori (exhibition no. 3) explores the aesthetics of abjection and
embeds the abject in a subtle and memorial 'garden', so to speak, where it is no longer
experienced as abject but as part of an ongoing/continuous cycle of birth, maturity, death, decay
and rebirth.

3 Zuigmunt Bauman, Modernity and Ambivalence, Polity Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1991, pp. 55-56.
4 Kristeva, p. 4.
Stephanie Radok, Winterbodies: Seven Installations at the Royal Adelaide Showground (exhibition catalogue),
Radoldflarmes, Adelaide, 2001, back page.
 Contents
The Critical Corpse: Re-(inter)preting the Abject Dead Animal in Visual Art

Abstract
Contents
List of Figures vi
List of Tables xii
List of Diagrams xii
List of Transparent Interleaves xiii
Glossary xiv
Declaration xxii
Acknowledgements xxiii

Introduction. The Written and Studio/Artifact Components of the Thesis 1

WRITTEN COMPONENT OF THE THESIS

Chapter 1. Background: Abject Art and Abjection 6

Section 1. The Postmodern Animal Corpse in Art 7

Pre-twentieth-century 7

Proto-postmodern art 7

Postmodern art 9

Section 2. Abjection and the Abject 11

Abjection 11

Signs of repulsion 12

Signs of fascination 13

Signs of transcendence 14

Subversive and normative 15

The Abject 16

Categories of the abject 16

Western binarism 17

Impossible to get rid of 17

Table I: Table of Artifacts

Figs 1-12
Chapter 2. Abject? Materials, Subject Matter and Art Incorporating the Animal Corpse 20

Section 1. Abject Art Materials 20

Abjection and The Dead Animal Beyond The Art Context 21

Protection Versus Abjection: The Dead Animal and Art 24

Levels of Abjection: The Dead Animal and Art 28

'The Abject Is Not An Ob-ject Facing Me' 31

Section 2. Abject Subject Matter 33

Exposing the Taboo: Violence, Death and the Maternal 33

Asserting the 'Other': Identity Politics, the Feminine and the Animal 35

Exploring the Liminal: 'the in-between, the ambiguous, the composite' 37

Table II: Table of Abject Material

Table III: Table of Abject Subject Matter

Figs 13-40

Chapter 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims and the Animal Corpse 42

Section 1. Dichotomy and Artists' Aims: Either Subversive or Normative 45

Abject Art and Subversion 46

Art, the Animal Corpse and Subversion 48

Abject Art, the Animal Corpse and Artists' Normative Aims 51

Dichotomy: an Inadequate Model 54

Section 2. Artists' Paradoxical Aims: Both Subversive and Normative 55

Paradoxical Aims: Damien Hirst 57

Section 3. Artists' Transformative Aims: Neither Subversive nor Normative 60

Transforming Aims: Joseph Beuys and the Dead Hare 63

Figs 41-47

Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response and the Animal Corpse 69

Section 1. The Dichotomous Debate: Subversive versus Normative Viewer Response 71

Abject Art and Theories of Subversive Viewer Response 72

Art, the Animal Corpse and the Subversive Viewer Response 73

11
 Abject Art and Theories of Normative Viewer Response 75

Art, the Animal Corpse and the Normative Viewer Response 77

Section 2. Paradoxical Viewer Response: Both Subversive and Normative 86

Art, the Animal Corpse and the Paradoxical Viewer Response 87

Section 3. Transformation: Neither Subversive nor Normative Viewer Response 94

Transformation: Joseph Beuys and 'Social Sculpture' 95

Figs 48-53

Chapter 5. Conclusion 100

STUDIO/ARTIFACT COMPONENT REPORT

Section 1. Summary of Studio Research Proposal, Revisions and Outcomes 106

Figs 54-55

Section 2. Overview of the Studio/Artifact Process 1998-2001 108

Section 3. Experiments/Artifacts 1998-2001 118

1998. Bone, Skinning, Wax Embalming: experiments and installations 118

1999. Photography, Cardboard Furniture, Wrapping: experiments and installations 119

2000. Gardens, Becoming Animal: installations 120

2001. Cycle, 'The Critical Beast': installations 121

Figs 56-71

Section 4. Group Exhibitions 1999-2001 122

Figs 72-77

Section 5. Assessment Exhibition 2002: Artist's Statement 124

Assessment Exhibition Part 1: Playing Dead 124

HI
 Assessment Exhibition Part 2: Becoming Animal 125

Assessment Exhibition Part 3: Moment° Mori 126

Bibliography 127 - 143

Appendix I: Human Ethics Protocol

Informal Interviews, Discussions and Correspondence 1

Recruitment Material: Proforma Letter to Artists 2

Recruitment Material: Proforma Letter to Museum 3

Information brochure 4

Research consent form 5

Correspondence: Dr Brian Cheers, Chair, Human Research Ethics Committee to Author,

22 September 1998 7

Corespondence: Ruth Sims, Executive Officer, Human Research Ethics Committee to Author,
6 October 1998 8

Appendix H: Animal Ethics Protocol

Correspondence: Ruth Sims, Ethics Officer to Author, 16 October 1998 1

Correspondence: E-mails between the Author and Mary Barton, School of Pharmacy and
Medical Sciences, 28 October 1998 2

Correspondence: E-mail from Author to Mary Barton, 26 November 1998 3

Correspondence: E-mails from Mary Barton to Author, 26 November 1998 4

Correspondence: Author to Duty Officer, Fauna Permit Unit, 3 December 1998 5

iv
 Correspondence: Jennie Rodrigues, Fauna Licencing Officer to Author, 9 December 1998 6

Application to undertake scientific research, Dept for Environment, Heritage and

Aboriginal Affairs, 6 January 1999 7

Correspondence: Author to Jennie Rodrigues, 6 January 1999 9

Correspondence: Jennie Rodrigues to Author, 11 January 1999 10

Correspondence: Peter Canty, Scientific Permit Officer, Biological Survey and Research,
Department for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs, 14 January 1999 11

Guidelines: 'Collection of Dead Native Animals' 12

Guidelines: 'Guidelines for the use of Animals in Research, Dec 1994, the Institute of Medical
And Veterinary Science Animal Ethics Committee 14-19

Appendix HI: 'Jane Alexander' (article with no reference details) 1-4

Appendix IV: 'Life versus Death, Tunnel Vision and The Life Cycle', 2002, Frances Phoenix,
sketched diagram 1
 List of Figures
CHAPTER 1: Background: Abject Art and Abjection
Figure 1 An Ermine Tea-Party, Ploucquet of Stuttgart, taxidermist, 1851. Taxidermy and miniature
furniture. Exhibited in the Great Exhibition, Crystal Palace, London. Photograph reproduced in Pevsner, N.
Studies in An, Architecture and Design: Volume Two: Victorian and After. Thames and Hudson, London,
1968, plate. 96, p. 95.

Figure 2 The Parlour, (taxidermist unknown), c.1886. Tableau-Mon of taxidermied squirrels and
miniature furniture in parlour setting in a vitrine. H. 47.3 cm. Sold: Phillips, Oxford, 27/5/1886. Photograph
reproduced in Field, R Victoriana, a Buyers Guide to the Decorative Arts 1837-1901 (Collectors Style
Manual). Macdonald Orbis, London, 1988, p. 22.

Figure 3 Satellite, Robert Rauschenberg, 1955. Combine painting: oil, fabric, paper & wood on canvas,
plus taxidermied pheasant without tail. 80 x 42.5 in. Owner: Claire Zeisler, Chicago, Illinois. Photograph
reproduced in Robert Rauschenberg (exhibition catalogue). National Collection of Fine Arts, Smithsonian
Institution Press, City of Washington, 1976, plate 39, p. 86.

Figure 4 Untitled Box No. 3, Lucas Samaris, 1963. Construction: wood, rope, pins, taxidermied bird.
24.5 x 11.5 in. The Whitney Museum of American Art, New York. Photograph reproduced in Levin, K.
Lucas Samaris. Harry N. Abrams Inc., New York, 1975, plate 103.

Figure 5 Meat Joy, Carolee Schneeman, 1964. Performance: naked people, rubbish, food, sausages and
dead animals. Photograph reproduced in Ben-Levi, Houser, Jones & Taylor (eds). Abject Art: Repulsion
and Desire in American Art; Selections from the Permanent Collection. The Whitney Museum of American
Art, New York, 1993, p. 48.

Figure 6 Untitled Turkey XV, Meyer Vaisman, 1992. Snakeskin, fabric, taxidermied turkey, mixed media
on wood base. 30 x 32 x 14 in. Photograph reproduced in Fairbrother, T. `Vaisman Flips the Bird'. Parlcett,
no. 35, 1993, p.120.

Figure 7 Auschwitz, Joseph Beuys, 1958. Showcase of items, including a drawing of a starved and crippled
girl, charred remains, dead rat, goggles, blutwurst, poison phials, electric plates with fat. Stroher Collection,
Hessisches, Landesmuseum, Darmstadt. Photograph reproduced in Tisdall, C. Joseph Beuys. Thames &
Hudson, London, 1979, p. 23.

Figure 8 A Thousand Years, Damien Hirst, 1990. Glass, steel, MDF, cow's head, maggots, fly-killer, bowls
of sugar-water solution. 84 x 168 x 84 in. Saatchi Collection, London. Photograph reproduced in Hirst, D. I
want to spend the rest of my life everywhere, with everyone, one to one, always, forever, now / Damien
Hirst. Booth-Clibbom Editions, London, 1997, p. 33.

Figure 9 Old MacDonald Had an Art Gallery, Matt, 2 Nov. 1995. Cartoon in The Daily Telegraph.
Photograph reproduced in Hirst, D. 1 want to spend the rest of my life everywhere, with everyone, one to
one, always, forever, now / Damien Hirst. Booth-Clibborn Editions, London, 1997, p. 150.

Figure 10 Le Repos des Pensionnaires (Boarders at Rest), Annette Messager, 1971-2. 65 taxidermied
sparrows wearing knitted wool garments placed in a vitrine. Each bird approx.: 12 x 10 x 3cm. The artist's
collection. Reproduced in Messager, A. Telling Tales. Arnolfini & Cornerhouse, 1992, p. 41.

Figure 11 Detail of Le Repos des Pensionnaires (Boarders at Rest), Annette Messager,1971-2.

Detail of 65 taxidermied sparrows wearing knitted wool garments. Each sparrow approx.:
12 x 10 x 3 cm.Collection of the artist. Photograph reproduced in Concelton, S. & Eliel, C. S. Annette
Messager. Los Angeles County Museum of Art & Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1995, plate 3, p. 13.

Figure 12 Monogram, Robert Rauschenberg, 1955-59. Freestanding combine: oil, paper, fabric & wood,
on canvas and wood, rubber heel, tennis ball, metal plaque, hardware, taxidermied Angora goat, rubber
tyre, mounted on four wheels. 42 x 63.5 x 64.5 in. Moderna Museet, Stockholm, Sweden. Photograph
reproduced in Robert Rauschenberg (exhibition catalogue). National Collection of Fine Arts, Smithsonian
Institution Press, City of Washington, 1976, p. 7.

vi
CHAPTER 2: Abject? Materials, Subject Matters and Art Incorporating the Animal Corpse

Figure 13 In Three Stages, Anne Marsh, c1980. Performance/installation with table, fish, sand, water,
offal, plastic bags, bandaging. Photograph reproduced in Women's Art Movement: 1978-1979 Adelaide,
South Australia. Experimental Art Foundation, Adelaide, South Australia, 1980, p. 18.

Figure 14 The Lovers: (The Committed Lovers), Damien Hirst, 1991. Glass, steel, MDF, jars of internal
organs from eight cows in formaldehyde solution. Cabinet: 60 x 40 x 9 in. Photograph reproduced in Hirst,
D. I want to spend the rest of my life everywhere, with everyone, one to one, always, forever, now / Damien
Hirst. Booth-Clibbom Editions, London, 1997, p. 315.

Figure 15 Cenodoxus lsenheim Altarpiece, Jean Tinguely, 1981. Metal frame, wooden and metal wheels,
found objects, animal skulls, light bulbs, electric motors. 310 x 408 x 260 cm. Collection Nationale Suisse,
Basel. Photograph reproduced in Voiland-Hobi, H. E. Jean Tinguely Life and Work. Prestel, Munich &
New York, 1995, plate no. 59, pp. 120-121.

Figure 16 Homo Rodans, Remedios Varo, 1959. Chicken, fish and turkey bones, and wire. Collection:
Moreno Sanchez & Carmen Toscana de Moreno-Sanchez. Photograph reproduced in Kaplan, J. A.
Unexpected Journeys: The Art & Life of Remedios Varo. Virago, London, 1988, plate 127, p. 145.

Figure 17 Running Dead Animal, Alan Sonfist, 1973. Opossum (road-kill), plaster.16 x 24 x 32 in.
Photograph reproduced in Horvitz, R. J. 'Nature as Artifact: Alan Sonfist'. Artforum, vol. 12, no. 3, Nov
1973, p. 34.

Figure 18 The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living, Damien Hirst, 1991. Giant
shark, formaldehyde solution, glass, steel, silicone. 84 x 252 x 84 in. Photograph reproduced in Hirst, D.
I want to spend the rest of my life everywhere, with everyone, one to one, always, forever, now / Damien
Hirst. Booth-Clibborn Editions, London, 1997, pp. 280-81.

Figure 19 Materialaktion Stilleben (Still-Life), Otto Muhl, 1964. Table set with wine bottles, meat and
other food, human heads, bull's head, Plates and utensils, etc. (Photos taken of happening before and after
the meal). Photograph reproduced in Kulterman, U. The New ScuOure: Environments and Assemblages.
Translated from German by Stanley Baron. Thames & Hudson, London, 1967, plates 107 & 108, p. 75.

Figure 20 Amazon (from series of Udder sculptures), Dorothy Cross, 1992. Mannequin with wooden stand,
cow-skin with udder. Collection of Avril Giacobbi. Photograph reproduced in Jackson, T. & Lanyon, J.
Even: Recent Work by Dorothy Cross. Arnolfini, Bristol, 1996, p. 11.

Figure 21 Misfit (Nandu), Thomas Grunfeld, 1994. Mixed taxidermy (parts of swan, rabbit, etc.) 120 x 70
x 30 cm. Saatchi Collection. Photograph reproduced in Hilty, G. Young German Artists at the Saatchi
Gallery. The Saatchi Gallery, 1997, plate 2.

Figure 22 Detail of Untitled (elephant footstools, elephant skull), Hiam Steinbach, 1988. Elephant
footstools, shelf. 44 x 128 x 231/4 in. Photograph reproduced in Schimel, P. (chief ed.). OBJECTives: The
New Sculpture (exhibition catalogue). Co-published by Newport Harbour Art Museum, Newport Beach,
California, and Rizzoli, New York, 1990, p. 162.

Figure 23 Detail of Untitled (elephant footstools, elephant skull), Hiam Steinbach, 1988. Elephant skull,
stand. Photograph reproduced in Schimel, P. (chief ed.). OBJECTives: The New Sculpture (exhibition
catalogue). Co-published by Newport Harbour Art Museum, Newport Beach, California and Rizzoli, New
York, 1990, p. 163.

Figure 24 Aktion 4, Hermann Nitsch, November 1963. Performance: the artist, sheet, animal carcass, knife.
The event took place privately in Nitsch's Viennese studio and was recorded on film, which is in the
collection of Hermann Nitsch. Photograph reproduced in Walker, J. A. Art and Outrage: Provocation,
Controversy and The Visual Arts. Pluto Press, Sterling, V. A., 1999, p. 45.

Figure 25 Aktion 45, Hermann Nitsch, 1974. Performance: sheep carcass, naked man, blood, ropes, sheet,
and the artist. Photograph reproduced in Nitsch, H. Neapel 1974 Hermann Nitsch. 45 Aktion.
Allerheiligenpresse, Neapel, 1974 , 9th photograph, npn.
vii
Figure 26 Fur Gash, Linda Dement, 1993. Fur, fabric. Size unknown. Photograph reproduced in Plant, S.
'Coming into Contact'. Women's An Magazine, no. 63, March/April 1995, p. 7.

Figure 27 Majestic Splendour, Yi (Lee) Bul, 1997. Fish, sequins, beads, plastic bags.
Dimensions variable. Photograph reproduced in Mark, L. G. 'Fast Forward: Contemporary Korean Art in
Toronto'. Art Asia Pacific, issue 19, 1998, p. 28.

Figure 28 Silence is Golden, Ann Newmarch, 1983-84. Cat skin, plastic dolls, egg shells, dog leashes,
wishbone, photographs, star decoration, ceramic ornamental cat, etc. in wooden box. 61.5 x 79 x 61.5 cm.
Private collection. Photograph reproduced in Robinson, J., Ann Newmarch; The Personal is Political. Art
Gallery of South Australia, 1997, p. 21.

Figure 29 Tursiops, Brian Blanchflower, 1981-83. Installation: Dolphin skull, oils, bitumen, canvas, reed
boxes, wax, hessian, metal, wood, ropes, sand. 235 x 680 x 380 cm. Collection of the artist. Photograph
reproduced in Bromfield, D. (Contributions by) Brighton, B., Bond, A. & Blanchflower, B. Brian
Blanchflower. Department of Fine Arts, University of Western Australia, 1989.

Figure 30 The Feathered Prison Fan, Rebecca Horn, 1978. White peacock feathers, mechanical fan, metal,
motor, wood. Made for her film Der. 393/4 x 321/2 x 121/2 in. (when closed). Collection of
Eintanzer.
Thomas Amman, Zurich. Photograph reproduced in Cotter, H. 'Rebecca Horn: Delicacy and Danger'. Art
in America, vol. 81, Dec. 1993, p. 60.

Figure 31 The artist's studio (detail), Ann Newmarch, 1999. Photograph by Frances Phoenix in interview
with Ann Newmarch, 1999.

Figure 32 Drawer Collection: Wanderer Butterflies & Plastic Draught Horses, Ann Newmarch, 1975.
Wooden collection cabinet, Wanderer Butterflies, toy plastic draught horses. Artist's collection. Photograph
by Frances Phoenix in interview with Ann Newmarch, 1999.

Figure 33 Phoenix Box, Ann Newmarch, 1995. Two fallen baby birds, goose egg shell, wooden box,
feathers, paint, fabric. 4.5 x 17 x 12 cm. Collection of the artist. Photograph by Frances Phoenix in
interview with Ann Newmarch, 1999.

Figure 34 Tear (detail), Ann Newmarch, 1992. Ceramic tiles, Galah feathers, skeletal pigeon wings,
hologram of skull, wishbone, bird egg, wooden frame. Collection of the artist. Photograph by Frances
Phoenix in interview with Ann Newmarch, 1999.

Figure 35 Untitled (Cutting a Bobbed Hairstyle), Rosemarie Trockel, 1988. Metals, glass, wood, women's
shirt, pigskin. 701/2x 63 x 271/2 in. Collection: Stuart Regan Gallery, Los Angeles. Photograph reproduced
in Stich, S. (ed.) & Sussman, E. Rosemarie Trockel. Prestel-Verlag, Germany, 1991, plate 27, p. 73.

Figure 36 How To Explain Pictures To A Dead Hare, Joseph Beuys, 1965. Action: Beuys, gold leaf,
honey, dead hare, metal, felt, wire, etc. Photograph reproduced in Tisdall, C. Joseph Beuys. Thames and
Hudson, Great Britain, 1979, p. 102.

Figure 37 Teacher, Matt, 2nd Nov. 1995. Cartoon in The Daily Telegraph. Photograph reproduced in Hirst,
D. I want to spend the rest of my life everywhere, with everyone, one to one, always, forever, now / Damien
Hirst. Booth-Clibborn Editions, London, 1997, p. 148.

Figure 38 'Oh God! Its Disintegrating!', Heath, 24 Nov. 1992. Cartoon in The Independent. Photograph
reproduced in Hirst, D. / want to spend the rest of my life everywhere, with everyone, one to one, always,
forever, now / Damien Hirst. Booth-Clibborn Editions, London, 1997, p. 148.

Figure 39 Turner Prize Latest, Steve Bell, 24 Nov. 1992. Cartoon in The Guardian. Copyright: Steve Bell.
Photograph reproduced in Hirst, D. I want to spend the rest of my life everywhere, with everyone, one to
one, always, forever, now / Damien Hirst. Booth-Clibborn Editions, London, 1997, p. 148.

viii
 Figure 40 Hirst's Mother, Meyrick Jones, 17" June 1994. Cartoon in Private Eye. Photograph reproduced
in Hirst, D. I want to spend the rest of my life everywhere, with everyone, one to one, always, forever, now /
Damien Hirst. Booth-Clibbom Editions, London, 1997, p. 148.

CHAPTER 3: Subversive? Artists' Aims and Art Incorporating the Animal Corpse

Figure 41 Fashionable Entertainment, Huckaby, 1988. Preserved dog carcasses, wine glasses, revolver,
leg-hold trap. Destroyed at the exhibition by viewer. Photograph reproduced in Huckaby, E. K. 'The
Critical Beast'. Art Papers, Atlanta, vol. 13, pt. 2, Mar-April 1989, p. 22.

Figure 42 The Butcher Boys, Jane Alexander, 1985-6. Plaster, paint, bone, horns, wooden bench. Life size
figures. University of the Witwatersrand. Publication unknown (see Appendix

Figure 43 Untitled, Jane Alexander, 1982. Wax, paint, bone, plaster, wood, steel. H.225 cm. University of
the Witwatersrand. Publication unknown (see Appendix III).

Figure 44 Out of Sight. Out of Mind, Damien Hirst, 1991. Glass, steel, formaldehyde solution & bull's
head. 18 x 36 x 18 in. Photograph reproduced in Hirst, D. I want to spend the rest of my life everywhere,
with everyone, one to one, always, forever, now / Damien Hirst. Booth-Clibbom Editions, London,
1997, p. 50.

Figure 45 Bones No. 14, Robert McChesney, c1960s. Bones, metal strapping. Photograph reproduced in
Rasmussen, H. & Grant, A. Sculpture from Junk. Reinhold Book Corporation, New York, 1967.

Figure 46 Greyhound Carrying My Broken Leg, Not Vital, 1997. Hydrocal, hair, painted taxi dermied
greyhound. 291/2x 37 x 14 in. Photograph reproduced in Kuspit, D. 'Not Vital at Sperone Westwater
Baron/Boisante'. Art Forum, vol. 36, no. 9, May 1997, p. 107.

Figure 47 The Chief Fluxus Chant, Joseph Beuys, 1964. Action: two dead hares, felt, copper,
microphone, amplifier, etc. Photograph reproduced in Tisdall, C. Joseph Beuys. Thames and Hudson, Great
Britain, 1979, p. 95.

CHAPTER 4: Subversion? Viewer Response and Art Incorporating the Animal Corpse

Figure 48 (Title Unknown), Marco Evaristti, 2000. 10 goldfish, 10 food blenders, power point. Temporary
installation at the Trapholt Museum, Copenhagen. Photograph reproduced in AFP, 'And they called it
art... '. The Straits Times, February 16Th, 2000.

Figure 49 Couple Fucking Dead (Twice), Damien Hirst, 1994. Pencil drawing on paper (of original
installation). 281/2 x 29 in. Photograph reproduced in Hirst, D. I want to spend the rest of my life
everywhere, with everyone, one to one, always, forever, now / Damien Hirst. Booth-Clibborn Editions,
London, 1997, p. 162.

Figure 50 Meat, Wolfgang Flatz, 2001. Performance: artist, cow carcass, blood, helicopter, sheet, nails,
explosives. Performance in Berlin. Photograph reproduced in Reuters, 'Is it Art or Mootilation?' The
Weekend Australian, July 21-22, 2001, p. 14.

Figure 51 Detail of Shaw Your Wound, Joseph Beuys, 1976. Animal fat, Thrush skull. Photograph
reproduced in Schellmann (ed.). Joseph Beuys: The Multiples. Busch Reisinger Museum, Harvard, 1997,
pp. 206-207.

Figure 52 Detail of Show Your Wound, Joseph Beuys, 1976. Animal fat, 2 thermometers. Photograph
reproduced in Schellmann (ed.). Joseph Beuys: The Multiples. Busch Reisinger Museum, Harvard, 1997,
pp. 206-207.

Figure 53 Drawing of Sculptural Work in Progress, Gishka Van Ree, 1998. Pastels. 80 x 100 cm. Private
Collection. Photograph reproduced on Van Ree, G. Gishka Van Ree (exhibition invitation). Adelaide
Central Gallery, Norwood, South Australia, 8Th May 31" May 1998.

ix
STUDIO/ARTIFACT: Summary of Research Proposal

Figure 54 Artist's Collection of Animal Remains, Frances Phoenix, photograph taken 1999. Wooden boxes,
animal remains. Artist's collection. Photograph by Frances Phoenix.

Figure 55 Destiny, Frances Phoenix, 1982. Timber & glass cabinet, paper mache, clay, snakeskin, bird
carcasses. Private collection. Photograph by Frances Phoenix.

STUDIO/ARTIFACT: Artworks/Artifacts Produced 1998-2001

Figure 56 Untitled (Bird/Dolls), Frances Phoenix, 1998. Small dolls, bird bones. Artist's collection.
Photograph by Frances Phoenix.

Figure 57 Untitled (Bone Cage), Frances Phoenix, 1998. Bones, copper wire, nails. Artist's collection.
Photograph by Frances Phoenix.

Figure 58 Pelvis, Frances Phoenix, 1998. Animal pelvis bone, fishing wire, pencil drawing. Artist's
collection. Photograph by Stephen Gray.

Figure 59 Skin and Bones no. 2, Frances Phoenix, 1998. Latex, bones. Artist's collection. Photograph by
Frances Phoenix.

Figure 60 Horns, Frances Phoenix, 1998. Cow horns, latex. Artist's collection. Photograph by Frances
Phoenix.

Figure 61 Hybridity, Frances Phoenix, 1998. Beeswax, doll, bird bones. Artist's collection. Photograph by
Stephen Gray.

Figure 62 Chest, Frances Phoenix, 1999. Cardboard, possum and other animal remains, birds feet, etc.
Artist's collection. Photograph by Stephen Gray.

Figure 63 Kneeling Chair, Frances Phoenix, 1999. Cardboard, tape, white paint. Destroyed. Photograph by
Frances Phoenix.

Figure 64 Blood and Bone, Frances Phoenix, 2000. Installation: commercial blood and bone, broom.
Artist's collection. Photograph by Frances Phoenix.

Figure 65 Parterre, Frances Phoenix, 2000. Installation: Gravel, paint, bones. Photograph by Stephen
Gray.

Figure 66 Treehouse, Frances Phoenix, 2000. Balsa, cardboard, particle-board, plaster, cotton strip, white
paint, bone. Artist's collection. Photograph by Stephen Gray.

Figure 67 Donkey, Frances Phoenix, 2000, Soft toy, cotton strips, plaster, plinth, white paint. Artist's
collection. Photograph by Stephen Gray.

Figure 68 Heracles' Journey, Frances Phoenix, 2001. Installation: Cow horns, sheep stall rails in Stud
Sheep Pavilion. Artist's collection. Photograph by Mick Bradley.

Figure 69 Listen, Frances Phoenix, 2001. Installation: Mirror, pigs ear, sheep stall rails. Photograph by
Mick Bradley.

Figure 70 Remains, Frances Phoenix, 2001. Temporary installation: fur, sheep stall rails. Photograph by
Mick Bradley.

Figure 71 Rabbit, Frances Phoenix, 2001. Installation: taxidermied rabbit, straw, water bowl. Artist's
collection. Photograph by Frances Phoenix.
STUDIO/ARTIFACT: Group Exhibitions

Figure 72 Skin and Bones no I, Frances Phoenix, 1998. Installation: bones, latex, steel rod, red sand.
Artist's collection. Photograph by Frances Phoenix.

Figure 73 Untitled (Bones/Barbie), Frances Phoenix, 1998. Barbie doll arm & legs, 3 bones, stone paint,
gold leaf, copper paint. Artist's collection. Photograph by Frances Phoenix; computer design by Mark
Shouston.

Figure 74 The Un-Remembered Garden, Frances Phoenix, August 2000. Installation in Jam's exhibition -
Preserve, for SALA Week, J111 Gallery, University of S.A., Underdale. Photograph by Stephen Gray.

Figure 75 'Aver piu anni d'un serpente '(detail from The Pavilion), Frances Phoenix, June 2001.
Installation: Straw, grass, floorboards, coded text: 'Being older than a serpent ... I will fear no evil ... in
the ... valley of the shadow of death.' Photograph by Mick Bradley.

Figure 76 Shadow (detail from The Pavilion exhibition), Frances Phoenix, June 2001. Installation: canary
seed, paint, pavilion furniture, sheep stall with straw. A site-specific installation in the Stud Sheep Pavilion
at the Royal Adelaide Showground as part of Winterbodies exhibition. Photograph by Mick Bradley.

Figure 77 Intelligence, Frances Phoenix, August 2001. Taxidermied rabbit, bicycle wheel rim, dowel,
metal stand, chair. Installation in Jam's exhibition Edge, in the Project space at the Contemporary Art
Centre, Adelaide. Artist's collection. Photograph by Mick Bradley.

xi
 List of Tables

CHAPTER 1. Background: Abject Art and Abjection

Table I. Table of Artifacts (end Chpt 1)

CHAPTER 2. Abject? Materials, Subject Matter and Art Incorporating the Animal Corpse

Table H. Table of Abject Material (end Chpt. 2)

Table HI. Table of Abject Subject Matter (end Chpt. 2)

List of Diagrams

CHAPTER 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims and Art Incorporating the Animal Corpse

Diagram 1. Conceptual framework used to analyze artists' aims and viewer response to art incorporating
the animal corpse (p. 44.)
Diagram 2. Dichotomous conceptual model showing artists who aim, in particular artworks incorporating
the animal corpse, to be either subversive or normative of the social order (p. 46.)
Diagram 3. This dichotomous conceptual model of artists' aims is inadequate because it does not account
for the aims of many artists (p. 54.)
Diagram 4. Conceptual model inclusive of artists' paradoxical aims, for art incorporating the animal
corpse (p. 56.)
Diagram 5. Wholistic conceptual model showing a fuU range of artists' aims, including those that are
neither subversive nor normative, such as the transformational (p. 61.)

CHAPTER 4. Subversion? Viewer Response and Art Incorporating the Animal Corpse

Diagram 6. Dichotomous conceptual model showing subversive and normative viewer responses to art
incorporating the animal corpse (p. 71.)
Diagram 7. Conceptual model inclusive of paradoxical viewer responses to art incorporating the animal
corpse (p. 87.)
Diagram 8. YVholistic conceptual model inclusive of all viewer responses to art incorporating the animal
corpse including those that are neither normative nor subversive (p. 98.)

xii
 Transparent Interleaves

ARTISTS AND ANIMAL FRIENDS

Frances Budden (Phoenix), aged 6, with white rabbit. (before introduction, p. 1)

Ann Newmarch with chicken. Photograph courtesy Ann Newmarch. (before Chapter 1, p. 6)

How to Explain Pictures to a Dead Hare, by Joseph Beuys, 1965. (between p. 103 and p. 104))

Frances Phoenix, with Shadow. (before Studio/Artifact Component Report, p. 106)

Robert Rauschenberg at home on Captiva Island with dogs, 1985. Photograph reproduced in Rauschenberg, CAM,
Houston, Texas, 1986. (before Bibliography, p. 127)

Jean Tinguely in Fribourg, 1988. Photograph reproduced in Heidi E. Violand-Hobi, Jean Tinguely, Prestel-Verlag,
Munich and New York, 1995, p. 128. (after Bibliography, p. 143)
 Glossary

The Abject. is 'what disturbs identity, system, order. What does not respect borders, positions, rules. The
in-between, the ambiguous, the composite' (Julia Kristeva, Powers ofHorror: An Essay on Abjection,
Translated by Leon S. Roudlez, Columbia University Press, New York, 1982, p. 4). According to Newall
'the abject, in the broadest sense of the term, is that which we throw out, from the Latin abjectere: to
throw away.' (Michael Newall, 'Gag Reflex', in Choking Hazard (exhibition catalogue), Leith Elder, 220
Hindley Street Adelaide, Sept 20-23, 2001, npn).

Abjected. The Whitney Museum curators of the Abject Art exhibition use the word `abjected' in the
context of 'why do some artists enter the art historical canon while others are jettisoned, or abjected, from
historical memory?' based on Kristeva's notion that what is cast out is abject (Ben-Levi, Houser, Jones &
Taylor (eds), Abject Art: Repulsion and Desire in American Art; Selections from the Permanent
Collection, Whitney Museum of American Art, N.Y., 1993. p. 7).

Abjection. The experience of abjection, as defined by Kristeva, means that the clean and proper socialized
self (of the viewer in our case) is both fascinated/undermined/subverted by the repressed, embodied,
maternal semiotic state (the abject) and simultaneously horrified/ reinforced/normalized by it.

Ambivalence. The coexistence in one person of opposite and conflicting feelings toward the same person
or object. Uncertainty or ambiguity, especially due to inability to make up one's mind. (The Concise
Macquarie Dictionary, Doubleday Australia, 1982). Freud, Liam Hudson, Norman 0. Brown, Eric
Fromm, Reiff Thom and Zygmunt Bauman have all written about ambivalence.

'Animal-endorsing art' is described by Baker as `tend(ing) to endorse animal life itself (and may
therefore align itself with the work of conservationists, or perhaps of animal advocacy)' (S. Baker, The
Postmodern Animal, Reaktion Books, London, 2000, p. 9). Huckaby has called such art 'the arts of
refusal' because it refuses the way society currently treats animals (E. K. Huckaby, 'The Critical Beast' in
Art Papers, vol. 13, pt. 2, 1989, p. 22). Zahn has called the animal in such art 'the critical beast' (Olivier
Zahn, 'Alan Belcher: Face The World', Flash Art, vol. xxv, no. 166, Oct 1992, pp. 80 82). Many
animal-endorsing artists use the animal corpse to deal with subjects such as vivisection, genetic mutilation
and animal exploitation.

'Animal-sceptical art' is coined by Steve Baker to refer to art that 'is likely to be sceptical not of animals
themselves.., but rather of culture's means of constructing and classifying the animal in order to make it
meaningful to the human.' (S. Baker, The Postmodern Animal, Reaktion Books, London, 2000, p. 9.)

Arte Povera. Between 1968 and the early 1970s Italian artists broke away from American minimalism
with its lack of social concern to embrace poor, impoverished, 'visibly humble', everyday materials (such
as rubbish, found objects and live and dead animals) and a social and political agenda (Edward Lucie-
Smith, Art in the Seventies, Phaidon Press, Oxford, 1980). The Italian artists made metaphorical forms to
critique notions of nature and culture (R. Atkins, Artspeak: a Guide to Contemporary Ideas, Movements
and Buzzwords, Abbeville Press Publishers, New York, 1990). For example, Livio Marzot presented two
pieces of dried cod, in an edition of thirty-three examples, as 'sculpture' at a gallery in Milan in 1970,
while in 1972 Mario Merz fitted a motor-bike with ram's horns for handlebars and balanced a huge round
structure on top, calling it Objects. (Edward Lucie-Smith, Sculpture Since 1945, Phaidon, London, 1987,
pp. 127-128.)

Assemblage Art. Artists from different art movements of the 1950s and 60s such as Cubism, Abstraction
and even Surrealism assembled sculptures from a wide variety of existing materials and junk using a
broad range of techniques and styles. Though Assemblage Art began as an anti-art impulse it gradually
became accepted practice. The term 'Assemblage' was applied retrospectively to Robert Rauschenberg's
mixed media paintings incorporating stuffed animals which werecompleted between 1955-59 such as
Monogram, Odalisque, and Satellite (Tom Flynn, The Body in Sculpture, George Weidenfeld & Nicolson
Ltd., The Orion Publishing Group, London, 1988, pp. 136-163). Joan Miro's assemblage, Poetic Object
xiv
(1936), incorporated dead animals and Ed Keinholz used the discarded wastes of consumer culture, such
as mannequins and everyday objects, as well as animal remains and bones, to construct complex tableaux
satirical of society. eg. The Wait (1964-5).

Chora. Matrix like space or place that is nourishing, unnamable, and prior to the individual. It is the focus
of the semiotic and the 'pre-symbolic'. For Kristeva's reading of the chora, 'receptacle of narcissism', see
Powers of Horror; an Essay on Abjection, pp. 13-15.

Compost Art (1997). Margaret Plant traces the genealogy of art works exhibited in the Adelaide Festival
of Arts in 1997 that she loosely defines as 'Compost'. Denoting a 'biodegradable art whose destiny it is to
disappear' back into 'its canvas.., the ground itself'. It includes the ephemeral, casual, outside, backyard,
disintegrating, blurred, horizontal, dirty and fetishistic. While linking compost to 'the fashionable abject'
in art she concludes, however, that the theme of 'time' rather than abjection is a more important
consideration in the reading of compost works (Margaret Plant, 'Compost: A Desultory Aesthetic', Art
and Australia, vol. 34, pt. 3, 1997, pp. 356-363).

Death of the Author. Poststructuralists argue that we cannot know anything of an author's intentions, as
we cannot be sure they are telling the truth or are not mistaken. Their stress is on the reader who re-
invents the text. Meaning only exists between the reader (or viewer) and the text (or painting). This
implies the death of the author (artist). The text is no longer seen as a single message of meaning from the
Author/God but a space where a variety of unoriginal writings blend and clash. Many texts pretend that
they are 'natural', not 'invented', just because they are conventional. Thus systematic thought is 'part of
the repressive mechanism of the state' and the signs are authoritarian and ideological. Poststructuralism is
a way of 'calling into question the notion of genius and the central importance of the individual artist'.
(Eric Fernie, Art History and Its Methods: A Critical Anthology, Phaidon Press Ltd, London, 1995. pp.
353-354).

Diorama. Natural history dioramas usually involve one or more stuffed animals set in an appropriate
painted or three dimensional landscape setting. Art dioramas however, subvert or botch this tradition in
seemingly irrational ways (Lisa Wainwright, 'Stifle Life. From Norman Bates to Annette Messager:
Taxidermy for a Reason', The New Art Examiner, May 1996, pp. 18-37).

Dirt. Mary Douglas has theorized that 'There is no such thing as absolute dirt', it is nothing but 'matter
out of place' (Miller, W. I. The Anatomy of Disgust, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
& London, 1997, pp. 43-44). Matter out of place is matter that transgresses borders, categories,
distinctions, ordering structures, and classifications of matter as well as notions of purity. She also writes
that where there is dirt there is a system. Dirt is the by-product of a systematic ordering and
classification of matter' (Miller, pp. 43-44). Thom also describes Douglas's theory: 'Dirt was created by
the ordering, differentiating faculties of the mind. It symbolizes disorder, the inevitable by-product of the
excessive concern with order' (G. B. Thom, The Human Nature of Social Discontent: Alienation, Anomie,
Ambivalence, Rowman & Allanheld Publishers, New Jersey, USA, 1984, pp. 125-26.). Dirt symbolizes
all that won't fit neatly into dichotomous categories. Miller, however, doesn't fully agree with Douglas's
theory and shows how many of the things that do fit also disgust us. (Miller, pp. 43-44.)

Eccentric Abstraction. Odd or strange abstract art. The use of animal remains (i.e. bone constructions) can
fall into this category.

The Feminine. The feminine refers to femininity or identity as a woman, which is affirmed by 'her
corporeality, her animality, her position on the threshold between nature and culture' (Elizabeth A. Grosz,
Sexual Subversions; Three French Feminists, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1989, p. 79).

Fetish. A fetish is usually an inanimate object or material, which is regarded with awe because it is
thought to embody or house a potent spirit or to be magical because of the materials and/or methods used
to make it. It is also an object of blind reverence, obsession or fixation. (The Concise Macquarie
Dictionary, 1982, p. 450.). (See also Fetish Art).

XV
Fetish Art. Lucie-Smith (Art in the Seventies, p. 76) equates Fetish Art with eroticism in art due to
Freudian theories of fetishism. See Patin & McLerran'sArtwords: A Glossary of Contemporary Art
Theory (Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, London, USA, 1997, pp. 52-54.) for an explanation of the fetish and
fetishism in contemporary arts.

Formalism. Formalism is a term which applies to modern art's self-referential and 'art for art's sake'
focus on the formal elements and principles of art which avoided 'the moral or the sociological.' (Edward
Lucie-Smith, Art in the Seventies, Phaidon Press, Oxford, 1980, p. 8.)

Found Object Art. The choice of materials and processes in Found Object Art reflects a sense of
disillusionment, pathos, failure and, in Kuspit's words, resignation to 'arts limited power in the world'
(Riddell, 'The Abject Object: A Recent History of the Ephemeral Found Object in Contemporary Art',
New Art Examiner, vol. 23, 1995, pp. 26-53). Wainwright also describes taxidermy as 'a found object'
(Lisa Wainwright, 'Still Life. From Norman Bates to Annette Messager: Taxidermy for a Reason', The
New Art Examiner, May 1996, p. 20).

Grotesque Female. 'The ultimate of abjection ... incest turned inside out, flayed identity ... the height of
bloodshed and life ... between inside and outside, ego and other, life and death' according to Kristeva (M.
Russo, 'Female Grotesques: Carnival and Theory', Teresa de Lauretis (ed), Feminist Studies/Critical
Studies, MacMillan Press, Hampshire and London, 1986, pp. 213-229).

'The High Morbid Manner'. Gopnic, in the 1993 New Yorker, called the presentation of distanced
violence, death and suffering at the 1993 Venice Biennale, 'the High Morbid Manner'. He concluded that
this exhibition 'marked the moment when the cult of violence itself finally became a kind of formal
aestheticism ... The shock of the new ... isn't available any longer. It's not possible to shock any more by
being new. The only way to shock is by being shocking.' (Gordon Burn, 'Is Mr. Death in?', Damien
Hirst, Jay Jopling Gallery & ICA, London, 1991, p. 8.)

the Imaginary. Lacan's term for 'the first phase of a child's development, in which the child observes no
distinction between itself and her or his surroundings. The child experiences a unity with its mother who
s/he does not yet recognize as the Other' (Buikema, R. & Smelik, A., Women's Studies and Culture. A
Feminist Introduction, Zed Booksl,td.,I.ondon, 1995, p. 191).

Intention(alism). The view that the essential and defining characteristic of consciousness is (a) that it is
able to have (understand) meanings (intention) and (b) that it is able to direct itself cognatively by
intending (Peter A., Angeles, The Dictionary of Philosophy, New York, Barnes & Noble Books, 1981).

Jouissance. Brought into popularity by Roland Barthes, jouissance means 'pleasure, joy and enjoyment,
with sexual overtones', such as in orgasm, as well as intense involvement with a text (and therefore art) in
which one loses self-awareness and objective distance (Patin, T. & McLerran, J. Artwords: A Glossary of
Contemporary Art Theory, Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, London, U.S.A., 1997, P. 71).

Liminal. For a full understanding of the origins of liminal spaces, I recommend reading: Dag Oistein
Endsjo, To Lock up Eleusis: A Question of Liminal Space' (Numen, vol. XLVII, no. 4, 2000, pp. 351-
386).

The Maternal. The maternal is abject because the mother's body (whether young or old) is taboo. Kristeva
holds that the basis of the Western patriarchal social order and social classification system is the incest
taboo. Consequently the foundational model for the abject must be the maternal body, or the mother.
According to Frazer Ward abjection can be seen as the response to the weakness of the incest prohibition
(Frazer Ward, 'Abject Lessons', Art & Text, no. 48, May 1994, p. 48). The fascination and desire for the
mother, or 'the feminine'_ is counterbalanced by the horror of incest or oblivion. On the level of
subjectivity, the feminine is suppressed during maternity when a woman, or mother, is branded by the
child's father's name and her name is denied. (Jennifer Riddell, 'The Abject Object : A Recent History of

xvi
the Ephemeral Found Object in Contemporary Art', New Art Examiner, vol. 23, Oct 1995, pp. 26-53.)
The Semiotic, the maternal chora and the abject are all placed on the side of the feminine and the
maternal, in opposition to a paternal, rule-governed symbolic.

Momenta mori. Momento mori is an image of death; a reminder of human transience; art that reminds us
that we die; an event or object reminding one of death (Burkhard Reimschneider, Uta Grosenick, Lars
Bang Larsen, Christoph Blasé, Yilmaz Dziewior, Jean-Michael Ribitts, Raimer Stange, Astrid Wege, Jan
Verwdert, Sussane Titz, (eds), Icons Art Now, Taschen, Koln, GMBH, 2001).

Monstrous Feminine. Barbara Creed's 'Monstrous Feminine' (Creed, pp. 44-71), is a combination of
various feminine and maternal figures, including the 'mysterious black hole', the devouring, 'monstrous
vagina and womb', and the archaic mother sometimes seen as 'Death', which 'illustrate the work of
abjection' through their 'construction of the maternal figure as abject'. Alan Krell supports this with the
fact that in Victorian times 'immoderate female sexuality' was likened to death because it smelled like a
rotten corpse (Alan Krell, 'Dirty Desires; Sexuality and the French Realist Body', Lecture Series, Beauty
and the Devil's Rope; Narratives ofModernity and Representation, Nexus Forums, Nexus Multicultural
Arts Center, Adelaide, Fri. Nov. 12th 1999). Creed, in 'The Monstrous Feminine' notes that the pre-
historic mother-goddess figure, which was a single mother, original parent, and source of life, has been
'reconstructed and represented as a negative figure, one associated with the dread of the generative
mother seen only as the abyss, ... the origin of life threatening to re-absorb what it once birthed' (Creed,
p. 62).

'The New Sublime'. Bill Hare notes that the British, unlike the Europeans, have kept a safe distance from
violent art in the twentieth-century, despite the two world wars. However in the nineteen-nineties 'the
Sublime (now dressed up in the iconography of popular culture) is back on the agenda, with death and
decapitation menacing the visitor from all sides.' However, he suggests that this recent work is not
'genuinely horrifying'. 'Like the eighteenth-century Sublime they (1990's artists) briefly terrorize their
audience but never really threaten the polite psychological distance between the artifice of art and the
viewer's security in their detached positions of critical and sceptical power.' (Bill Hare, 'The Pain and
Pleasure Principle: from Francis Bacon to Damien Hirst', in Contemporary Visual Arts, issue 18, 1998,
p. 53.)

Norm, Normative. Concerning an assumed norm; designated standard, model or pattern of average
performance by a person or group of people, regarded as a standard of correctness; attempting to establish
a norm especially by the prescription of rules; reflecting the assumption of a norm, or favouring its
establishment.
Normative Aims. Normative aims or intentions on the part of artists, might include to respect social
taboos, support the purity of cultural institutions, help support and create subjectivity, the symbolic and
patriarchy.
Normative Response. For the purposes of this thesis a normative response is one of rejection, repulsion,
disgust and horror, and it can result in the reinforcement of boundaries and taboos, self-protection and
self-defence, rules, laws, norms, conventions and censorship. While everyone experiences normative
responses they are stereotypically assigned to the patriarchy, the psychological symbolic, modernity, the
modernist author, conservatives, polite society, the capitalist art world, and those who become so
immersed in subversion that they must return to the norm in order to avoid psychosis. The normative
response rejects and is against indecency and 'dirt', transgression of taboos, change, chaos, threats or
invasion of its boundaries, and challenges to its identity. It is determined to maintain and defend the status
quo, order, social norms, regulations, taboos, its boundaries, dichotomous categories (good and bad, black
and white, win and lose, life and death, etc.), clean and proper behaviour and moral decency.
(amalgamated from various unreferenced sources.)

Other. The Other or an Other refers to that which a self or a society is not and is therefore a means of self
definition. For example for the human this is often the animal. Australian Aboriginal singer Renea
Moreton reminds us in her song Anger in Drag that Aboriginal peoples were classified under the Flora
and Fauna Act up until 1967, when Aboriginal people first became citizens of Australia. (Away, ABC

xvii
Radio National, Sat. 3rdMarch 2001, 6 pm.). Human 'Others', as well as animals, are used to define
normative, masculine, 'white' humanity and must be dehumanized in order to be treated as 'the enemy'
and outcast or abjected. Enemies are dehumanized by calling them animals (eg. 'cockroaches') or
something other than human. In the words of Olu Oguibe ,`Otherizarion is unavoidable, and for every
One, the Other is the Heart of Darkness, The West is as much the Heart of Darkness to the Rest as the
latter is to the West' (Olu Oguibe, 'In the "Heart of Darkness" 1993', Art History and its Methods; A
Critical Anthology, Eric Fernie (ed.), first published 1995, Phaidon Press Ltd., London, Reprinted 1996,
p. 322).

Postmodern Art. Amongst postmodern theories Baker identifies two postmodern inclinations which can
be seen in art. The first, in the 1970s and 80s, seems more superficial, simple, delightful, imagistic,
indulgent, inhuman, ironic and parodic. (Steve Baker, The Postmodern Animal, Realction Books, London,
2000, p. 24.) The second postmodern inclination was identified by Hal Foster, in the 1990s and 2000s as
being more serious; about the real and depressive. Baker believes that these two postmodern dispositions
are not historical stages so much as simultaneous choices. (Baker, p. 25.) Baker's The Postmodern Animal
deals primarily with art that embodies the second, more serious, genuinely curious and engaged approach
to animals because Baker believes it is closer to what Lyotard meant by postmodern art (see
Postmodernism). Ultimately, according to Atkins, postmodern art doesn't seek to invent new styles but
draws heavily on existing and traditional representations. For this reason it often looks like modern or
traditional art, or even pop culture, but its purpose is very different; it is a critical practice. (R. Atkins,
Artspeak: A Guide to Contemporary Ideas, Movements and Buzzwords, Abbeville Press Publishers, New
York, 1990, pp. 131-2.)

Postmodernism. Postmodernism is usually thought of as a style of art, architecture, design, literature and
philosophy that emerged in the 1970s. It's roots lie in modernist experimentation with collage and
montage in the 1920s, thus the style is an eclectic and fragmentary one which no longer adheres to the
rules of modernist utility, simplicity and standardization. Postmodernism often juxtaposes incompatible
designs or ideas. (People, Land and Time, p. 212.) There is no single postmodernism because its
definitions change over time and across disciplines. However, Steve Baker offers a useful notion of the
postmodern based on Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition. Baker notes that postmodern forms, whether
artistic, philosophical or political, are imaginatively creative in their thinking about human and animal
identity. For Baker postmodern creative invention presupposes illegality, breaking contracts, inserting
disorder, unruly impropriety and all that is subversive. (Steve Baker, The Postmodern Animal. Realction
Books, London, 2000, p. 41.) Postmodern forms subversively challenge mainstream politics and taste and
the 'culture of complacency' that wants to reject experimentation and the avant-garde heritage in order to
impose on readers and viewers what Lyotard calls 'matter for solace and pleasure.' (Baker p. 47.) Baker,
quoting Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition (pp. 71, 73, 81), states that:
'the postmodern stands for the forms in which imaginative thought necessarily challenges the
complacency of the age, an unthinking "consensus" of politics and of taste which would prefer
"to put an end to experimentation", "to liquidate the heritage of the avant-gardes", and instead "to
offer the reader or viewer matter for solace and pleasure". These remarks have lost none of their
relevance in the years since Lyotard made them, and are particularly pertinent in relation to
questions of the animal according to Baker. No rethinking of human or animal identity is likely to
emerge, it is clear, if art and philosophy choose to present the animal primarily as matter for
human "solace and pleasure".' (Baker, pp. 18-19.)
Postmodernism is often discussed in terms of being a critique of the modernist belief in 'good forms' such
as the existence of an objective and universal truth, the fixed meanings of words, rationalism based on
binary opposites, and a deep original reason for things or the meaning of life. Postmodernism also
critiques the idea of an autonomous, self-centered patriarchal subject or individual national identity, the
idea of an agent, author or artist as creative genius or authority, and a belief in progress which entails
dominating what is perceived as 'Other' and inferior, such as the animal.

Post-structuralism. Rejects the idea that unchanging, universal structures lie at the base of everything and
to this endstudies their construction, function and power. (R. Buikema, & A. Smelik, Women's Studies
and Culture. A Feminist Introduction, Zed Books Ltd., London, 1995, p. 192).

xviii
The Real. The real is the unrepresentable experience 'which is in excess of the Imaginary and the
Symbolic' (T. Patin, & J. McLerran, Artwordc: A Glossary of Contemporary Art Theory, Fitzroy
Dearborn Publishers, London, U.S.A., 1997, P. 112). According to Grosz, 'The child..., is born into the
order of the Real. The Real is the order preceding the ego and the organization of the drives, it is an
anatomical, 'natural' order (nature in the sense of resistance rather than positive substance), a pure
plenitude or fullness... .the Real has no boundaries, borders, divisions, or oppositions; it is a continuum of
'raw materials'. The Real is not however the same as reality; reality is lived as, and known, through
imaginary and symbolic representations' (Elizabeth Grosz, 1990, p. 34). According to Lacan, the child is
born into the order of the Real, which is his term for that natural order where the child is at one with the
maternal body, where there is 'the lack of a lack', no borders, boundaries, divisions or oppositions, just a
continuum of 'raw materials' and 'pure plenitude' (E. A. Grosz, Jacques Lacan, Routledge, London &
New York, 1990, p. 34). When the child finally recognizes its 'lack' this 'signals an ontological rifi with
nature or the Real' and the child seeks 'an identificatory image of its own stability and permanence (the
imaginary - the order of images, representations, doubles, and others), and eventually language (the
symbolic) by which it hopes to fill the lack' (Grosz, 1990, p. 35). In 1960, Lacan defined the real in terms
of trauma in The Unconscious and Repetition. He 'defines the traumatic as a missed encounter with the
real. As missed, the real cannot be represented; it can only be repeated, indeed it must be repeated' (H.
Foster, The Return ofthe Real: The Avant-Garde at the End of the Century, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass,
c1996, p. 132). This repetition of the traumatic image 'serves to screen the real understood as traumatic.
But this very need also points to the real and at this point the real ruptures the screen of repetition' in/for
the subject/viewer. In art the real is represented as the traumatic. Traumatic incidences are represented
repetitiously, as in Warhol, and achieve two contradictory things: a warding away of traumatic
significance (a defence against traumatic affect), and an opening out to it (a producing of it) (Foster, p.
132). This is a contradiction and causes confusion about whether the rupture is in the world or the subject,
public or private, outside or inside. Foster considers that another occurrence of the Real in art is
superrealism's illusionism, which 'is so excessive as to appear anxious - anxious to cover up a troumatic
real - but this anxiety cannot help but indicate this real as well' (Foster. p. 138).

The Screen. 'The screen' is based on Lacan's notion of a screen which protects us from the gaze of the
Real in art. According to Keith Moxey, the screen may be the work of art which represents the artist's
personal mask (T. Patin, & J. McLerran, Artworcls: A Glossary of Contemporary Art Theory.
Fitzroy,Dearborn Publishers, London, U.S.A., 1997, p. 120). The screen is also the 'cultural reservoir' of
images, the 'conventions of art', the 'codes of visual culture' and 'the site of picture making and
viewing'. The screen is also the symbolic order. According to Foster the screen has two tasks. Firstly, it
protects the subject (human subjects, not animals who don't have access to the symbolic) from the object-
gaze by capturing the gaze on the screen and taming it in an image (to see the object without this screen
'would be to be blinded by the gaze or touched by the real'), and secondly it mediates the object-gaze for
the subject. The function of the screen is 'to negotiate the laying down of the gaze as a laying down of a
weapon'. Lacan sees the gaze as violent and the screen/image as essentially protecting us by taming it
(Hal Foster, p. 109-110). Charlene Roth describes photographs of cadavers in black and white, figures
engaged in sex that are only mannequins, 'indeterminate' and 'unsettling' abstract works that suggest
abject reality, etc., as examples of the screen. These screens serves to 'shield the viewer from the heat of
the abject image' (Roth, "Skin and Bone' at the L.A. Municipal Art Gallery at Barnsdall Art Park',
Artweek, vol. 28, Feb 1997, p. 22).

The Semiotic. Maternal; feminine mode; unspeakable; unrepresentable; pre-oedipal; unconscious;

castrated women; repressed feminine; maternal imaginary (potentially psychotic); breaks down unities;
subversive, dispersing energies; capable of indirect creative expression only. According to Bataille, the
maternal semiotic refers to a stage of early childhood that is experienced as a feeling of being in
continuous existence with the mother, rather than being separate, discontinuous, autonomous, individuals,
or subjects. The semiotic experience is also to be found in socially acceptable or socially organized
transgressions such as sexual eroticism, sacrifice, religious cannibalism and war. (Georges Bataille, Death
and Sensuality: A Study of Eroticism and The Taboo, Ayer Company Publishers Inc., Salem, New
Hampshire, & Walker & Co., New York, (orig. ed. 1962) reprint 1984, p. 65).

xix
Shock Art. Chris Turner proposes that 'Art has often generated disgust, but only with the rise of the avant-
garde two centuries ago did shock become a major artistic device.' (Chris Turner, 'Shock Treatment',
Tate Summer 2000, Tate Gallery, London, 2000, p. 45). In 1980 Robert Hughes called his book about
modem art The Shock of the New, while Gopnic called the 1993 Venice Biennale the end of 'shock art'
(Gordon Burn, 'Is Mr. Death in?', Damien Hirst, Jay Jopling Gallery & ICA, London, 1991, p. 8). For a
history of recent British shock art see J. A. Walker's introduction to Art and Outrage: Provocation,
Controversy and The Visual Arts (Pluto Press, Sterling, V. A., 1999, pp. 1-21). Peter Berger describes
shock tactics as the 'refusal to provide meaning' (J. A. Walker, Art and Outrage: Provocation,
Controversy and The Visual Arts, Pluto Press, Sterling, V. A., 1999, p. 2).

Subjects; Subjectivity. Individual personality. Subjectivity refers to a state where the infant has separated
itself from the mother (the Maternal Chaos or the Semiotic where it is one with the mother) and
established itself as a psychologically autonomous individual thereby entering the social and cultural
realm of the father (the Symbolic or the Patriarchy) and is thus under its control. More recently it has
come to refer to a fluid subjectivity where an individual is not autonomous but takes up various
changeable subject positions during the course of a lifetime (Buikema, R. & Smelik, A. Women's Studies
and Culture. A Feminist Introduction. Zed Books Ltd., London, 1995, p. 193).

Sublimation, 1. The transference of a suppressed desire for one object to a new object. 2. Substituting
another object and/or activity for one aimed at by an instinct, impulse, feeling, drive, desire. Example:
channeling the sex drive toward artistic expression (Peter A. Angeles, The Dictionary of Philosophy, New
York, Barnes & Noble Books, 1981).

Sublime. 1. Elevated or lofty in thought, language, etc. Impressing the mind with a sense of grandeur or
power; 2. Inspiring awe, veneration, etc. 3. Supreme or perfect. (The Concise Macquarie Dictionary,
Doubleday, Australia, 1982).

Subversive, Subversion. Subvert. To disturb the mind or soul; to undermine the character, loyalty, or faith
of a person; to upset (e2. the stomach nausea); to overturn or overthrow (the order of things, principles,
laws etc); to bring about deposition or ruin of (eg. state, ruler, etc.).
Subversive Aims/Intentions on the part of artists or curators might be to shock, destroy, fragment. corrode,
undermine, change or challenge individual identity (or subjectivity), cultural categories and societal
norms by indulging in or exploring all that is abject or taboo to 'normal' society. In modernity
confronting taboos was called anti-social and downgrading the gallery was dismissed as 'anti-art'.
Postmodernism has reclaimed these positions as art. Subversive artists give their audience an experience
of maternal chaos, unity, oneness or dedifferentiation, which challenges patriarchal order.
Subversive Viewer Response means, for the purposes of this thesis, that the viewer has responded to art
that deals with the abject by being subverted; subversion has taken place so the art is therefore subversive;
subversion can involve attraction to and fascination for the abject, seduction by and transgression of
taboos, indulgence in the 'unclean' and 'improper', and addiction to shock; a subversive viewer response
may mean the viewer is seduced by art to embrace all that polite society fears, such as change, freedom,
chaos, liminality, indecency, taboos, death and the corpse, and to shun the conservative social, cultural
and political status quo, order, dichotomous classifications, and clean and proper behavioral norms; while
everyone responds subversively occasionally the stereotype includes artists, 'the avant-garde', the young
and rebellious, 'Others' and outsiders.

Surrealism. The Surrealists allowed their unconscious imaginations to free them from dualist thinking,
social taboos, copying nature and traditional artistic techniques. They also incorporated `readymade'
industrial and found objects, including animal materials, in their art (R. Goldwater, What is Modern
Sculpture?, The Museum of Modem Art, NY, 1969, pp. 95-97). Works incorporating animal materials
include Meret Oppenheim's fur covered tea-cup, Dejeuner de Fourrier (1936), Andre Breton's Madam,
You Appeared to Me (1937), Eileen Agar's Angel of Anarchy (second version, 1940), Remedios Varo's
De Homo Rodans (1959), Wolfgang Paalen's Genius of the Species (1938) and Von Bruenchein's
Thrones and Towers made of painted chicken bones (c. late 1960s).

XX
The Symbolic and The Semiotic. According to Grosz, there are two kinds of psychical (mental, soul, spirit,
mind, extra sensory, opposed to the physical) or libidinal (instinctive energies and desires derived from
the id; vital impulse or urge; sexual instinct) circulation and significatory structures the Symbolic and
the Semiotic, All texts and cultural products are a result of the dialectical process between them. For
example, the symbolic wants to recodify the threat to the symbolic of the (male) semiotic avant-garde
(artist) transgressor (Elizabeth (3rosz, Jacques Lacan, Routledge, London & New York, 1990, p. 154).
(also see The Semiotic and The Symbolic).

The Symbolic: The symbolic has been described as the: social context; `system'; phallic; men; oedipal;
social mode; conscious; paternal order: unity or regulated system; and what directs the semiotic energies
into coded social outlets. For an explanation of the symbolic see Patin and McLerrin's Artwords: A
Glossary of Contemporary Art Theory (Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, London, U.S.A., 1997, p. 131).

Taboo. Forbidden to general use; banned; set apart as sacred or unclean; prohibition; exclusion from use
or practice; social ostracism; to put under a taboo (The Concise Macquarie Dictionary, Doubleday,
Australia, 1982, p. 1316). There are usually good reasons for taboo, even though they have been repressed
in the unconscious and forgotten and may even seem absurd. For instance the Navaho burn their clothes if
mice touch them because long ago many fell sick and died from a disease spread by mice.

Transcend/Transcendental. 1. To go or be above or beyond (a limit or something with limits, etc);

surpass. exceed. 2. To go beyond in elevation, excellence, extent, degree, etc. 3. Theol. (of the deity) to be
above and independent of (the universe). (The Concise Macquarie Dictionary, Doubleday Australia,
1982). Two prominent examples of transcendental subjects are God and Nature. (Thomas Patin and
Jennifer McLerran, Artwords: a Glossary of Contemporary Art Theory', Fitzroy Dearborn, London,
Chicago, 1999.

Transform. 1. To change in form; change to something of a different form; metamorphose. 2. To change

in appearance, condition, nature, or character, especially completely or extensively. (The Concise
Macquarie Dictionary, Doubleday Australia, 1982).

The Uncanny. The uncanny is what is 'unnaturally strange' and 'arouses superstitious uneasiness'. (The
Concise Macquarie Dictionary, 1982, p. 1411.) Lisa Wainwright writes that 'the simultaneous resonance
of life and death in the artists' taxidermized props, in particular, makes them strange, even uncanny, a
central characteristic of found-object art in general' (Lisa Wainwright. 'Still Life. From Norman Bates to
Annette Messager: Taxidermy for a Reason', The New Art Examiner, May 1996, p. 19).

Vitrine. A glass enclosed display cabinet, case or container.

Wunderkammer. Sixteen to eighteenth-century 'cabinet of wonders', or natural history collections of the

exotic and the old, objects or all sorts, sizes and_provenances, e.g. bones, stuffed animals, ethnographic
curios, coins which were considered a challenge and a delight for the mind and the eye.

xxi
 Candidate's Declaration

South Australian School of Art

Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences
University of South Australia

I declare that this thesis, The Critical Corpse: Re-(inter)preting the Abject Dead Animal in
Visual Art, in its written and studio/artifact components, is the result of my own research, does
not incorporate without acknowledgement any material submitted for a degree or diploma in any
University and does not contain any materials previously published, written or produced by
another person except where due reference is made in the text.

Frances Phoenix

Signed: ' ,/x#4,-.,;)c

Date: g 7 7& (0'2

 Acknowledgements

This Masters thesis was completed part-time over a four year period with the support of many
others, each with their own specialized gifts and skills.

I wish to thank staff from the South Australian School of Art, in particular, my supervisors
Pamela Zeplin, for her unfailing encouragement and support, and John Barbour, for studio
supervision, not to mention Dr. Catherine Speck, Ian North, George Popperwell, Mehmet Adil,
Marea Atkinson, Kay Lawrence and Virginia Jay. I would like to acknowledge my appreciation
of Debra King, who gave me invaluable support with the structure and argument of the written
work, and Stephen Manson, Disabilities Officer, both from the Learning Connection, of Ann
Mather, Jeremy Loughhead and other Library staff, as well as Trevor Christofice for his
technical expertise in the sculpture department at the University of South Australia.

Special thanks goes to Julie Kovatseff and Obi Ind for their encouragement as well as moral and
practical support. I wish to express my deep gratitude to those close friends and family who
supported me through a critical illness whilst in the process of this thesis and who lovingly put
up with my unavailability over the past four years as I grappled with completing the task and
regaining my health: Jill McDougall, Mag Men-ilees, Jane Fletcher, Pat Sherrah, Moo Lenore,
Chloe Coffee, Yoni Luxford, Maureen Cook, Shirley Smith, Silver, Lin Young, my sister, Sally
Cantrill, nieces, Lucy and Nell, and father, Tom Bu-dden. Thanks to those friends who have also

helped me at various stages of the thesis (both written and studio): Yoni Luxford, Mae Merrilees,
Julie Roszko, Jill McDougall, Moo Lenore, Simon Robb, Roxy Young, Robyn Sable, Mark
Shouston and Suzy Stiles.

My sincerest thanks go to those fellow visual art students who gave me such generous support,
advice, feedback, encouragement, friendship and inspiration, in particular those members of
Jain: Bev Southcott, Val Witt, and Anne Hamden. Special thanks too, to Anna Hughes and Lisa

Harmes for inspiration and support in getting the final thesis and exhibition off the ground. I
would like to also acknowledge all other students for their support and friendship in the studio
`crit.' sessions and research seminars.
I would like to thank artists Ann Newmarch, Rob Johnston, Gishka Van Ree and James Dodd,
and staff at the Museum of South Australia: Jo Bain, Mark Hutchinson, Terry Sim, Maya Penck,
Adrienne Edwards and Janice Forest, for the time given in interviews, discussions and/or tours
not to mention their interest in the subject matter and inspiration.

Acknowledgment must also be given to those who gave practical, conceptual and organizational
support with the Treserve', 'Edge', 'Barbie', 'The Pavillion' and my final assessment
exhibitions: Bev Southcott, Val Witt, Anne Hamden, Julie Kovatseff, Mark Shouston, Lisa
Harms, Stephanie Radok, India Flint, Zofia Sleziak, Aenieszka Golda, Julie Henderson, Mae
Merrilees, Brian Knuckey, Anna Hughes, Shirley Smith, Silver Moon and Diana Williams.
Thank you also to the exhibitions' sponsors: the S.A. School of Art at the University of South
Australia and the Jill Gallery, the University of South Australia Students Association, Port
Community Arts Centre, The Professionals (Golden Grove), Royal Adelaide Showeround,
Helpmann Academy, Bridgewater Mill and SALA Week.

xxiv
Frances Phoenix Introduction

INTRODUCTION.

THE WRITTEN AND

STUDIO/ARTIFACT COMPONENTS OF THE THESIS

Late twentieth-century Western art is littered with animal corpses.1 The media would have us
believe that artists such as Rauschenberg, Beuys, Messager and Hirst deliberately used actual
dead animals in their art to disgust, shock or horrify their audience. Even the art world labeled it
a `transgressive'2 practice. Playing on the concept of 'Object Art', they categorized examples of
art incorporating base materials, such as the animal corpse, as 'abject art'. According to Ben-
Levi, Houser, Jones and Taylor, the curators of the Whitney Museum's exhibition of Abject Art
in 1993, this term came about because the curated works contained 'abject materials' and 'abject
subject matter' which were subversive of social norms and mores.3

In this thesis to be 'subversive' is taken to mean: to challenge, demolish, undermine, upset,

disturb individual subjects or subjectivity, as well as the prevailing social order and cultural
norms. When referring to the subversion of society, I use the word 'subvert' to mean to overturn,
overthrow or ruin.4 I see it as essentially negative because it is undermining, without the
intention to rebuild or create (with the proviso that being negative about a negative makes a
positive). Abject materials and abject subject matter defined as subversive thus embody an
impulse towards violent dissemination. However, the dictionary definition of 'abject', as
meaning 'utterly humiliating or disheartening ... contemptible; despicable ... humble; servile'5
suggests the residue of violence: momento mori.

For the purposes of this thesis I have taken the terms 'dead animal' and 'animal corpse' to mean not only the
natural animal corpse, freshly dead, decaying or naturally preserved (ie. bones), but also the animal corpse in its
preserved forms, including taxidermy and as wet specimens in formaldehyde. I have also used it to mean the parts of
dead animals that have been preserved or processed into other forms, such as leather, fur, foot-stools and blood and
bone.
2 Ben-Levi, Houser, Jones & Taylor, Abject Art: Repulsion and Desire in American Art: Selections from the
Permanent Collection (exhibition catalogue), Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, 1993, p. 8.
3 Ben-Levi et al., pp. 7-8.
4The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionwy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 1993, p. 3127.
1
Frances Phoenix Introduction

The psychoanalytic concept of abjection was absorbed into postmodern art after Julia Kristeva's
Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection was first translated into English in 1982.6 The
capitalized term 'Abject Art' was used by the curators of the Whitney Museum's exhibition,
Abject Art: Repulsion and Desire in American Art: Selections from the Permanent Collection, as
a means of reconsidering twentieth-century art that incorporated abject materials and subject
matter. In this thesis, therefore, I have also used the capitalized term 'Abject Art' to apply to art
that incorporates abject materials, such as the animal corpse, and abject subject matter. However,
I have extended the term to include art that confronts a broader range of taboo issues beyond the
Whitney Museums' focus on gender and sexuality, for example death, and liminal subjects such
as the animal-human relationship. I have limited my readings to texts available in the English
language.

Abject Art is often viewed as transgressive in its subject matter and it has also been used to serve
subversive purposes. As the Whitney Museum curators declared in the exhibition catalogue's
introduction, the selection and reclassification of art for their exhibition was intended for their
own subversive purposes:

...our goal is to talk dirty in the institution and degrade its atmosphere of purity and
prudery by foregrounding issues of gender and sexuality in the art exhibited.'

Some artists share this agenda and also set out to be subversive by transgressing social and
cultural taboos and shocking or horrifying their audience. The aims and effectiveness of such
agendas are examined throughout the thesis.

However, in contrast to the claims of Ben-Levi et al., Kristeva holds that abjection is both
subversive and normative of social convention and this thesis further proposes that some art
incorporating the animal corpse is transformative. According to Kristeva, the ambivalent
fascination and repulsion that characterize abjection operate not only to subvert but also to
reinforce social taboos. While most of the art literature in this field tends to argue that Abject Art
is either subversive or normative of social mores, this thesis critiques such Western binarist
oppositions because they tend to ignore other possible responses. This critique is founded on a

5 The Concise Macquarie Dictionary, Doubleday, Australia, 1982, p. 16.

6 Simon Taylor, 'The Phobic Object: Abjection in Contemporary Art', Abject Art: Repulsion and Desire in
American Art: Selections from the Permanent Collection (exhibition catalogue), Ben-Levi, Houser, Jones & Taylor
(eds), Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, 1993, p. 59.
7 Ben-Levi et al., p. 7.
2
Frances Phoenix Introduction

shift in perspective from a modernist approach to art history, which focuses on art objects and
artists that may be categorized under the term Abject Art, to a postmodern focus on viewer
response. This broader perspective reflects an emerging awareness of the disjunction between
theories of Abject Art and Kristeva's theory of abjection, which dwells on the experience and
potential effects of the abject. The thesis discusses the complex relationship between Abject Art
and the experience of abjection by examining art incorporating the animal corpse in the light of
these theories.

The subject matter of this thesis has been of interest to me for a long time. As an artist, somehow
compelled to collect and use actual animal remains and materials, such as bones, feathers, skin,
and fur in my art, I have experienced an uncomfortable ambivalence due to my love of animals.
However, from my research for this thesis I found that not only did my ambivalence about using
animal materials continue, but that the literature also validated it. Consequently, I came to
acknowledge that it was not only the dead animal, as the object of my ambivalence, but also
ambivalence itself that was the subject of my studio and theoretical research. When I became
aware that using the animal corpse could be subversive of individual, social, cultural and
political norms, according to Ben-Levi et al., I was keen to find out why and how I could make
my art more effective.

Despite the enormous amount of visual art that incorporates the animal corpse, when reading the
literature I found that few twentieth-century texts focused on this topic. Most texts are concerned
with animals in art or individual artists who may use the animal corpse or materials, therefore the
written component of the thesis will significantly add to the existing literature. A few articles,
namely 'Still Life. From Norman Bates to Annette Messager: Taxidermy for a Reason' by Lisa
Wainwright and 'The Critical Beast' by E. K. Huckaby, are notable exceptions to the rule. There
are also major references to art incorporating the animal corpse in Steve Baker's The Postmodern
Animal and J. A. Walker's Art and Outrage: Provocation, Controversy and The Visual Arts.
Theories of Abject Art and of abjection, which inform my analysis of art incorporating the
animal corpse, are comprehensively discussed in the literature. My primary sources have been
Ben-Levi et al.'s Abject Art: Repulsion and Desire in American Art; Selections from the
Permanent Collection and Julia Kristeva's Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection.

3
Frances Phoenix Introduction

This literature also informs the studio research. The studio/artifact component of my thesis has
significantly changed, over the period of four years, in response to my understanding/questioning
of Abject Art and abjection and the work of artists who incorporate the animal corpse into their
art. There are three separate, yet integrally linked installations in my final exhibition for
examination and these reflect my attempts to grapple with, in my own art, the problems inherent
in Abject Art and abjection as discussed in the written component of the thesis, and to explore
and express some of the issues arising.

The final thesis is partially fulfilled by the following written component and partially by the
exhibition and a brief report8 that represents the studio/artifact component. The relationship of
the two has been complex and often unconscious, as one informs the direction of and provides a
context for the other, and vice versa. Although they are integrally linked, neither component
makes direct reference to the other; however this introduction and the studio/artifact report
demonstrate some of their connections. The methodology of the written and studio components
of the thesis is somewhat eclectic. The methodology of the former is discussed in each chapter
while the approach taken to my artwork is discussed in Section 1 of The Studio/Artifact
Component.

This research thesis is primarily an artifact-based study of particular twentieth-century art works
that contain animal bodies or materials, and as such has certain limitations. It is neither an
exhaustive nor a focused study of artists using the animal corpse, and the Table of Artifacts
(Table I), providing a sample of artifacts incorporating the animal corpse, is far from definitive.
Nevertheless, it is a larger sample than I was expecting, considering that I chose not to include
artifacts that incorporate fake animal materials, live animals, human body parts or remains,9 and
the huge area of craft and cultural production, where animal materials are most commonly found.

8 The brief report on The Studio/Artifact Component follows The Written Component.
9 For example, Nancy Graves makes fake bones of wax, acrylic and marble dust in Variability of Similar Forms, 36
Parts, 1970, (Daniel L. Schodek, Structure in Sculpture, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England, 1993) and Allan McCollum uses cast bones in Lost Objects, 1991
(Cooke, L. & Wollen, P. (eds). Visual Display: Culture Beyond Appearances. Dia Centre for the Arts. Bay Press,
Seattle, 1995). An example of art with live animals is Janis Kounellis's Horses, installed at Galleria L'Attico, Rome,
1969. It consisted of 12 live horses tethered to the walls of the otherwise empty gallery (S. Baker, The Postmodern
Animal, plate 33, p.79). I have not used human remains even though humans are animals. An example of art
incorporating human remains includes Jenny Holzer's Lustmord, with human bones, (Ewington, J. 'This Body, That
Place: Embodiment and Displacement in Jenny Holzer's Lustmord'. Sacred & Profane: 1998 TELSTRA Adelaide
Festival Visual Arts Program. Telstra & Faulding, Adelaide, 1998, pp. 10-17.) and Jimmy Durham's 'On Loan from
4
Frances Phoenix Introduction

The five chapters of the written component of the thesis begin with a discussion in Chapter 1
about how the increased use of the animal corpse in art in the postmodern period led to this art
being considered a category of Abject Art. It also outlines Kristeva's theory of abjection and
other theories that add to an understanding of Abject Art. This provides background for a
discussion of the relationship between art incorporating the animal corpse and Abject Art.
Chapter 2 discusses art which incorporates the animal corpse in the light of the first two claims
of the Whitney Museum curators: namely, that Abject Art incorporates abject materials, such as
the dead animal, and abject subject matter, which is unacceptable to a dominant conventional
culture. Chapter 2 also includes an exploration of whether the dead animal is abject in its various
forms, such as taxidermy, meat and fur, both before and after being incorporated into an art
context.

Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 will address the third of the Whitney curator's claims as it applies to art
incorporating the animal corpse, namely that Abject Art is subversive of conservative or
conventional society, culture and politics. In particular, Chapter 3 will focus particularly on
artists' intentions in the use of the animal corpse in order to establish whether these intentions
were primarily subversive, while Chapter 4 will discuss whether viewer responses and social,
cultural and political outcomes of this art are subversive. Finally, Chapter 5 summarizes the
findings of the thesis and proposes a solution to the limitations of the dichotomous
subversive/normative conceptual model which was used to frame discussions of Abject Art and
of the ambivalent model which is embodied in Kristeva's theory of abjection.

the Museum of the American Indian', 1985, which includes 'An Indian Leg Bone' and 'Real Indian Blood' (Jean
Fisher, 'In Search of the "Inauthentic", An Journal (USA), vol. 51, pt. 3, Fall 1992, P. 47).
5
THE WRITTEN COMPONENT

of the research thesis

 1NA,
'
4
'
C
Frances Phoenix Chapter 1. Abject Art and Abjection

CHAPTER 1.

BACKGROUND: ABJECT ART AND ABJECTION

Abjection is a condition in which subjecthood is troubled, "where meaning collapses";

hence its attraction for avant-garde artists who want to disturb these orderings of
subject and society alike.

Hal Foster, 'Obscene, Abject, Traumatic', October, 1996, p. 153.

An examination of the historical and theoretical background of art incorporating the animal
corpse will clarify the factors informing a discussion of its relationship with Abject Art. The
corpse (in general) was theorized as 'abject' I by Julia Kristeva in 1980, and in 1993 the animal
corpse in art was identified as 'Abject Art'2 by Ben-Levi et al., and finally, in 2000, Steve Baker
categorized the animal in recent art as a `postmodem'3 phenomenon. These three theories inform
an understanding of art incorporating the animal corpse, but do not focus on it specifically. This
chapter will attempt to redress this gap in the literature. Section 1 will discuss the historical
background of art incorporating the animal corpse and Abject Art, while Section 2 will explore
Kristeva's theory of the abject and abjection, which Ben-Levi et al. believed informed both art
that incorporates the animal corpse-and Abject' Art more generally.

1 Julia Kristeva, Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection (original edition in French, 1980), translated by Leon S.
Roudiez, Colombia University Press, New York, 1982, p. 3.
2 Ben-Levi, Houser, Jones & Taylor (eds), Abject Art: Repulsion and Desire in American Art; Selections from the
Permanent Collection, Whitney Museum of American Art, N.Y., 1993.
3 Steve Baker, The Postmodern Animal, Realction Books, London, 2000.
6
Frances Phoenix Chapter 1. Abject Art and Abjection

Section 1.
The Postmodern Animal Corpse in Art

Pre-twentieth-century

The extensive cultural use of animal remains and products in the West since prehistory spans
decorative, ritual and utilitarian spheres of life. 4 However art history resisted these artifacts as fit
subjects for study, relegating (or abjecting) them to popular or natural history museums. For
example, according to Nicholas Pevsner, popular nineteenth-century taxidermist's tableaux, in
which stuffed animals in glass cases imitate polite human domesticity, such as An Ermine Tea-
Party, 1951 (Fig. 1), and The Parlour, 1886 (Fig. 2), became for art historians and critics,
`example(s) of the hideous and the debased'.5 This was partly due to the fact that, prior to the
Surrealist movement in the 1920s, and long after, the animal corpse was not generally considered
'proper' material for fine art, although it was widely used within recipes for traditional art
materials.

Proto-postmodern art

Steve Baker hypothesizes in The Postmodern Animal that there is no animal in modernist art. 6
The disappearance in modern art of the romantic, 'anthropomorphic' 7 nineteenth-century animal
may well have been part of what Ruth Butler calls a larger `dethronemene8 of man's image, or
the figurative tradition, in modern sculpture, in favour of abstraction and formalism. Apart from
anthropomorphic sentimentality becoming out of bounds and animals not being considered
serious subjects for modern avant-garde art, formalism, abstraction and dematerialization in art,
according to Baker, also made bodies difficult to depict and critics did their utmost to explain

Cultural artifacts using animal materials include Australian Aboriginal woven feathered bags, Indian shamanic
masks and costumes, Eskimo bone and ivory figurines and Egyptian animal mummies. A broad range of such
artifacts could be viewed along with animals preserved as taxidermy or in formaldehyde in exotic and bizarre
traditions of collecting, such as the wunderkammer. .
5 Nicholas Pevsner writes of artifacts such as taxidermy tableaux that 'We are here, I think, close to the innermost
core of mid-Victorian taste' (Nicholas Pevsner, Studies in Art, Architecture, and Design, Walker, N.Y. 1968, P. 79.)
and notes that the Crystal Palace's exhibition contents, which included taxidermy, were described by one critic as a
'bastardization of taste without parallel in the whole recorded history of aesthetics' (Pevsner, p. 39).
6 Steve Baker, The Postmodern Animal, Realction Books, London, 2000, p. 20.
7 Ibid.
8 Ruth Butler, Western Sculpture: Definitions ofMan, New York Graphic Society, Boston, 1975.
7
Frances Phoenix Chapter 1. Abject Art and Abjection

away references to them.9 If images of the human body were not required within the modernist
canon then the animal body would also have been irrelevant, because, as humanity's 'Other', the
animal has long been used to define the human.1° Or perhaps it is the other way around and the
human ceased to exist because the animal form was forbidden, because as Olu Oguibe writes 'If
the Other has no form, the One ceases to exist'.11

Surrealist artists broke with tradition in favor of a strategy of rupture and novelty, as in their use
of animal matter. The animal corpse in its various forms appeared occasionally in modern
artworks of 'Surrealism', 'Assemblage Art', 'Arte Povera' , 'Found Object Art', 'Eccentric
Abstraction' and 'Feminist Art'. The Table of Artifacts (Table I) lists a number of artworks in
this period by Rauschenberg, Oppenheim, Beuys, Breton, Keinholz, Miro, Marzot and Merz, to
name a few. Curators in the 1990s were keen to redefine, as Abject Art, artworks by canonical
modern artists and Ben-Levi et al. included some artworks that contain animal materials such as
Robert Rauschenberg's Satellite, 1955 (Fig. 3), (with stuffed pheasant standing atop a combine
painting) and Lucas Samaris's Untitled Box No. 3, 1963 (Fig. 4), (an ominous box made of pins
and rope in which a stuffed bird is trapped), in their 1993 exhibition of Abject Art. A photo of
Carolee Schneeman's 'sensual and repellant'12 performance, Meat Joy, 1964 (Fig. 5), in which a
group of naked participants sensually cavort with food, wet paint, and dead animals, also features
in their catalogue.

Baker categorizes Surrealist and other animal images from the modern period as `proto-
postmodern',13 because, like much postmodern art, they look disturbingly fractured and awkward
rather than sentimental and noble. In Lyotard's words, 'The postmodern would be ... that which
denies itself the solace of good forms'. 14 The dead animal in proto-postmodern and postmodern
art is certainly not good form, and it shares this characteristic with Abject Art.

9 Steve Baker, pp. 19-25.

10 For discussion of the ways in which the animal is used to define the human, see J. E. Salisbury, The Beast Within:
Animals in the Middle Ages (Routledge, New York & London, 1994) and J. Ham, & M. Senior (eds) Animal Acts:
Configuring the Human in Western History (Routledge, New York & London, 1997.)
11 Olu Oguibe, 'In the "Heart of Darkness" 1993', Art History and its Methods; a Critical Anthology, Eric Fernie
(ed.), first published 1995, Phaidon Press Ltd., London, Reprinted 1996, p. 317.
12
Ben-Levi et al., pp. 49-50.
13 Baker, p. 22.
" Ibid., p. 47.
8
Frances Phoenix Chapter 1. Abject Art and Abjection

Postmodern art

A brief glance at the Table of Artifacts (Table 1), though far from being a definitive list,
indicates a rapid growth in the number of artworks incorporating the animal corpse that were
produced in the last decades of the twentieth-century. This growth supports Baker's thesis of the
'postmodern animal' which comes into its own after its general absence in modernist art. The
1980s and 90s also saw Abject Art come into being and reach its heights, so both categories of
the dead animal in art and Abject Art can be said to share this historical moment.

The growing number of art categories that may be applied to art-works incorporating the animal
corpse after the mid 1970s include 'Shock Art', 'Abject Art', 'Fetish Art', 'the Uncanny',
'animal-endorsing' and 'animal-skeptical' art, 'Compost' art, 'The High Morbid Manner' and
'The New Sublime'. That few of these were defined by artists themselves, but by curators or
theorists, is also a postmodern characteristic representing the post-structural concept of the
'death of the author'/artist. This concept indicates, amongst other things, a shift from absolute
authority being invested in the modern artist to categorize her/his art, to this authority being
invested in the viewer (critic or curator) in postmodern art.

Of all the aforementioned categories Abject Art seems the most appropriate focus for a
discussion of art incorporating the animal corpse, primarily because it claims the dead animal as
abject art material and also because of its substantial theoretical and exhibition base. By 1994
Frazer Ward concluded that although Abject Art constituted 'a trend, if not a movement', it had
all the signs of a movement with a powerful agenda. Abject Art had its own contemporary
canonical artists15 as well as major historical artists who had been reinterpreted as abject, a
history of related exhibitions, an 'extensive critical-theoretical apparatus' and a strong
conservative reaction.I6

Although modem art appeared to be radical and unorthodox it was critiqued by postmodern
theorists for continuing to uphold the value of traditional notions such as the canon, the genius
artist, the search for truth, and 'art for art's sake'. Both Abject Art and the animal corpse in art

15 Artworks by canonical artists that have been termed Abject Art include: Bourgeoise's Nature Study, 1985; Kilci
Smith's Untitled, 1990; Shermann's Untitled, 1992; Mike Kelly's The Wages of Sin, 1987; Gober's Leg with
Candle, 1991. (Ben-Levi et al., pp. 102-105.)
16 Frazer Ward, 'Abject Lessons', Art & Text, no. 48, 1994, pp. 46-51
9
Frances Phoenix Chapter 1. Abject Art and Abjection

illustrate the way postmodernism and postmodern art have been used to critique modernism. The
use of the actual animal corpse in its various forms in art relate to Hal Foster's notion that later
postmodern artists were concerned with possessing 'the real thing' 17 or the depressive abject
object as opposed to the superficial image: for abjection is neither a comforting nor pleasurable
experience. However, art-works incorporating the animal corpse cannot all be said to be serious.
Some are humorous, ironic and parodic, such as Vaisman's Untitled Turkey XV, 1992 (Fig. 6),
dressed in ethnic costume and parodying human behaviors that are considered 'animal'. The
animal corpse in art may represent what Efland, Freedman and Stuhr see as postmodern art's
engagement with social, natural, spiritual and even transcendent worlds. This is in opposition to
modem art's focus on 'art for art's sake' and its reduction of art to formal aesthetics. 18 For
example, Joseph Beuys' Auschwitz, 1958 (Fig. 7), a museum showcase of items reminiscent of
Auschwitz, including a dead rat, acts as momento mori and performs a social healing function.
The animal corpse actively decaying in art, such as in Damien Hirst's A Thousand Years, 1990
(Fig. 8), seems an apt postmodern exposure of the twentieth-century Western fraud that death is
'the end' or 'oblivion', and the opposite of life. Western thought has been shaped by binary
structures that privilege human over animal, mind over body and life over death. The animal
corpse in art, therefore, devalues traditional aesthetic criteria based on such oppositions. Hirst's
A Thousand Years presents the possibility that death is just a beginning of new life.

Postmodern artists and theorists, including artists using the animal corpse, share the use of
methodologies previously abjected by modernism, such as feminism, queer theory, post-
structuralism, Marxism, and psychoanalysis, to critique modernism. Radical politics and
feminism, which were perceived in the 1950s as 'social diseases', 19 not intellectual debates, have
certainly gained credibility in the 1990s. Another layer of abjected methodologies, such as
shamanism, witchcraft, environmentalism, naturism, totemism, ethnography and identity politics
inform the work of many artists using the animal corpse. Others use scientific method in a way
that might appear abject to a scientist. 20 Synthesizing disparate methodologies in this way is a

17 Baker, p. 24.
18
Arthur Efland, Kerry Freedman & Patricia Stuhr, Postmodern Art Education, The National Art Education
Association, Virginia, 1996, P. 2.
19 Emily Hames, Britannia's Glory A History of Twentieth-Century Lesbians, Cassell, London & New York, 1996,
p. 144.
20 Joseph Beuys' relationship with animals in his art was influenced by shamanism (Heiner Stachelhaus, Joseph
Beuys. Translated by David Britt. Abbeville Press Publishers, New York, London, Paris, 1987, p. 73). Annette
Messager's artwork using dead animals employs visual and strategic references to witchcraft (Charles LaBelle,
'Annette Messager'. World Art, quarterly, issue 4, 1995, p. 105). Alan Belcher is committed to animal and
environmental politics in his art. (Oliver Zahm, 'Alan Belcher: Face the World', Flash Art, vol. xxv, no. 166, Oct
10
Frances Phoenix Chapter 1. Abject Art and Abjection

postmodern strategy. It is worth mentioning that Abject Art was a galvanizing force for artists
interested in gender and sexual politics, but I have not yet read of any artists using the animal
corpse in their art who specifically claim to be exploring abjection in their art. Many artists
included in the Abject Art exhibition of 1993 produced these works before Kristeva's theory was
published.

Although artists using the animal corpse may not have been aware of Abject Art or Kristeva's
theory of abjection, their art and Abject Art have both been discussed in terms of Kristeva's
psychological theory of abjection. Therefore, having explored the historical and postmodern
background shared by art incorporating the animal corpse and Abject Art, I shall now discuss
what Julia Kristeva means by 'the abject' and 'abjection', and how other theorists have
contributed to the psychological theory that underpins Abject Art.

Section 2.
Abjection and the Abject

Abjection

The psychologist, Julia Kristeva has been particularly influential in contemporary Western
thought because in her work she makes the connection between psychology as it applies to the
individual subject, and the broader level of Western society and culture. Consequently, after
1982, when her theory was published in English, the notion of abjection was quickly absorbed by

1992, pp. 80-82). Trockel was inspired by ethnological collections. (Stich, S. (ed.) & Sussman, E. Rosemarie
TrockeL Prestel-Verlag, Germany, 1991, p. 30.). Artists dedicated to identity politics who use animal materials
include Jimmie Durham, (Laura Mulvey, Fetishism and Curiosity, British Film Institute, London, and Indiana
University Press, Bloomington, Indiana, 1996, pp. 155-175.) Rasheed Araeen (De Oliveira, Oxley & Petry, (eds)
with texts by Michael Archer. Installation Art. Thames & Hudson, London, 1994, p. 140.) and Felix De Rooy.
(Malbert, R. & De Rooy, F. 'Felix de Rooy'. In Fusion: New European Art, Jantes, Macgregor, & Malbert
(curators), The South Bank Centre and Ikon Gallery, 1993, pp. 42-44.). Alan Sonfist uses scientific method, while
Rosemarie Trockel's subversive imagery is taken, according to Sussman, 'from the sciences (anthropology,
ethnography, zoology, mathematics), consumerism, and everyday life, which are then fashioned into an inventory,
an archive, a museum, a machine, a product.' (S. Stich, (ed.) & E. Sussman, Rosemarie TrockeL Prestel-Verlag,
Germany, 1991, p. 29.).
11
Frances Phoenix Chapter 1. Abject Art and Abjection

English speaking art and cultural theorists. Abjection explained why much art had been
dismissed by the modernist canon.

But what is this influential experience or response that Kristeva calls abjection? Its most unique
characteristic is its paradoxical ambivalence, whereby we experience both attraction and
repulsion to things that threaten our sense of being autonomous, clean and proper members of
society. This ambivalent push/pull between fascination/desire and disgust/horror in the face of
the abject is the essence of Kristeva's psychological theory of abjection. Her work was
profoundly influenced by Freud who recognized that disgust didn't just prevent pleasure, but
heightened it and even created the conditions for it.21

Abjection, with its discomforting ambivalence, is a common experience. For instance, an

Adelaide artist, Rob Johnston, took a group of work mates from the country to an exhibition at
Chesser St. Gallery in 1989 where they saw Tiananmen Square, by Ted Johnston. This work
incorporated a stuffed fox, which obviously fascinated them as much as it disturbed them. Rob
endured them 'having a go' at him about the fox for twelve months afterwards. Perhaps their
ongoing ambivalence meant that they were unable to reconcile traditional art with dead animals.
Their jokes22 were in a similar vein to a cartoon about Damien Hirst's art by Matt for London's
Daily Telegraph, 1995 (Fig. 9), which ridicules the artist from a farmer's point of view. Jokes
and cartoons can be a way of dealing with or avoiding the horror or disgust of abjection.

Signs of Repulsion

In Powers of Horror Kristeva explains the psychological function of abjection. According to her,
when children enter the social world of language and the symbolic, or patriarchy, they learn to
identify and to abject the dirty or abject 'I', or self, in order to become a 'clean and proper'
socialized 'I', or subject.23 For the child to abject this unacceptable self also means to cast aside,
hide, clean away, or repress all sense of at-one-ness with the mother and the semiotic world, as
well as all other abject objects of desire and fascination. By doing this s/he achieves autonomy

21 William Miller, The Anatomy of Disgust, Harvard University Press, Cambridge & London, 1997, p. 111.
22 Rob Johnston recounted in a conversation with the author one regular joke: 'Hey Stuey, guess what I did last
night? I shot my doe, 'You didn't shoot your dog did you? Why did you do that?'. 'Well its hanging on my lounge
room wall now. It's a great piece of art!' (Rob Johnston, in interview with the author of this thesis, December 2001.)
23 Jennifer Riddell, 'The Abject Object: A Recent History of the Ephemeral Found Object in Contemporary Art',
New Art Examiner, vol. 23, Oct. 1995, p. 28.
12
Frances Phoenix Chapter 1. Abject Art and Abjection

and acceptability within society. Thus socialization is achieved at the expense of a sense of at-
one-ness and by way of abjection.

The desire to transgress taboos and the resulting abjection constitute a corporeal experience
which is often beyond our conscious control. Repulsion may be felt as a shiver of horror, a
grimace of disgust, fear, dizziness, shock, crying, spasms, choking, perspiring, gagging or a
surge of nausea. Other signs of repulsion include 'pollution behaviors' and sometimes 'pollution
24
phobia' Such physical and emotional sensations cannot be ignored and so are considered
subversive of Western subjectivity,25 which privileges mind over body, and 'self control' over
hysterical self abandonment.

In a similar dynamic to that of emerging individual subjectivity, the social order, both cultural
and political, according to Kristeva, also depends on the expulsion of the abject.26 Kristeva was
influenced by Mary Douglas's realization that, though patriarchy must expel the abject, it is
simultaneously dependent on it. Patriarchy needs the abject, and must harness its dangerous raw
materials as a resource and to define itself by (as all that it insists it is not). In much the same
way, disorder has enormous potential for order, patterning and classifying. For, in order to
classify things we must first become aware of disorder or chaos. In this way order is dependent
on disorder, and so too is society, as we know it, dependent on the abject.

Signs offascination

Seduction by, or fascination for, the abject must occur in order to expel it. According to Kristeva,
before children learn to reject the dirty and unacceptable self through abjection they are a part of

24 Pollution behaviors. In his discussion of the theories of Mary Douglas, Gary B. Thom notes that our reaction of
disgust and fear of dirt, slime, and spiders, etc., is as to a threat; that our boundaries are being assaulted. 'Dirt
triggers "pollution behavior", the sometimes desperate defense of the purity, integrity, and chastity of our
categories' because 'dirt is simply matter out of place: "a by-product of a systematic ordering and classification of
matter." (Gary B. Thom, The Human Nature of Social Discontent: Alienation, Anomie, Ambivalence, Rowman &
Allanheld Publishers, New Jersey, USA, 1984, p. 126.) We can ignore, remove or destroy 'the ambiguous and the
anomalous' and racism, sexism, homophobia and classism are examples of pollution responses. Thom concludes,
however, that the quest for purity and order is doomed to failure, because the threat comes from within as well as
from outside. The ritual of washing for obsessively clean people is really an attempt to wash away their 'dirty' sins,
according to Thom. Pollution phobia. According to Thom 'Pollution phobia makes a sewer of the unconscious,
which otherwise would have the power to cleanse and refreshen, and it periodically overflows to render their world
disgusting ... this alternation of distinction-making with a vengeance followed by distinction-destroying with a
vengeance ...' (Thom, p. 181.)
25 Elizabeth Grosz, 'The Body of Signification', in Abjection, Melancholia and Love: The Work of Julia Kristeva, J.
Fletcher & A. Benjamin (eds), Routledge, London & New York, p. 89.
13
Frances Phoenix Chapter 1. Abject Art and Abjection

the chaotic, maternal, semiotic world.27 Grosz calls this 'the order of the Real'.28 In this world
children are fascinated by their own emissions and wastes, and haven't yet learned what taboo is.
As adults we repeat our childhood experience and therefore signs of fascination for taboos are
considered a maternal or semiotic seduction. On the other hand, the knowledge of taboos is
imposed by paternal language and culture through the binary, oppositional meaning system.

Signs of transcendence

Kristeva writes of a paradoxical moment of jouissance, of revelation and blindness, like a near
death or resurrection experience,29 that is a part of abjection. She believes this moment
encapsulates the time of both searching for and rejecting aspects of the self. Bataille too saw
abjection as a revelatory experience of the sacred,3° or oneness with the world. This state of
oneness can be seen to figure for the order of the Real or connection/immersion within the
maternal semiotic. As we have seen in the work of artists such as Schneeman and Beuys,
postmoarn artists are notorious for exposing taboos such as death, decay, transgressive
eroticism and crime.31 Kristeva's concept of abjection was partly influenced by Georges
Bataille's self-named 'paradoxical philosophy' that humans should be free of limitations such as
taboos, because attainment of the sacred demanded transgression of them.32 In fact, he believed
that taboos were made to be broken, albeit in a controlled fashion, and that the ends justified the
means in the ultimate achievement of transcendence.33

A
26 Ibid., p.87.
(
27 Elizabeth Grosz, Jacques Lacan, Routledge, London & New York, 1990, P. 93.
28 Ibid. P. 34.
29 Julia Kristeva, p. 3.
30 Bataille was primarily concerned with exploring an embodied Sac ed through his provocan e activities and texts.
His notion of the sacred was not limited to purity and goodness, but, like societies such as the Aztec's, which were
being explored by anthropologists, embraced the most pure and the most polluting or contaminating (Bottling &
Wilson (eds), The Bataille Reader, Blackwell, Oxford, UK, Malden, MA, 1997). Finding the sacred involved
undoing the individual sense of self in realms of danger and violence where transgression of taboo achieved for
Bataille a sense of oneness with the world, or the sacred.
3' An example of crime exposed in 'art are.the Nazi crimes perpetrated at Auschwitz which are r-eferred loin Beuys'
Auschwitz. Kristeva writes 'Any crime, because it draws attention to the fragility of the law, is abject, but
premeditated crime, cunning murder, hypocritical revenge are even more so because they heighten the display of
such fragility.' (Kristeva, p. 4.)
32 Bottling & Wilson (eds), The Bataille Reader, Blackwell, Oxford, UK, Malden, M.A., 1997, p. 116.
33 For example, Aztec and other cultures sacrificed human life as a way to the sacred.
14
Frances Phoenix Chapter I. Abject Art and Abjection

Subversive and normative

Kristeva's description of the abject has lead to it having been seen as subversive of the social
order. This is because, like Douglas's theory of dirt, the abject transgress borders and disturbs
order. Riddell argues that abjection is sustained by negation, or by 'transgression, denial and
repudiation', and that the abject in art is therefore subversive and founded on an aesthetic of
negativity.34 Abject Art was also thought to be subversive because it embraced the spheres of
pollution and contamination, despite the fact that Bataille and Kristeva also saw abjection as
seeking the sacred or purifying the abject. It privileged the subversive rather than the normative
aspects of abjection. Artists deliberately employing abjection in their art aimed to subversively
undermine clean and proper, controlled subjects, the 'purity' of cultural institutions, and the
power of establishment politics, by taking advantage of the seductive aspects of the abject.
Bataille's concepts of base materialism and informe, developed in the 1920s, which informed
Kristeva's theory of abjection, also interrogate Western binarism by which substances become
waste by virtue of not being classifiable.35 Grosz writes that even in 'the most sacrosanct,
purified, and socially sanctioned of activities the unclean and the improper must be harnessed'.36
Because it is so dangerous, Simon Taylor believes that abjection 'signifies the frailty of Lacan's
Symbolic Order' and therefore it becomes a 'subversive force'.37

Despite the apparent subversiveness of the abject and abjection, Kristeva maintains that abjection
is not only subversive, but both subversive and normative. According to Kristeva the main
function of abjection is to establish and maintain the normative Western social order, or
patriarchy. She goes so far as to describe the abject and abjection as 'the primers of my
culture;'38 a far cry from being simply subversive of culture. The abject and abjection, 'safe-
guard' individual subjects from 'meaninglessness ... non-existence and hallucination, of a reality
that annihilates ... '.39 Thus we learn from experiences of abjection how to live and behave
socially.

34 Jennifer Riddell, pp. 26-53.

35 Angela Smith, `Kristeva, Sherman, Butler and the Abject', in The Abject Female Body: The Photography of Cindy
Sherman, (http://english.cla.umn.eduNisiting/Mjanette/Installations/Angela/Sherm3.htm.), paragraph 7.
36 Elizabeth Grosz, 'The Body of Signification', p. 87.
37 Simon Taylor, 'The Phobic Object: Abjection in Contemporary Art'. Abject Art: Repulsion and Desire in
American Art: Selections from the Permanent Collection (exhibition catalogue). Whitney Museum of American Art,
New York, 1993, p. 61.
38 Kristeva is referring to Western culture (Kristeva, p. 2.)
39 Julia Kristeva, p. 2.
15
Frances Phoenix Chapter 1. Abject Art and Abjection

The Abject

We have seen how a taxidermied fox in art caused considerable abjection, but what exactly is it
that arouses this paradoxical, ambivalent and corporeal response? What are its qualities and why
is it abject? Julia Kristeva, describes the qualities of the abject as:

...what disturbs identity, system, order. What does not respect borders, positions,
rules. The in-between, the ambiguous, the composite.4°

It is also something previously concealed which is now revealed,41 which is why Taylor writes
that Abject Art represents the exteriorization of all interiority in the contemporary world.42
Rosalind Krauss's 1986 notion of `antivision',43 which emphasizes the haptic and tactile qualities
of art, explains Abject Art in terms of the corporeal rather than the conceptual. The abject is also
impossible to get rid of, no matter how often we clean it up, repress it or cast it aside. To
summarize, the abject is dangerous, contaminating, polluting, ambiguous, anomalous and
perpetually re-occuring.

Categories of the abject

According to Kristeva there are three categories of abject matter that achieve these
characteristics, namely food taboos, waste and signs of sexual difference. These will be
discussed in more depth in Chapter 2, but we can experience Kristeva's notion of abjection when
we confront excrement, blood, the corpse, decay animality, the corporeal and the maternal.
Furthermore, Miller claims that animals and animal substances will elicit disgust more frequently

40 Ibid., p. 4.
41 Jennifer Riddell explains that 'the abject elaborates the heretofore unseen, unheard' and points out that things only
become abject 'when they are taken from a hidden state and brought to the forefront of our consciousness' (Riddell,
'The Abject Object: A Recent History of the Ephemeral Found Object in Contemporary Art', in New Art Examiner,
vol. 23, Oct. 1995, p. 27). The taboo animal corpse is usually ignored, hidden, covered, taken away, buried or
burned. When it is made visible, exhibited, displayed or used, it becomes abject. The collapsing of the decaying
inner body onto the outside, beyond its boundaries of skin and fur, both disgust and fascinate. Roth states that 'the
abject, when it moves from the private sphere into the public space, is deemed horrible by most societies' (C. Roth,
'Skin and Bone', Artweek, vol. 28, 1997, p. 22.). For example, she says bodily fluids moving from inside the body to
the outside are abject and indicate a loss of control and order, and so threaten the status quo. Kristeva theorizes a
socially 'clean and proper' body as a container that clearly demarcates an outside/inside border. When the repressed,
hidden or unseen is resurrected we feel unsettled feelings of abjection.
42 Ben-Levi et al., p. 80.
43 Simon Taylor, p. 59.
16
Frances Phoenix Chapter 1. Abject Art and Abjection

than plants or inanimate objects.'" Art incorporating the animal corpse can be considered abject
because it forces audience engagement with the body and its materiality, as well as that basest of
materials, the decaying corpse. The animal corpse is abject when it is taken from nature, where it
is hidden, and exhibited or revealed in art, or when its decaying bodily fluids escape proper
bodily containment. We are also disturbed by categories that fall between binary opposites, such
as those that seem neither alive nor dead, including vampires, ghosts and taxidermy, and things
that are not easily categorized, such as human/animal hybrids. To conclude, we may feel
abjection when confronted with what our society deems taboo, 'other' or liminal.

Western binarism

According to Miller, in The Anatomy of Disgust, the disgusting is a result of Western binarism.
Everyday oppositions are used to attempt to organize 'the disgusting' so that it doesn't affect
us.45 For example, anything that cannot be ordered into the clear dichotomous categories of
animal or human, such as the hybrid, is considered abject and disgusting. Zygmunt Bauman sees
binarism as a violent act of inclusion and exclusion, segregation and opposition, being 'an
exercise in power'46 requiring coercion. Bataille (1897-1962), who was associated with the Dada
and Surrealist art movements in the 1920s, delighted in inverting the hierarchical relationships
between opposites such as ideal/base and high/low.47 His work radically and aggressively
challenged the Western separation of mind and body by giving things of the body - which
Kristeva later called abject - greater status than things of the mind. This focus on the body and
materiality explains why the Surrealist, Breton, called Bataille 'the excremental philosopher' and
why Bataille's work informed Kristeva's theories and Abject Art.

impossible to get rid of

44 William Ian Miller, The Anatomy of Disgust, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts & London,
1997, p. 16.
45 There is usually one element of dichotomous oppositions that is considered less highly than the other and is
therefore disgusting. Many of these oppositions (human/animal, inorganic/organic, inside/outside of the body,
fluid/viscid, dry/wet, non-adhering/sticky, life/death or decay, beauty/ugliness and up/down, for example [Miller,
p. 38]), have some bearing on what makes the animal corpse in art disgusting or abject.
46 Zuigmunt Bauman, Modernity cmd Ambivalence, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK, 1991, P. 14.
47 Surrealism; Revolution by Night (exhibition catalogue), National Gallery of Australia, Canberra, ACT, 1993,
p. 48.
17
Frances Phoenix Chapter 1. Abject Art and Abjection

Kristeva was also influenced by the anthropologist Mary Douglas" who, in 1966, published
Purity and Danger; An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo in which she theorized
that dirt is not dirty in itself but because it is 'matter out of place'. This theory explains why a
dead animal in art is more abject than a dead animal buried in the ground. The dead animal in art
has been considered a crime, a political act of subversion and even a religious abomination,
despite Kristeva's notion that art's role is to purify the abject through catharsis. In fact Kristeva
notes that art does both: 'the artistic experience ... is rooted in the abject it utters and by the
same token purifies.' 49

Michael Newall describes the abject as 'that which we throw out in order to shore up a sense of
our own subjecthood, our own identity'.5° However, according to Kristeva this psychological
task can never be finished51 because individuals cannot completely get rid of the abject. This is,
in her view because, on one level, the abject is a part of individual corporeality, consisting of
bodily fluids such as blood, pus, menstrual blood, urine and excrement, and therefore will always
threaten the boundaries that protect individual identity.52 It is indeed impossible to get rid of the
abject when the privileged category in any binary opposition, such as /ife/death or human/animal,
depends upon the opposition to and oppression of the less privileged category. The art writer,
Lydia Tugendrajch vividly describes how these levels are connected yet denied:

Our Western Culture is obsessed with clean and dirty worshipping the one and struggling to
eradicate the other. Yet our bodies defeat us daily by producing waste.53

The perpetual recurrence of abjection in Western culture can be explained because, according to
Miller, binarism fails in its task to create order. In his view, to categorize something new always

48 Simon Taylor, p. 79.

49 Julia Kristeva, p. 17.
5° Michael Newall, 'Gag Reflex', Choking Hazard, (Leith Elder's exhibition catalogue), Adelaide, Sept. 2001, npn.
51 Julia Kristeva, p. 2.
52 According to Kristeva, the child is 'haunted by the "Other'"(Kristeva, p.12.) and divides, rejects and repeats the
moment of abjection. One of the reasons we continue to reject the abject throughout life is because we are provoked
by the impossibility of destroying it. Kristeva claims that what is expelled, or abjected, is never completely
obliterated but 'hovers at the border of the subject's identity, threatening apparent unities and stabilities with
disruption and possible dissolution' (Elizabeth Grosz, 'The Body of Signification', pp. 86-87). She describes it as an
'abyss at the very borders of the subject's identity, a hole into which the subject may fall' at any moment because it
is impossible to get rid of our corporeality and it's uncontrollable, defiling materiality (Grosz, pp. 87-88). The
discourse of abjection in religion, literature and art is one of catharsis, a psychological discharge with symptoms of
relief, but is not a cure. It acts to discharge and to purify at the same time (Kiisteva, pp. 27-28.), but, like confession,
one must do it again and again because there is no complete cure. Because we can't cease separating from the abject,
abjection can undermine us at any time. Abjection is therefore subversive of subjectivity.
53 Lydia Tugendrajch, `Marec Cecula's Vision of Sensual Sterility', Ceramics: Art and Perception, no. 18, 1994,
p.41.
18
Frances Phoenix Chapter 1. Abject Art and Abjection

means that something else is left out, or abjected, and so dichotomous oppositions create further
ambiguity, ambivalence and disgust. Lisa Wainwright explains how our ambivalence towards
Annette Messager's taxidermied sparrows in Le Repos des Pensionnaires (Boarders at Rest),
1971-2 (Figs 10 & 11), arises from our difficulty in categorizing them:

taxidermied creatures are both familiar (we recognize them from an original context the
history museum) and unfamiliar (they appear as surreal displacements in their new context the
art museum). Indeed found-object art often locates its critical edge just at this juncture of shifting
contexts. The taxidermied object, then, further renegotiates the critical space, as the idea of
"original context" is complicated by the nature of the beast, so to speak. To behold the uncanny in
Messager's bird... is to think on its original state in nature (life) and its museum inertia (death), as
well as to consider its common presentation in the natural-history diorama in contradistinction to
its unfamiliar situation in an art space. There are several shifting contexts at play here.54

Because of this difficulty in categorizing, using dichotomous, either/or thought processes,

abjection can't be controlled in society and is therefore always hovering and unresolvable;55
haunting, spectral and paradoxically threatening to the binarism which is its cause.

According to Zygmunt Bauman, an authority on postmodernism, Derrida calls ambivalent

entities `undecideables'56 because we cannot decide what category to put them into.
Consequently they have the power to militate against either/or thinking as neither/nor. Bauman
adds that they paralyze the ordering power of the narrators, or patriarchy, threatening order with
chaos.57 This idea also corresponds to Kristeva's notion that the abject is impossible to obliterate.

***

Chapter 2 will investigate two particular characteristics that Ben-Levi et al. believed were
essentials of Abject Art, namely its abject materials and abject subject matter for the purpose of
identifying their abject qualities and the relationship between art incorporating the animal corpse
and Abject Art. Methodologically, a textual analysis first identifies the primary material and
subject matters of art incorporating the animal corpse, then identifies the ways they are
constructed as abject. This is summarized in the Table of Abject Materials (Table H) and Table
of Abject Subject Matters (Table Ili).

54 Lisa Wainwright, 'Still Life, From Norman Bates to Annette Messager: Taxidermy for a Reason', The New Art
Examiner, May 1996, p. 19.
55 Kristeva, pp. 2, 4, 9.
56 Bauman is referring to Derrida's list of `undecidables', for example strangers (are they friends or enemies?),
pharmakon (is it a remedy or poison?), hymen (is it virgin or married?) and supplement (is it inside or outside?)
(Bauman, pp. 55-56.)
57
Bauman, p. 56.
19
 Table I: Table of Artifacts
DECADE & ARTIST STYLE ARTIFACT DATE ANIMAL MATERIALS INCORPORATED

1930s
SCHWITTERS, Kurt Da Da, Junk Column (for Cathedral) of erotic misery, 1932 Taxidermied guinea pig
Merzbau
MIRO, Joan Assemblage Poetic Object 1936 Taxidermied parrot
OPPENHEIM, Meret Surrealism Dejeuner en Fourrure (Luncheon in Fur) 1936 Fur covered cup, saucer & spoon
PAALEN, Wolfgang Surrealism Genius of the species, 1938 Bird bones

BRETON, Andre Surrealism Madam, You Appeared To Me 1937 Fur

AGAR Eileen Surrealism Angel of Anarchy 1936 Feathers, felt and silk

1940s
CORNELL, Joseph Assemblage Pharmacy 1942 Bottled preserved organs
Pharmacy 1943 Bottled preserved organs
Parrot Music Box 1945 Stuffed parrot

1950s Starfish
CORNELL, Joseph Assemblage Starfish c.1952
RAUSCHENBERG, Assemblage Monogram 1955-59 Taxidermied angora goat
Robert
Odalisque 1955-1958 Taxidermied rooster
Satellite 1955 Taxidermied pheasant
VARO, Remedios Surrealism De Homo Rodans 1959 Chicken, fish & turkey bones
BEUYS, Joseph Conceptual/ Action Unchristian Cross With Kneecap & Hare's 1952 Hare's skull, human kneecap
Skull
. . Monument (or Statue) 1958 Molar tooth of a pig
Woman on a drumskin 1956 Pencil drawing on animal furskin
" . Auschwitz 1958 Collection of objects includes a dead rat

1960s
OPPENHEIM, Meret Surrealism Jeune Ecureul 1969 Glass beer mug with fur tail as handle
KIENHOLZ, Edward New realism The Wait 1964/5 Bones, bottled preserves, etc.
McCHESNEY, Robert Bones no.14 1960s Bones
SAMARIS, Lucas Abject Untitled Box no.3 1963 Stuffed bird
DINE, Jim An Animal 1961 Oil and pelt on canvas
BEUYS, Joseph Conceptual/ Horns 1960 Antlers, hare blood
Action
" Documentation Radio 1961 Wired up bone from 'How to Explain Pictures...'
" Action Eurasia 1966 Dead rabbit
" Action How to Explain Pictures to a Dead Hare 1965 Dead hare, honey, felt soles
" Action 24 Hours 1965 Dead hare, gelatine hare
11
Documentation Silent Gramaphone 1962 Gramophone with bone
" Action SiberianSymphony 1963 Dead hare
BEUYS, Joseph Action The Chief - Fluxus Chant 1964 Dead hare, felt blanket, fat, hair, toenails, etc
SCHNEEMAN, Carolee Happening Meat Joy 1964 People playing in dead animals & meat

NITSCH, Hermann Ritual Action Abreationsspiel no. 5 (Fifth Abreaction 1966 Carcass of dead lamb
Play?
MUHL, Otto Happening Materialaktion Stilleben 1964 Animal heads
(Still-Life)
ORTIZ, Raphael Chicken Destruction Ritual 1966 Chicken (although this ritual performance against the
Montanez (censored/cancelled) escalation of human violence was forbidden by the DIASS
Symposium in London, he did slaughtering rituals at other
places and times with chicken and mice)
VON Bone Thrones 1960s Painted chicken bones
BRUENCHEHEIN,
Eugene
" Chicken Bone Towers 1960s Painted chicken bones

1970s
SONFIST, Alan Running Dead Animal 1973 Dead opossum in plaster

DIENES, Sad Abstract Bone Fall 1973 Bones strung up

BEUYS, Joseph Conceptual/ Hare's Blood 1971-79 Hair's blood in plastic bag
Action
Wall Street Journal 1974 Coyote droppings, fur and felt
" Fossil 1975 Toe nail
Untitled 1975 Feather
Streetcar Stop 1976 Human skull bone
" Good Friday Object 1972 2 dried fish sewn on blue jeans
BYARS, Donna Rabbit Pen- A reclamation 1976 Taxiderrnied rabbit
NEWMARCH, Ann Drawer Collection: Wanderer Butterflies & 1975 Collection of objects including animal materials &personal
Plastic Draught Horses treasures
FINN-KELCEY, Rose The Magpies' Box 197 Taxidermied magpie
" One for sorrow Two for joy 1976 Taxidermied magpies
SAAR, Betye Assemblage Smiles We Left Behind 1976 Feathers, butterfly
MESSAGER, Annette Le Repos Des Pensionnaires (Boarders at 1971-72 Taxidermied sparrows dressed in knitted clothes
Rest)
FOX, Terry Body Art Pisces 1971 Two sea bass (from life to decay)
MARZOT, Livio Arte Povera Ventrello di Stoccafisso 1970 Two pieces of dried cod x 33 editions
MERZ, Mario Arte Povera Objects 1972 Motorcycle with horns
GASCOYNE, Rosalie Feathered Fence 1979 Swan feathers
" Bone Board 1976 Bones
KIENHOLZ, Edward Assemblage Grey-speckled Bird 1979 Dead Bird
KOSSATZ, Les Sheep Sculpture 1975 Sheep made out of sheep skin, horns, hoofs, etc.
puRDY, Susan Craft Installation Wishbones and Spell-bound Birds Unknown Kangaroo bones, bird skulls

MORTENSEON, Kevin Perform/install The Seagull Salesman: His Goods and 1972 Feathers
Visitors
GROUNDS, Marr Conceptual/ Oxide Street 1978-80 Dingo scalp
Land
STUART, Michele Four Corners Nesting Book 1977-78 Owl feathers

1980s
STUART, Michele Homage to the Owl from Four Corners 1985 Owl feathers
HORN, Rebecca Conceptual Peacock Machine 1980 Peacock tail
Butterfly Machine 1985-6 Feathers
MARSH, Anne Performance In Three Stages 1980 Dead fish
'FLINT, Tony Shelter 1980's Birds wings
BEUYS, Joseph Conceptual Butter Pots 1983 2 skulls with butter in brain cavity
ALEXANDER, Jane The Butcher Boys 1984-86 Bones, horns, wings, hair
Domestic Angels
Dog
By the end of the day you're going to need
LI
GENOFF, Karen Tabemaole 1983 Bbones and feathers
BROWN, Roger Arctic Moon 1987 Taxidermied wolf
KANE, Peggy Death as a Rerun 1986 Bones, feathers, fur, etc.
TROCKEL, Rosemarie Untitled (Vendetta) 1987 Bone
Untitled (Cutting A Bobbed Hairstyle) 1988 Pigs bladder
MACH, David British Salvage A Million Miles Away 1988 Taxidermied zebra
ARAEEN, Rasheed Installation (Title unknown) 1988 Bones
Identity Politics Manhattan Festival of the Dead 1982 Bones
DURHAM, Jimmie
Not Joseph Beuys' Coyote 1990 Skull, horn, bone, shell
Not Lothar Baumgarten's Cherokee 1990 ICollage on paper
Karankawa 1983 Skull
Performance Catskill Giveaway 1985 Skull
(repeated since)
TINGUELY, Jean Kinetic Cenodoxys lsenheim Altarpiece 1981 Skulls
DRURY, Chris Deer Scents, Deer Bones, Pine Cones, Pine 1987 Bones
Bones
HELLYAR, Christine Tool Trays 1982 Feathers, fur-felt
STEIN BACH, Hiam Untitled 1988 Elephant footstools, elephant skull
DAVIES, Isobel Feminist Music Box with Potential 1980 Birds eggs and nest
pROAK, James Lioness 1982 Taxidermied African lion
f, Pegasus: Some love hurt more than others 1982-3 Taxidermied horse, feathers
Sphinx 1982 Animal parts
CROAK, James Vegas Jesus 1979-81 Taxidermied ram
Truth, Justice, Mercy 1983 Taxidermy t horse, snake, wolf, tiger, lizard
NENNER, Paulette Crucified Coyote 1981 Taxidermied Coyote
I3LANCHFLOWER, Installation Tursiops 1981-1983 Dolphin skull.
arian
I-IUCKBY, E.H. Fashionable Entertainment 1988 Preserved dog carcass
COYNE, Petah. Installation Nun on a Highway 1985 Dried fish
" (title unknown) 1983 2,Q00 dried fish

1990s
FABRE, Jan Untitled ,
1995-97 Jewel beetles on wire armature
COOK, Maureen Absence 1990 ' Seagull
De ROOY, Felix Resurrection 1990 Bones
HIRST, Damien A Thousand Years 1990 Flies dying, maggots, rotting animal head
Isolated elements swimming in the same 1991 Fish in formaldehyde
direction for the purpose of understanding
Out of sight. Out of mind. 1991 Cows heads in formaldehyde
The Lovers: (The committed lovers) 1991 Organs in formaldehyde
Two similar swimming forms in endless 1993 Sharks in formaldehyde
motion (broken) .

Judas (detail) 1993 Cows head in formaldehyde

Death is Rude 1993 Organs bottled in formaldehyde
GRUNFELD, Thomas Misfit 1 1989-90 Taxidermied animals
BELCHER, Alan Rust Bunnies 1990 Fur skins
MACH, David British Salvage Talent Spot 1990 Taxidermie,d leopard
Walk on the Wild Side 1990 Boar
Wash 'n' Wear 1990 Moose head
MESSAGER, Annette Fables et Recits 1991 Blindfolded taxidermied birds
Nameless Ones (Anonymes) 1993 1/2 animal/toy impaled on poles
Dependance Independance 1995-97 Stuffed anjmals in nets
Parade 1993-4 Animals in netting
Untitled (netted animals) 1993 Stuffed animals
Teaching Grandmother To Suck Eggs 1998 - Taxidermied animals

CISNEROS, Domingo Installation A Force de Terre 1991 Animal bones

, .

DE ROOY, Felix Assemblage dry Surinam 1992 Large bone

CREWDSON, Gregory Untitled 1994 .
Taxidermied animals
MAURO DI, Sebastian Flight 1990 Bird skull .
.

TROCKEL, Rosemarie ft's a Tough Job But Somebody Has To Do It 1990 Pigs bladder
VAISMAN, Myer Untitled Turkey XV 1992 Stuffed turkey, snakeskin
(La Pinata) Untitled Turkey 19 1992 Dyed cock feathers, stuffed turkey, rawhide,
 VAISMAN, Myer Untitled Turkey I 1992 Stuffed turkey
" Untitled Turkey kVI (Peg) 1992 Stuffed turkey
" Untitled Turkey 'AIL Fuck Bush 1992 Stuffed turkey
puLLEtl, Adam The Otherness V/hen It Comes 1993 Cat
DREW, Leonardo Assemblage Number J9 1994 Feathers
Wardrobe Hermaphrodite 1996 Fur
ELETTRICA, Mauritzio
DRAKE, James Snake-skin V-8 Engine 1994 Python skin stretched over car engine
CHADWICK, Helen Glossolalia 1992 Fur tails &'cast lambs tongues
i, Loop my Loop
DEMENT, 'Linda Fur Gash 1993 Fur
Chamber 1995 Fur
VANDERMARK, Peter
"HIRST, Damien The Physical Impossibility of Death in the 1991 Shark in formaldehyde solution
Mind of Someone Living
Cell Clothes 1996 Dresses hanging from bones
BOURGEOIS, Louise
'048 Mantis/prophet' from The Freud 1991-96 Praying mantis in miniature glass coffin
HILLER, Susan
Museum
Assemblage Untitled 1996 Stuffed ducks head
MANN, Karl
Second Skin 1992 Snake skins
SUDELL, Louise
F/y 1996 Flies dying
ANDRAE, Crai6e
The Real World 1997 Animal tissue
)NATSON, Ruth
Greyhound carrying my broken leg 1997 Painted tai(idermied greyhound
Not vrrAL
Fetal Pig with _Monarch Butterfly Wings 1995 Fetal pig with Monarch butterfly wings in resin.
WESTFALL, Mike
Thought Experiment 1994 Dead cockroaches
MARTIN, Clare
Maiestic'SplendPur 1997 Fish allowed to rot
BUL, Yi(Lee)
/ am a Friendly Asian Woman 1995 Fish with s'equins
Performance Pisces 1997 Two sea-bass(killed in performance)
FOX Terry
HIRST, Damien Brilliant Love 1994 Butterfliesin paint
Installation Secret/Interior (detail) 1990 Horse hair
TULIP, Libby
BURNS, Bill Safety Gear for Small Animals 1994 Otters & ferrets in vitrineS.
The Phoenix BoX 1995 2 skeletal baby birds in goose egg shells feathers
gEWMARCH, Ann
Detail from Tear (triptych) 1992 Galah featiers, skeletal pidgeon, wishbone, bird egg,
hologram of skull
The Tissue Culture Art Project 1998 Human tissue culture grown on glass
FAITS, Oron and Biotechnology &
ZURR, lonat
Paula /V 1996 hair
SANTIAGO,
Virgin Shroud (Udder sculpture) 1993 Cowhide
__CROSS, Dorothy
Bust (tickler sculpture) 1993 Cowhide, cow udders
"
Amazon 1993 Cowskin w)th udder
Performance Voice Otters Animal meat on naked body fed to vultures.
LEE, Lim ,
 BORLAND, Christine Bison-Bison 1997
HOSMER, Collette Assemblage 1998 Animal bones and dried fish
CARDOSA, Maria Starfish Ball 1993 Spiked starfish
Fernando
4.
Dancing Frogs 1990 Frogs
American Marble 1992 Cattle bones
GUO GU, Zeng Fire-works Whirlwind of Emphatic Construction 1995 Stuffed lizard carcasses
performance
HAMILTON, Anthony Installation The Velvet Target 1995 Kangaroo feet, white fox, blood trails
. Weebubbie Dream Of The Kang...yoo Girl 1994/99 Furs
" Where The Crow Flies Backwards 1999 Taxidermied crow
Hung White Fox And Shadow 1999 Taxiderrnied white fox
Title unknown 1998? Dingo fur in baby's blanket
JAARSMA, Melia Perform/Inst Hi Inlander (Hello Native) 1998-99 Cloak of treated chicken skin
HAMILTON, Anne Between taxonomy and communion 1990 Sheep's fleece, animal & human teeth
HUGHES, Maurie Untitled unknown Bones, felt
HUNTER, lnga Congo Christ Cats fur & birds feather
SINCLAIR, Ross Real Life Rocky Mountain 1996 Taxidermied animals
CIRONIS, Olga Untitled 1999 Animal bones
Flight 1999 Feathers
PURDY, Susan Wishbones & Spell-bound Birds unknown Kangaroo bones, bird skulls
WEAVER, Louise Invisible Bird unknown Taxidermied hoopoe bird
WESTMAN, Bror Bone Tapestry 1993 Bones
CLOUSTON, Alison Slipshod 1997 Shoes with hoofs
MAHOOD, Kim Boot Fetish 1992 Fur, snakeskin
DION Mark Tar & Feathers 1996 Feathers, various taxiderrnied animals

' 00CIS
LUCAS, Sarah ' Abject Art Tongue and Groove Always Goes Down Well 2000 Meat
DODD, James Performance (Title unknown) 2000 Killing & skinning 2 rabbits.

EVARISTTI, Marco Installation (Title unknown) 2000 10 goldfish in kitchen blenders (the audience was given
power over life & death)
_FLATZ, Wolfgang Performance Meat 2001 Exploding cow carcass
KLIMA, John Installation Go Fish 2001 Interactive video game in which a virtual Goldfish is guided to
safety through treacherous waters. If you lose the game a
real goldfish is devoured by an Oscar fish.
 Figure 1 An Ermine Tea-Party, Ploucquet of Stuttgart, taxidermist,
1851. Taxidermy and miniature furniture.

Figure 2
The Parlour,
(taxidermist
unknown),
1866. TabIeau-
Mort of
taxidermied
squirrels
and miniature
furniture
in parlour
setting in a
vitrine.

Figure 3 Satellite, Figure 4 Untitled Box No. 3, Figure 5 Meat Joy,

Robert Rauschenberg, Lucas Samaris, 1963. Construction: Carolee Schneeman,
1955. Combine painting: wood, rope, pins, taxidermied bird. 1964. Performance:
oil, fabric, paper, naked people, rubbish,
wood on canvas, plus food, sausages and
taxidermied pheasant dead animals.
without tail.
 Figure 7 Auschwitz, Joseph Beuys, 1958.
Showcase of items, including a drawing
of a starved and crippled girl, charred
remains, dead rat, goggles, blutwurst,
poison phials, electric plates with fat.

Figure 6 Untitled Turkey XV,

Meyer Vaisman, 1992.
Snakeskin, fabric,
taxidermied turkey,
mixed media on wood base.

:Aet0171*--.
063 at gke Lb
HAD AN
ART &cm

Figure 8 Figure 9 Old MacDonald

A Thousand Years, Damien Hirst, 1990. Had an Art Gallery, Matt,
Glass, steel, MDF, cow's head, maggots, 2 Nov. 1995. Cartoon in
fly-killer, bowls of sugar-water solution. The Daily Telegraph.
 Figure 10
Le Repos des Pensionnaires
(Boarders at Rest),
Annette Messager, 1971-72.
65 taxidermied sparrows
wearing knitted wool
garments placed in a vitrine.

Figure 11
Le Repos des Pensionnaires.
detail.

Figure 12 Monogram, Robert Rauschenberg, 1955-59. Freestanding combine:

oil, paper, fabric, wood on canvas, rubber heel, tennis ball, metal plaque,
hardware, taxidermied Angora goat, rubber tyre, mounted on four wheels.
Frances Phoenix Chapter 2. Abject? Materials and Subject Matter

CHAPTER 2.

ABJECT? MATERIALS, SUBJECT MATTER AND

ART INCORPORATING THE ANIMAL CORPSE

'abject art '...describes a body of work which incorporates or suggests abject materials such as
dirt, hair, excrement, dead animals, menstrual blood, and rotting food... (and) also includes
abject subject matter that which is often deemed inappropriate by a conservative dominant
culture.

Ben-Levi, Houser, Jones & Taylor (eds), Abject Art: Repulsion and Desire in
American Art; Selections from the Permanent Collection, 1993, p. 7.

In the introduction to the catalogue of the Whitney Museum's exhibition of Abject Art, Ben-
Levi, Houser, Jones and Taylor wrote that Abject Art incorporates abject materials, such as dead
animals, as well as abject subject matter./ Section 1 of this Chapter will address abject materials
and Section 2 will address abject subject matter in order to question this definition.

Section 1.
Abject Art Materials

Ben-Levi, et al. define the dead animal as abject and suggest that the art into which it is
incorporated becomes, by definition, Abject Art. Section 1 outlines arguments both for and
against this position, beginning with an exploration of the cultural significance of the corpse,

Ben-Levi, Houser, Jones & Taylor (eds), Abject Art: Repulsion and Desire in American Art; Selections from the
Permanent Collection, Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, 1993, p. 7.
20
Frances Phoenix Chapter 2. Abject? Materials and Subject Matter

beyond and prior to its use in art, followed by a discussion of the significance of the animal
corpse in art.2

Initial analysis in this research of the animal materials of art found that they were not easily
separated from their technical requirements, consequently I have conflated materials with the
technical processes used on them. Analysis of the materials/techniques was partially informed by
Kristeva's three categories of the abject: food taboos, corporeal waste, and signs of sexual
difference.3 This analysis is summarised in Table II, at the end of this chapter.

Abjection and the Dead Animal Beyond the Art Context

According to Kristeva, the natural corpse is 'the most sickening of wastes'.4 Kristeva implies that
it is the denial and repression of the body in twentieth-century Western culture that renders the
corpse abject. However the corpse is not only repulsive but also strangely seductive.5 Given that
the abject has been shown to refer to matter out of place, the natural corpse, prior to its
incorporation into art, may not necessarily seem abject. The corpse certainly seems more
acceptable in a natural environment and can be easily ignored. Kristeva argues, however, that the
corpse is difficult to ignore: it fascinates us, beckons us, threatening engulfment, confronting us
with our own mortality.6 Kristeva believes that we must reject, or abject, the revolting seduction

2 Although most theorists concentrate on the human body, the animal body is also a corporeal entity. Animal and
human bodies share bones, flesh, blood and skin, life, illness, deformity, wounds, death and decay, etc.
Consequently the animal corpse has often been used to stand in for the abject human body. If art could be as
privileged as science, Western artists would be able to work with the human cadaver in the same way as scientists
are able to study anatomy. Until that possibility eventuates, artists will turn to the humble dead animal to explore
issues of life and death, and animal and human corporeality.
3 Signs of sexual difference between men and women (seen as potential mothers) include genitalia, incest and
menstrual blood. (Kristeva, pp. 99-103.)
4 Julia Kristeva, Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection, translated by Leon S. Roudiez, Colombia University
Press, New York, 1982, pp. 3-4.
5 Ibid.
6 Psychologically, if the corpse encroaches too far across our borders we may physically vomit or faint from the
experience of boundary loss, or loss of our sense of being an autonomous 'I' (Kristeva, p. 4.) According to Grosz,
the corpse is therefore subversive, or transgressive, of subjectivity because it challenges the viewer's ego stability
and self-control by asserting physical and mental temporality and fragility (John Fletcher & Andrew Benjamin (eds),
Abjection, Melancholia and Love: The Work of Julia Kristeva, Routledge, London & New York, 1990, pp. 80-104).
Paradoxically though, Kristeva theorises that the corpse also supports normative subjectivity because our life
depends upon death, or our rejection of it. Consequently, Kristeva suggests there is a relationship of sacrifice
established between us and the abject corpse, and of this she writes -`such wastes drop so that I might live'
(Kristeva, pp. 3-4).
Frances Phoenix Chapter 2. Abject? Materials and Subject Matter

of the corpse in order to survive.' Equally we must abject corporeal waste, a category within
which she includes the rotting corpse.8

When it comes to the abject materiality of the animal corpse, Charles Hall suggests that decay is
even more threatening and horrifying than death. Rather than being in a condition of complete
`stasis',9 the decaying corpse is very much alive with maggots and bacteria. The preserved
corpse, however, can also be considered abject. Animals have not traditionally been preserved
for art, but for costume, trophy, collection, spiritual guidance,/° taxonomy and sentiment to name
a few. While in their time they may have been socially acceptable, they often become abject as
their rationale begins to appear less rational. Lisa Wainwright also believes that animals in
formaldehyde (as in natural history museums or Damien Hirst's art) are more abject than when
taxidermied, because they are 'really, really, really dead'," rather than 'pretending' to be alive.
However taxidermy, even beyond its use in art can still be considered abject. For example, Carol
Fewster implores museums 'to get professionally stuffed'12 because amateurism adds an element
of caricature and abjection to museum taxidermy. Amateur taxidermy may well equal the abject
effects of taxidermy by artists who deliberately 'botch' 13 their efforts. It also defeats the purpose
of taxidermy which is to approximate, or seemlessly represent, life as it once was.

Commentators have described taxidermy as 'abject' for many reasons. Taxidermy literally means
the arrangement of the skin14 and skin is considered abject, in Kristevan terms, because it
separates and defends the inside from the outside, and visa versa." The stuffed skin, however,
can also be seen to separate the fake from the real, the sawdust or plaster from the feathers or fur,
and our 'sublime unknowing' 16 from our desire fulfilled. Wainwright believes that taxidermy

7 Elizabeth Grosz, Volatile Bodies: Towards a Cotporeal Feminism, Indiana University Press, Bloomington,
Indiana, USA, 1994, p. 194.
8 Julia Kristeva, pp. 3-4. For further details of abject matter in horror film read Barbara Creed 'Horror and The
Monstrous Feminine: An Imaginary Abjection', Screen, no. 27, Jan-Feb 1986, pp. 44-71.
9 Charles Hall, 'A Sign of Life', Damien Hirst: Exhibition Catalogue: Institute of Contemporary Arts, 13th Dec.
1991 to 2nd Feb 1992, Jay Jopling Gallery & ICA, London, 1991, npn.
10 The Egyptians preserved millions of animals and birds to act as messengers between them and the gods.
11 Lisa Wainwright, 'Still Life. From Norman Bates to Annette Messager: Taxidermy for a Reason', The New Art
Examiner, May 1996, p. 20.
12 Carol Fewster, 'Museums Urged to Get Professionally Stuffed', Museums Journal (London), Museums
Association, vol. 90, March 1990, p. 11.
13 Steve Baker, The Postmodern Animal, Reaktion Books, London, 2000, p. 55.
14 J. M. Harrison, Bird Taxidermy, David & Charles, London, 1976, p. vii.
15 The skin also separates the bodily excretions from the clean and proper body, and therefore chaos from culture.
16 Lisa Wainwright, p. 19.
22
Frances Phoenix Chapter 2. Abject? Materials and Subject Matter

may also be regarded as abject because it is both familiar and unfamiliar, and is therefore
'uncanny':

Like the communion wafer, the taxidermized animal is not just a symbol, but carries an odd trace
of its referent. Its skin once clothed an animate thing, like a shroud or cloth.-..bOth clothing and
taxidermy suggest the absent body it is our body evoked, our humanity questioned, our
impending death wishfully forestalled, our sublime unknowing f9tishisiically fulfilled.I7

Taxidermy also negotiates the spaces 'in-between' binary opposites. It is neither and both art and
science, art and life, high and low culture, rational and irrational, life and death, past and present,
as well as real and unreal. It is ambivalent, undecidable and thus abject. For example, we are
seduced by the taxidermied animal as we are by our live animal friends, hoping to be beguiled,
but we find that seeing is not believing. We may suddenly become aware of the taxidermied
animal's hard stillness. We may notice what Jo Bain, the preparator at the Museum of South
Australia, describes as oozing grease, loss of surface texture, moulting hair, collapsing and
shrinking body forms, curling fish scales, loss of skin and muscle fullness.18 We are revolted and
retreat, disillusioned and undone by death disguised as a living friend. And what were our
illusions? - that we will never die or decay, that our own corporeality will never disgust those
who love us, that we are fixed and stable, and that we, as human, are not 'animal'.

Kristeva's categories of the abject would suggest that the processed animal corpse outside of art
can also be considered abject. It takes many forms such as meat, leather, fur and feather, tourist
products and even 'Blood and Bone'. The animal corpse dismembered, disassembled,
irretrievably altered and almost forgotten, can also elicit abjection. For example, signs of sexual
difference, such as can be found on animal skins, constitute one of Kristeva's categories of the
abject. Leather and fur may also be considered abject because, according to Riddell, everyday
materials found close to the abject human body are abject.19 Ambivalent desire and disgust for
meat may arise from social or religious food taboos or, on the other hand, may be based on our

17 Lisa Wainwright, p. 19.

18 Jo Bain, a talk on taxidermy for the friends of the museum, Museum of South Australia, 1999.
19 Everyday non-art materials and processes are closer to the body than traditional art materials and techniques,
which brings them into the world of the abject. Riddell believes that abject non-art objects in art assert the presence
of the body in that they 'firmly occupy the realm of lived experience'. Found-object work usually takes the form of
installation which refers to the lived space of the body. This work stems from dissatisfaction with Modernist
egotistical art practice and ideology that 'steamroller's' subjectivity. (Jennifer Riddell, 'The Abject Object: A
Recent History of the Ephemeral Found Object in Contemporary Art', New Art _Examiner, vol. 23, Oct 1995, pp. 26-
53.)
23
Frances Phoenix Chapter 2. Abject? Materials and Subject Matter

close feelings for animals, as well as our animal origins and connections, according to the
scientist Paul Rosin.20

Protection Verses Abjection: The Dead Animal and Art

Although the animal corpse in its various forms can be considered abject beyond the context of
art, it is unclear whether it remains abject when incorporated into art. Ben-Levi et al. assert that
the animal corpse in Abject Art is abject and Kristeva writes that the corpse provokes the utmost
experience of abjection, being both fascinating and repulsive, both subversive and normative of
cultural and social codes. However, Charlene Roth offers the alternative possibility, that much
Abject Art actually protects viewers from abjection by throwing up a 'screen' which 'shields' off
the 'real', assuring the viewer that the abject encountered is merely an illusion.21 Roth suggests
that the most useful purpose of the abject image in art is to position us for an experience of the
'sublime', which is 'to encounter the fragility of subjecthood from a safe place'.22

There are many other arguments for and against the idea that art can protect viewers from
abjection. For instance, naming, categorising and exhibiting the abject animal corpse in art may
effectively legitimise it, raising it out of its abject status, thus shielding viewers by placing them
at one remove from abjection. On the other hand, like dirt, the dead animal is out of its 'proper'
or usual place when exhibited in a gallery, and therefore may elicit abjection. Douglas's theory
that something may be considered 'dirt' if it is out of place23 may explain why the smell of
gutted fish in Anne Marsh's symbolic performance and installation, In Three Stages, 1980 (Fig.
13), was so disturbing to local residents who had the health inspector remove them. The fishy
smell might not have disturbed if experienced on a shore-line or in a market place.24

Opinion differs as to whether the artistic use of the animal corpse as metaphor or symbol protects
from abjection. For example, Damien Hirst, one of Britain's most famous contemporary artists,

20 William Ian Miller, The Anatomy of Disgust, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts & London,
1997, pp. 45, 48-49.
21 Charlene Roth, "Skin and Bone' at the LA Municipal Art Gallery at Barnsdall Art Park', in Artweek, vol. 28, Feb.
1997, p. 22.
22 Ibid.
23 William Miller, pp. 43-44.
24 It is worth noting that Yi Bul's installation, Majestic Splendour, 1997 (Fig. 27), also incorporated rotting fish and
she solved the problem of the smell by including a handful of potassium permanganate in each bag with the fish to

24
Frances Phoenix Chapter 2. Abject? Materials and Subject Matter

often uses dead animals in a metaphorical way, with titles such as In and Out of Love, Judas and
The Lovers (The Committed Lovers), 1991 (Fig. 14), which bear little or no apparent relationship
to the animal itself He claims to use metaphor because it separates us from death and he believes
that people need to feel distanced.'25 However, even-though his use of metaphor may protect his
viewers from abjection, he is usually accused of shocking these viewers. Perhaps, despite the
efforts of artists like Hirst, the corpse resists the protection of metaphor. Moreover, Kristeva
holds that because the corpse is death, it cannot be made to signify anything, not even death, and
it is therefore impossible to protect ourselves from the corpse, except through science and
religion.26 It could be argued that artists who try to use the corpse as a symbol or metaphor could
find their intentions undermined by the abject power of the real corpse. As Huckaby writes:

Certain materials, eg. flesh and bone, prove resistant to contextual shifting, discomfortably
registering mortality whenever so slightly displaced.27

Given attitudes towards the animal in society, its use in art as symbol or metaphor is sometimes
considered immoral or unethical and therefore abject. Everitt writes28 that Damien Hirst is 'not
anti-moral or amoral, but extra-moral', and that we are invited not to care about death, violence
and our ethics in the world of the art gallery 'where bad taste is driven to the point of elegance,
and disgust filtered into delight'.29 Hirst uses the dead animal as metaphor for human emotional
and physical experience. For example The Lovers (The Committed Lovers), 1991 (Fig. 14), a
wall-mounted cabinet stocked with jars containing cows' hearts and organs in formaldehyde,
literally materialises human love and romance by

bring(ing) the flight of metaphor, romance and poetry in the language of affection right down to
earth. We say for example that we have lost our heart to someone, or that, a souhnate having been
identified, two hearts beat as one. The Lovers presents such thoughts in concrete terms.3°

Huckaby also suggests that such use of metaphor is unethical and writes that artists' campaigns
on behalf of the animal 'all deny the beast as symbol'.31 This suggests that even though Hirst

prevent noxious odours (Lisa Gabrielle Mark, 'Fast Forward: Contemporary Korean Art in Toronto', Art Asia
Pacific, issue 19, 1998, p. 28). However this may defeat the purpose of Abject Art.
25 Damien Hirst, I want to spend the rest of my life everywhere, with everyone, one to one, always, forever, now /
Damien Hirst, Booth-Clibborn Editions, London, 1997, p. 29.
26 Julia Ktisteva, pp. 3-4.
27E. K. Huckaby, 'The Critical Beast', Art Papers, Atlanta, vol. 13, pt. 2, Mar-April 1989, P. 22.
28 Everitt wrote in the British newspaper, the Guardian.
29 Gordon Burn, 'Is Mr. Death In? by Gordon Burn', in Damien Hirst, I want to spend the rest of my life everywhere,
with everyone, one to one, always, forever, now, Booth-Clibborn Editions, London, 1997, p. 7-13.
30 Archer, M. & Hilty, G.(curator/eds.). Material Culture: The Object in British Art of the 1980s and 1990s.
Hayward Gallery, London, 1997, npn.
31 E. K. Huckaby, p. 22.
25
Frances Phoenix Chapter 2. Abject? Materials and Subject Matter

believes that his use of metaphor distances his viewers from experiencing abjection in response
to dead animals in his art, his supposed lack of ethics or morality ensure that they are not
protected from abjection.

Various non-Western, non-binarist beliefs and concepts help protect Adelaide artist, Gishka Van
Ree, from abjection in the face of animal and human remains. As a Buddhist, he believes humans
are no different from animals and we are born to die and death is not fearful but a part of the life
cycle. He appreciates shamanic and Japanese approaches to materials, and uses feathers and
bones in his art for their spiritual and symbolic value (Fig. 53). 32

While science might protect us from abjection, according to Kristeva, art is beset by Western
double standards. The use of certain objects in science may seem 'rational' while the use of the
same objects in art may appear 'irrational'. Lisa Wainwright, in her article on taxidermy in art,
proposes that scientific dioramas reference rationality whereas in art they reference a
contemporary irrationality, thereby supporting the argument that the corpse is abject in art but
not in science:

The natural history diorama harks back to an enlightenment project of rationality, whereas the art
diorama seems to yield only conditions of madness.33

Thus scientific display techniques such as vitrines and dioramas can lose their credibility,
rationality and acceptability when appropriated within art. We also see animal bones and skulls
differently in art and science: as evidence of lineage, classification and structure in science, but
of abject temporality, death and even murder in art. Artists concerned about these double
standards being applied to the same objects in art and science include the Surrealist artist,
Remedios Varo, and the kinetic sculptor, Jean Tinguely. Tinguely uses animated animal skulls in
artworks such as Cenodoxus lsenheim Altarpiece, 1981(Fig. 15), to expose the hypocrisy of
apparently rational Catholic rituals. Tinguely asks why is death taboo when it is already present,
in the (metaphorical) form of cannibalism, in Catholic rituals. Similarly Varo illustrated her book
De Homo Rodans, 34 about the reconciliation of the rational 'hard' sciences and anthropology
with irrational and humanist myths, poetry and the arts, with her tiny fantasy sculpture, Homo

32 Gishka Van Ree in taped discussion with Frances Phoenix at Adelaide Central School of Art Studios, 3/11/98.
33 Lisa Wainwright, p. 21.
34 Remedios Varo wrote a book in 1959 (published in 1970) called De Homo Rodans which outlined her ideas. The
sculpture, Homo Rodans, illustrates her book (J. A. Kaplan, Unexpected Journeys: The Art & Life of Remedios Varo,
Virago, London, 1988, p. 258).
26
Frances Phoenix Chapter 2. Abject? Materials and Subject Matter

Rodans, 1959 (Fig. 16). This small humanoid figure, made of chicken, turkey and fish bones, has
a wheel where its legs would be, making it a nature/techno hybrid which she claimed as a
'missing link' in the evolutionary chain discovered through clues in ancient songs and poems.
Varo, Tinguely and Wainwright criticised Western culture for privileging science and the
rational, and therefore abjecting the so-called irrational, including death and the creative arts. If
art is considered abject, how can it protect from abjection?

Yet Kristeva suggests that art may indeed, like science, protect us from the abject corpse.35 In the
words of Anne Marsh 'there is a certain sanctuary given within a gallery environment for the
abject and grotesque'.36 Kristeva further explains that art is 'a form of modern defilement rite'37
that is destined to replace religion as a purifier of the abject. 38 Barbara Creed, concurs with
Kristeva, describing this artistic ritual purification39 as involving a subversive 'confrontation°
with the abject. Art can help us to eject the abject'41 and to re-draw the normative boundaries
between opposing categories in order to protect us from threats to our emotional, mental and
social stability. Both Creed and Kristeva hold that purification and protection can only result
from a cathartic confrontation with the abject, not avoidance of it.42 In fact, according to Grosz,
being forced to confront our taboos (in this case in a gallery) almost guarantees an experience of
abjection:

" Julia Kristeva, p. 4.

36 Anne Marsh, Arts Talk, ABC Radio National, 30th September 2001.
37 Barbara Creed, 'Horror and The Monstrous Feminine: An Imaginary Abjection'. Screen, no. 27, Jan-Feb 1986,
fi53
According to Kristeva, religion and art can purify the abject through the cathartic experience of abjection
(Kristeva, p. 17).
9 Kristeva, who is interested in the application of individual psychology to culture and society, believes that art
today replaces the historical function of religion 'to purify the abject' (Kristeva, P. 18.) and even elevate it by
sublimating it. Kristeva also considers the creative act to be excremental, a casting off and rejection, which hardly
sounds like a purification of the abject, however it may purify the artist and her/his body. Perhaps once the creative
project has been cast off by the artist and become 'art', or been called 'art', then it is purified. Purification of the
abject suggests a normative role rather than a subversive one for Abject Art because it elevates the abject into the
realm of the acceptable. However, Kristeva proposes that artists will only be able to truly plumb the repressed
depths of the abject when the Other has collapsed or the screen is torn, which suggests that Abject Art may be a
superficial form of the abject at this point in time.
49 According to Creed, the confrontation of artistic purification involves a 'descent into the foundations of the
symbolic construct' to confront the abject, such as the corpse, bodily wastes, the monstrous-feminine. She theorises
the horror film as 'a form of modern defilement rite' (Creed, B. 'Horror and The Monstrous Feminine: An
Imaginary Abjection'. Screen, no. 27, Jan-Feb 1986, pp. 44-71).
41 Barbara Creed, Screen, p. 53.
42 Barbara Creed is in agreement with Kristeva that art is about purifying the abject and it does this by grappling
with the abject in order to eject it and re-draw the boundaries again between the norm and the taboo, the self and
Other, and the patriarchal symbolic and the maternal semiotic (Creed, Screen, p. 53). Since the abject is related to
the maternal, the Other and taboo, Creed also agrees that art (she is personally interested in horror films) dealing
with the abject is maintaining of the symbolic, patriarchal order, as well as subversive of it.
27
Frances Phoenix Chapter 2. Abject? Materials and Subject Matter

The abject ... insists on the subject's necessary relation to death, corporeality, animality,
materiality those relations which consciousness and reason find intolerable.43

Argument is divided as to whether the animal corpse, which is considered abject outside of art, is
also abject in art. Perhaps this is because protection_from abjection can only occur by way of
exposure to abjection. Perhaps it is not a question of whether art protects us from or exposes us
to abjection, but rather a question of the degree of abjection we experience when confronted by
the abject corpse in art?

Levels of Abjection: The Dead Animal and Art

In Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection Kristeva describes levels of abjection ranging from
'abject' to 'more abject' to 'the utmost of abjection'.44 This suggests that some forms of the
corpse may be more abject than others. For example, the natural animal corpse may be more
abject than its preserved or processed forms.

A few artists have deliberately exploited the abjection of bodily fluids and decay. The highly
abject quality of the natural animal corpse as corporeal waste elicits a strong response in the
viewer. For example, Alan Sonfist found a dead opossum on the road and encased it in a block of
plaster so that its natural bodily fluids slowly leaked from its decaying body, staining the plaster
block.45 Titled Running Dead Animal, 1973 (Fig. 17), the work references any solid, fixed entity
in danger of its own abjection. Similarly Damien Hirst's A Thousand Years, 1990 (Fig. 8),
derives its fascination and revulsion from the way a decaying animal head, writhing with
maggots, actively supports the life-cycle of thousands of flies.

The animal that has been deliberately slaughtered for art is also considered highly abject. The
public and the media consider slaughtering animals for art almost as abject as killing in art46
because it transgresses Western taboos regarding, not so much the public killing of animals, but,
the public knowledge of the killing of animals. Hirst, for instance, regrets° having

43 Elizabeth Grosz, Sexual Subversions; Three French Feminists, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1989, p. 73.
" For instance, Kristeva writes that crime is 'abject' but that premeditated crime is 'more abject', and also that the
corpse outside science and religion is 'the utmost of abjection' (Kristeva, p. 4).
45 Robert Joseph Horvitz, 'Nature As Artifact: Alan Sonfist', Arybrum, vol. 12, no. 3, Nov 1973, pp. 32-35.
46 Killing animals in art is dealt with as a subject matter in Section 2 of this chapter because artwork involving
killing is about violence (a subject matter), and killing is not an art material. However a killed or slaughtered animal
is material, so is dealt with here.
47 Helen Simpson, 'Meat for Thought', Modern Painters, vol. 10, Spring 1997, pp. 94-96.
28
Frances Phoenix Chapter 2. Abject? Materials and Subject Matter

commissioned the killing of a giant shark in Australia's Gulf of Carpentaria for his artwork, The
Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living, 1991 (Fig. 18). One possible
reason is that Hirst himself became abject through this act." Since then he only purchases dead
animals from slaughter yards. According to a number of scientists interviewed by_the author at
the Museum of South Australia, scientists protect themselves from the abjection of killing
animals for science by their belief that they are doing it altruistically, for the good of the animal
species or humanity. In this way the individual animal's death is mitigated by the greater good.49
However there is little such protection for artists.

Some forms of the preserved animal corpse in art also seem to arouse more abjection than others.
Preservation techniques such as taxidermy, resin embedding, fluid preservation and bone
reconstruction have an accepted history of use in science and natural history museums. Art that
uses these techniques to imitate science is relatively acceptable, though they may still be partially
abject because the preserved animal in art seems out of its usual place and is slightly abject
anyway. However, when preservation practices are used in art to expose taboos or critique social
and political life a double standard applies and they are considered very abject. For instance
Huckaby writes of how, in 1991, the Animals in The Arsenal exhibition organisers rejected
Paulette Nenner's artwork, Crucified Coyote in which:

a stuffed coyote carcass nailed to a cross along with photographic and textual evidence
dispraising predator damage control programs in the Western United States.5°

Rejection occurred because of societal double standards, protection of local commercial interests
and because Nenner combined the sacred and the profane by replacing Christ with a dead animal
and giving an animal Christ-like characteristics. While Nenner was arrested, taken to court and
tried, another artist who was accepted for the same exhibition and who used a similar stuffed
animal, but in the tradition of the natural history exhibit, was ignored.51

Processed animal materials are not necessarily less abject than the natural or preserved animal
corpse in art. While meat in art sounds relatively harmless, artists have used it to arouse the
utmost of abjection. For example, the German artist, Otto Muhl's performance Materialaktion

48 Kristeva theorises that the abject is immoral. She believes that abjection is a cunning, scheming, hypocritical and
sinister subversion of everything, and that the abject can be described as 'a friend who stabs you'. (Kristeva, p. 4.)
49 Information gained from interviews with staff at the Museum of South Australia. See Appendix 1.
" Huckaby, p. 22.
51 Ibid.
29
Frances Phoenix Chapter 2. Abject? Materials and Subject Matter

Stilleben, 1964 (Fig. 19), the photos of which display wine, meat and human heads on a table
before and after a debauched mea1,52 violates Western taboos such as cannibalism and eating
filth. Another example in this vein is Lim Lee's performance on a mountain in Tibet, Voice
Overs, which visually violated the Western taboo against human sacrifice when she allowed
vultures to eat meat off her stomach.53 These are both examples of meat being made to seem as if
actual human flesh is being eaten. The notion that dirt is matter out of place, also explains how
context and artistic manipulation play an important role in why a piece of meat provokes
abjection in art but doesn't turn a hair for customers in a butcher's shop.

Signs of sexual difference are as abject as food taboos.54 Dorothy Cross exhibited her Udder
sculptures55 in the Bad Girls' exhibition at the Institute of Contemporary Art, London in 1993.56
Bust, a mannequin with four large cows' udders, and Amazon, 1992 (Fig. 20), with one udder
and a huge projecting teat, reference Barbara Creed's 'monstrous feminine' as well as Kristeva's
'abject maternal'.

History plays a part in the way some animal products in art are considered more abject over time,
because attitudes change as to what is socially acceptable. For example Grunfeld's Misfits
(Nandu), 1994 (Fig. 21), can be read today as a social critique of genetic engineering, whereas
not so long ago it might have referred more to medieval monsters or the curiosities of the
wunderkammer. The late twentieth-century has also seen a change in the Western attitude to
killing endangered species for science, food, commercial products and art. The wearing and use
of real animal fur, once acceptable, now causes social abjection in the West. Artists however, are
condemned for killing any animal for their art. For example, the pro-animal artist, Belcher,
whose art and political activism is focused on issues such as vivisection and endangered species,
could not understand why his audience was shocked that he used real animal skins in 1990's
artworks such as Dust Bunnies and Schmozone. He responded:

52 Udo Kulterman, The New Sculpture: Environments and Assemblages (translated from the German by Stanley
Baron), Thames & Hudson, London, 1968, P. 75.
53 Lim Lee's Voice Overs was described on Arts Today, in 2000, n.d.
54 Signs of sexual difference and food taboos are two of Kristeva's three categories of the abject. The third is
corporeal waste.
55 Cross says 'and of course it's a joke, because in the south of Ireland we mispronounce 'other' because we don't
have a soft `th'. It's an overlap of becoming something `udder'.' (S. Treister, 'Bad Girls', Artlink, vol. 14, no. 1,
Autumn 1994, pp. 57-8.)
56 S. Treister, 'Bad Girls', Art/ink, vol. 14, no. 1, Autumn 1994, pp. 57-8.
30
Frances Phoenix Chapter 2. Abject? Materials and Subject Matter

Well I was shocked that people would think that I would deal with life and death and
the threat of the environment, and at the same time use something fake.. .I'm trying
to make real work about a real world.57

He justified this by buying furs from native Canadians as a way of supporting their livelihood
and acknowledging the fur trade as North America's 'first commercial system'.58 He wanted
people to see themselves (not just the animals) as threatened. However the animal corpse seems
to have a culturally produced abject power that can undermine artists' intentions. Hiam
Steinbach takes advantage of this powerful language of objects in Untitled (elephant footstools,
elephant skull), 1988 (Fig. 22 & 23). In his work he aims that animal materials (in this case they
are in the form of foot-stools) will speak for themselves through his art. To give them more
resonance, he exhibits the footstools collectively, rather than as singular Duchampian
readymades. He believes they need their own community and don't want to be made into 'are.
Hovering between subject and object,59 they speak with the voice of abjection.

'The Abject is Not an Ob-ject Facing Me'

Although Kristeva elaborates on various material categories of the abject, we should not imagine
that they are therefore intrinsically abject or responsible for causing viewer abjection. The corpse
itself does not cause our fascination and disgust. According to Kristeva, 'the abject' is not an
object before us. Rather it is our 'abjection', with its physical affects and psychological thoughts,
that constructs the abject, or the object as abject:

When I am beset by abjection, the twisted braid of affects and thoughts I call by such a name does
not have, properly speaking, a definable object. The abject is not an ob-ject facing me, (which I
name or imagine).60

So when Kristeva calls the corpse 'abject' she is not talking about the corpse being inherently
abject. Instead she means it becomes abject because we experience abjection and consequently
abject it when we see it. As G. B. Thom puts it in his study of social discontent, the ambiguous
(or abject) object is really the product of the ambivalent subject.61 He gives the example that

57 Olivier Zahm, 'Alan Belcher: Face the World', Flash Art, vol. xxv, no. 166, 1992, pp. 80-82.
" Ibid.
59 Kristeva, p. 1.
6° Ibid
61 'These and most of the other matters which fascinate.. .are marginal, borderline, boundary phenomena: dirt,
symbolising disorder, incipient formlessness, disintegration; faeces, neither fully organic nor inorganic; the corpse,
alive only hours before, neither alive nor fully dead.' (G. B. Thom, The Human Nature of Social Discontent:
Alienation, Anomie, Ambivalence, Rowman & Allanheld Publishers, New Jersey, USA, 1984, p. 115.)
31
Frances Phoenix Chapter 2. Abject? Materials and Subject Matter

humans treat the dog ambivalently, as both `man's best friend' and as 'a dirty dog', yet the dog is
simply a dog.62 A dead animal in art therefore is not abject in itself but because it is positioned as
abject and taboo by Western culture and viewers. Our ambivalent response of abjection is not
caused by the object, or in this case the animal corpse, itself, but is caused by Western cultural
taboos and dichotomous constructions of reality. Psychologically, abjection is the need to
become a self by getting rid of, or abjecting, all that is not self. All that is not self is therefore
made or constructed as abject. Therefore art incorporating the animal corpse cannot be called
Abject Art just because it contains a dead animal, deals with abject subject matters or because its
artists aim to be subversive.63 It has to elicit the experience of abjection in viewers, society or
culture generally, to be called abject. Wilson's words summarise:

The abject, like the sublime, cannot be defined by an object but only a disruption of orders of
language within the attempt to form meaning ... the sublime (like the abject) exists as a cognitive
disordering, rather than something that allows of its depiction; an affect rather than an effect, ...
There can be no art that is abject in a primary sense, only an art about the abject.64

62 G. B. Thom, The Human Nature of Social Discontent: Alienation, Anomie, Ambivalence, Rowman & Allanheld
Publishers, New Jersey, USA, 1984, P. 129.
63 Horvitz, (Robert Joseph Horvitz, 'Nature as Artifact: Alan Sonfist', Artforum, vol. 12, no. 3, Nov. 1973, pp. 32-
35) in his scientific discussion of Alan Sonfist's art, adds to this understanding of why mere observation of the
characteristics of art that incorporates the animal corpse is not enough to base calling it Abject Art on. Horvitz
explains that art and science are analogous in that both disciplines have `to select an intelligible order from a wealth
of physical appearances, which cannot be fully grasped'. These selection processes create an 'artifact', which, in
laboratory jargon denotes an 'extrinsic appearance' artificially created by a method of observation. In his footnotes
Horvitz provides Simon's definition of an artifact' An artifact can be thought of as a meeting point an "interface" in
todays terms between an "inner" environment, the substance and organization of the artifact itself, and an "outer"
environment, the surrounds in which it operates. `(Horvitz, P. 35.) Horvitz claims that this definition applies to all
things, man made and otherwise, which are 'adapted' to some situation. An artifact is therefore a form that would
not have been observed if a specimen had been prepared differently. What this means for art and science is that 'the
observed qualities of any physical system are not truly innate' because the context determines what can be inferred
from it. This means that the task of the artist and scientist then, is to 'speak of degrees of artificiality and types of
artifacts'. Horvitz concludes that today natural and man-made elements, rather than existing in opposition to each
other, co-exist equally, and so it is difficult to differentiate between art and other objects. The medium (in this case,
the corpse) becomes the message rather than simply the carrier of the message (ie. symbol or metaphor).
Applying Horvitz' ideas, to art that incorporates the animal corpse, builds on Kristeva's argument that we should not
focus on the 'object before us' for any particular intrinsic truth, such as that art incorporating the animal corpse is
'abject' because it contains an animal corpse.

32
Frances Phoenix Chapter 2. Abject? Materials and Subject Matter

Section 2.
Abject Subject Matter

Until 1999, when Chinese artists began to publicly use the human cadaver-in contemporary art,65
the dead animal was, and still is in the West, used primarily as a substitute for the human body as
well as a panoply of subject matters other than itself Section 2 explores, in relation to art
incorporating the animal corpse, the claim of Ben-Levi et al. that Abject Art:

... includes abject subject matter that which is often deemed inappropriate by a conservative
dominant culture.

Elizabeth Grosz also suggests that abject subject matter deals with that which is inappropriate to
the subject's sense of self

The abject is what beckons the subject ever closer to its edge. It insists on the subject's necessary
relation to death, corporeality, animality, materiality those relations which reason and
consciousness find intolerable.66

A textual analysis, summarised in Table III, has identified various subject matters found in art
incorporating the animal corpse. I have grouped these into three broad categories, the 'taboo', the
'Other' and the each of which deals with that deemed inappropriate to individual and
cultural norms.

Exposing the Taboo: Violence, Death and the Maternal

According to Kristeva, 'Death' and the 'Maternal' are abject subjects in Western art because
they expose taboos.° Indeed, Bataille believed that the bloody violence of birth and death was
the basis of all taboo.68 It is not surprising then that a primary subject matter of art incorporating
the animal corpse is 'Death', or that, as correlate, the 'Maternal' should also be an occasional
subject matter. In many Western countries the realities of birth and death are no longer
considered a natural part of the life cycle and are taboo subjects. Birth is relegated to the hospital

64 A. Wilson, 'The Art Experience: Art That Strives for Effect But Fails to Affect', Art Monthly, no. 190, Oct. 1995,
p. 4.
65
Karen Smith, 'Contagious Desire', Art Asia Pacific, issue 31, 2001, pp. 50-57.
66 Elizabeth Grosz, Sexual Subversions, p. 73.
67 Julia Kristeva, pp. 3-6.
68 Georges Bataille, Death and Sensuality: A Study of Eroticism and The Taboo, Ayer Company Publishers Inc,
Salem, New Hampshire, Walker & Co., New York, (orig. ed. 1962) reprint 1984, pp. 41-42.
33
Frances Phoenix Chapter 2. Abject? Materials and Subject Matter

ward, death to the nursing home and the corpse to burial all are taboo; to be removed and kept
in their proper place.

Damien Hirst's art incorporating dead animals in formaldehyde, such as The Physical
Impossibility of Death in the Mind of the Living, 1991 (Fig. 18), are for Helen Simpson
contemporary van itas symbols, or images of futility and the inevitability of death.69 Hall
observes that Hirst's 'urge to preserve the body from corruption stems from the horror of the
mind confronted with the fact of its own transience.'70 Hirst himself thinks that there is only one
idea in art, which is to find out what life is all about. This raises the question of death for Hirst
and in his art he yearns for 'a glimpse of an idea of what it's like to die'.71

Violence is frequently a subject dealt with by artist-activists critical of social and political
attitudes towards animals. In recent human history it has been only a short step from the abject
condition of animals to the abject condition of human 'others' in society. Artists who actually
kill animals, pretend to kill animals, or invite others to kill animals in their artn are
sensationalised by the media, censored, taken to court, fined or imprisoned. Artworks simply
implying violence are also considered abject.73 In 1966 the members of DIAS, the Destruction in
Art Symposium, met in London to alert society of the increasing capacity of mankind for violence
and destruction. Raphael Montanez Ortiz's Chicken Destruction Ritual was cancelled due to
public pressure.74 However, Hermann Nitsch's private performance, Abreaktionsspiel no. 5
(Fifth AbreactionPlay),75 went ahead. In this action he `eviscerated'76 the carcass of a dead lamb
against a white canvas on which a film 'showing male genitalia being manipulated by strings and
immersed in liquids'77 was projected. A court case ensued against the Symposium organizers.
Other works in this vein were Nitsch's Aktion 4, November 1963 (Fig. 24), and Aktion 45, 1974

69 Helen Simpson, 'Meat for Thought', Modern Painters, Spring 1997, pp. 94-96.
7° Charles Hall, 'A Sign of Life', Damien Hirst, ICA, Jay Jopling Gallery, 1991, npn.
71 Sophie Calle, 'Sophie Calle and Damien Hirst', Damien Hirst, ICA, Jay Jopling Gallery, 1991, npn.
72 Rick Gibson did performances in shopping centres where he offered shoppers the opportunity to 'kill a bug, kill it
dead, for free' (Huckaby, p. 22).
73 Not all artists end up in court, because they choose to be more subtle about violence in their art. Vaisman's
Pinata, 1992, (T. Fairbrother, `Vaisman Flips the Bird', Parkett, no. 35, 1993, pp. 120-127.) inviting us to beat a
stuffed and decorated turkey (it is a Chilean custom to make decorative, hanging pinata full of sweets which children
beat to break open) and Rasheed Araeen's untitled installation of bones which suggest cultural atrocities and mass
burials, 1988, derive their abjection from the suggestion of the violence at the heart of taboo (De Oliveira, Oxley &
Petry, (eds) with texts by Michael Archer. Installation Art. Thames & Hudson, London, 1994).
74 Ortiz did perform these rituals at other times.
75 Abreaction is a psychoanalytic concept meaning cathartic release of mental tension due to unpleasant experience.
76 J. A. Walker, Art and Outrage: Provocation, Controversy and The Visual Arts, Pluto Press, Sterling, V. A., 1999,
p. 44.
34
Frances Phoenix Chapter 2 Abject? Materials and Subject Matter

(Fig. 25). Regardless of DIAS's good intentions their work was considered highly unacceptable,
even criminal, and therefore abject.

Less ubiquitous than 'Death' or violence, yet still often seen as abject subject matter, is
the Kristevan notion of the 'abject Maternal'. Tamblyn describes the maternal or
mother's body as abject because:

Since giving birth is also a paradigmatic moment of transition in which inside and outside
are reversed as self becomes other, the rhetoric of abjection is frequently permeated with
maternal references.78

Coyne's Nun on a Highway, pregnant with rotting fish, and Dorothy Cross's Amazon,
(Fig. 20), with its huge full breast, also reference the abject maternal body. Anne
Newmarch's Phoenix Box, (Fig. 33), and Messager's Boarder's at Rest, (Figs. 10 & 11),
critique normative readings of the maternal roles of nurturance and preservation.

Asserting the 'Other': Identity Politics, the Feminine and the Animal

Art incorporating the animal corpse is also abject because the animal corpse both is, and stands
in for, the abjected 'Other'. People seen as different to the norm in terms of their gender,
sexuality, class, race or colour, as well as animal species have been categorised as 'Other'. Many
artists have been inspired to concern themselves with identity or animal politics in their art by
way of using the animal corpse,79 in order to resist the violence of societal and cultural abjection
or othering.

Creed's 'monstrous feminine' and Russo's 'grotesque' female are often collapsed with the
'abject maternal', but refer more generally to abject female sexuality in an assertion of difference
that embraces the abject as a sign of identity. Petah Coyne's Nun on a Highway references these

77 J. A. Walker, p. 44.
78 Christine Tamblyn, 'The River of Swill: Feminist Art, Sexual Codes, and Censorship', Afterimage, no. 18, Oct
1990,p. 11.
79 Artworks such as Helen Chadwick's Glossolalia and Linda Dement's Fur Gash of the 1980s and 90s used animal
materials to deal with gender or sexuality issues. These works seem to follow in the tradition of 1930s Surrealist art-
works, such as Meret Oppenheim's fur covered tea-cup Object (Luncheon in Fur) which is known as a lesbian
sexual emblem (Robert Hughes, The Shock of The New; Art and The Century of Change, Thames & Hudson,
London, (orig. ed. 1980) 1991, p. 243.) and 1970s Feminist Art (Edward Lucie-Smith, Art in The Seventies, Phaidon
Press, Oxford, 1980, pp. 92-94.) with its interest in the feminine. Yet these works can all be co-opted as examples of
Abject Art because they deal with subject matter described by Kristeva as abject.
35
Frances Phoenix Chapter 2. Abject? Materials and Subject Matter

abject categories, through her obsessive use of dead fish in her art. Coyne erected a large photo-
construction of a nun on an eight-lane highway in Houston in 1985, and filled it with dried fish.
For her it recalled what the nuns in her school in Hawaii used to tell her:

If you looked inside our bodies, you would see the light that would emanate from us.
We were full of the body of Christ. 8°

The meaning of the fish inside the nun, as a harmless symbol of Christ, changed radically when
their rotting stench filled the public domain. Now it referenced the pre-Christian meaning of the
fish as the pointed-oval sign of the yoni, or woman's genitals,81 which Krell notes signified death
in the nineteenth-century because of its sme11.82 Thus Coyne's nun with its smelly, rotting fish, is
abject by virtue of being considered animal, feminine, sexual, 'Other' and deathly. Linda
Dement's 'Fur Gash', (Fig. 26), is a more sensual and tactile assertion of female sexuality with
its vaginal lips of animal fur. According to Lacan, vaginal imagery becomes abject because
vaginas and other bodily orifices threaten the acceptable outside with the taboo inside, being

structured as a rim, a space between two surfaces that can be seen as the boundaries between the
body's inside and outside. 83

Also utilising the animal corpse to assert the political identity of 'Others' are artists from
colonised and first nation cultures. The art historian, Lucy Lippard, proposes that American
Indian artists, such as Jimmie Durham,84 use bones and skulls for social comment as 'a metaphor
both for memory and for the way society sees native civilisation as simultaneously buried and
exposed.'85 The Korean artist, Yi Bul, uses dead fish decorated with sequins in Majestic
Splendour, 1997 (Fig. 27), to represent her mother's cultural position in society as a cottage

8° B. A. Macadam, 'Girl Talk', ARTnews, vol. 95, pt. 8, 1996, p. 104-107.

81 Barbara G. Walker, The Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1983, pp.
313-314.
82 Alan Krell, 'Dirty Desires; Sexuality & the French Realist Body'. Lecture Series: Beauty & the Devils Rope;
Narratives of Modernity & Representation, Nexus Forums, Nexus Multicultural Arts Centre, Adelaide, Fri. Nov.
12th. 1999.
83 Elizabeth Grosz, Sexual Subversions, p. 72.
84 Jimmie Durham has conducted performances called Catskill Giveaway since 1985 in which he gives away as good
as he gets as a commentary on the unequal interactions between white and Native civilisations today. In one
performance he looks through a coyote skull, as if through a camera, and perceives the Native American situation as
'the' American tragedy, and invokes Shakespeare's Julius Caesar "The evil that men do lives after them, the good is
oft interred with their bones - or wait, is it the good that men do lives after them and the evil is oft interred with their
bones? I can't remember." (Lucy R. Lippard, 'Jimmie Durham: Postmodernist "Savage". Art in America, vol. 81,
no 2, Feb. 1993, pp. 62-70.)
85 Lucy Lippard, 'Jimmie Durham: Postmodemist "Savage", Art in America, vol. 81, no. 2, Feb. 1993, pp. 62-70.
36
Frances Phoenix Chapter 2. Abject? Materials and Subject Matter

industry worker making sequined bags for the western market. 86 Her exquisite sequined fish
rotted during the exhibition in plastic bags, finally making an assertive, on the nose stance
against capitalist Western society.

The animal too is constructed as Other, or antithetical to humanity, in order to define the human
as superior. This is done by an elaborate exaggeration of the differences between animals and
humans, when the fact is that humans are animals and there are far more similarities than
differences. Many artists are therefore concerned with the plight of abjected animals. Adelaide
artist, Ann Newmarch, often expresses her horror about cruelty to beautiful creatures in her art.
Silence is Golden?, 1983/84 (Fig. 28), a box which incorporates a cat's skin, pet momentos and
sound recordings, makes us aware that the government expects us to use our family pets to check
for safety after a nuclear attack."

Although animals are considered unable to speak for themselves, in Brian Blanchflower's
Tursiops installation, 1981-83 (Fig. 29), with its 'ship', rope, sand and blood red drapes, a
'symbolic narrative' which critiques the whaling industry, a dolphin's skull does seem to 'speak'
its own visual language. Donald Kuspit describes the skull as 'recalcitrant, intransigent; it cannot
be subsumed by art ... (and is) beyond aestheticization'.88 Not only does Blanchflower's skull
speak of animal death and commercial horrors, but according to Kuspit, who describes the skull
in art as 'the only immortal', it speaks of the futility of normative art, culture and society's desire
for immortality.

Exploring the Liminal: 'the in-between, the ambiguous, the composite'

Apart from exposing the taboos of the Maternal, Death and violence and asserting the Other,
Kristeva also says that abjection is:

what disturbs identity, system, order. What does not respect borders, positions, rules. The in-
between, the ambiguous, the composite.89

86 Lisa Gabrielle Mark, 'Fast Forward: Contemporary Korean Art in Toronto', Art Asia Pacific, issue 19, 1998,
r. 28.
7-Julie Robinson, Ann-Newmarch, The Personal is Political, -Art Gallery of South Australia, Adelaide, 1997, p_21._
88 Donald Kuspit, Signs of Psyche in Modern & Post-Modern Art, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993,
p. 177.
" Julia Kristeva, p. 2.
37
Frances Phoenix Cha_pter 2. Abject? Materials and Subject Matter

This explains why so-called subjects, that disrespectfully and ambiguously hover 'in-
between' socially produced dichotomies, such as life and death, the sacred and profane, nature
and technology, animal and human, art and science and art and life, can also be considered abject
subject matters that disturb cultural norms: Many artists explore subjects that border these
separated realms. For example, Ann Newmarch, collects dead birds and animal remains in the
belief that she 'rebirths'9° them by incorporating them into her art and personal archives, thus
reconciling life and death. While Ann is a notorious political activist feels that these works are
primarily 'about motherhood and caring'.91 Her studio collections (Figs. 31 & 32) are considered
artworks and exhibited in themselves92 but also act as a library to store and protect animal and
other material remains for use in artworks such as the Phoenix Box, 1995 (Fig. 33), and the
triptych in Tear, 1992 (Fig. 34). Although the two baby birds in their egg/nests in the Phoenix
Box and the skeletal wings in the triptych are partially decayed, art 'saves' them from oblivion
by halting the process of decay. However, they remain a haunting presence in a liminal world,93
existing between life and death and eliciting an abject response in the viewer.

Jean Tinguely aggressively challenges the separation of the sacred and so-called profane in
dozens of kinetic artworks produced in the 1980s after his mother died. Cenodoxus-Isenheirn
Altarpiece, 1981 (Fig. 15), disturbs normative ideals by profanely juxtaposing the sacred form of
the altarpiece with animated animal skulls representing Christ and the saints. Tinguely seems to
work with the ambivalence of mourners who, according to Ruby

are always confronted with two seemingly contradictory needs: to keep the memory of the
deceased alive and at the same time, accept the reality of death and loss. 94

The perpetually mourning artist and the animal corpse become the inseparable couple.

The liminal space between nature and technology, and life and death is explored by Rebecca
Horn. After a near death experience she became more aware of being alive and connected to the
external world, no longer seeing technology as 'other'. She began building machines as an

9° Ann Newmarch, in interview with the author in 2001.

9) Ibid.
92 Ann Newmarch's studio was exhibited in 'A Collection of Collections', at the University of South Australia Art
Museum, 318' July-011 Sept. 1997, Underdale;South Australia,-1997.
93
--
I am aware that this use of the word `liminal' is not strictly correct, but I am using it in its popular usage.
94 Jay Ruby, Secure the Shadow: Death and Photography in America, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995,
p. 174.
38
Frances Phoenix Chapter 2. Abject? Materials and Subject Matter

extension of her bodily reality.95The Feathered Prison Fan, 1978 (Fig. 30), made for her film La
Ferdinanda, regularly spreads a luxurious white feathered tail. This mechanised animal/human
collapses boundaries, offering a calm sublime abjection.

Subject matters that collapse the space between the opposed Western disciplines of art and
science are also considered abject. For example, Trockel's Untitled (Cutting a Bobbed
Hairstyle), 1988 (Fig. 35), links art, science and life with its museological glass vitrine
displaying, classifying and elevating a mundane woman's shirt and a blown-up, pig's bladder
painted as a head. Sussman calls Trockel's art 'ethnographic surrealism'96 because she
deliberately works on the border between domestic life, art and science so that we cannot
interpret her work with any form of fixed meaning.97 This accords with Kristeva's description of
abjection as 'the place where meaning collapses'.98

Riddell proposes that all Abject Art references the abject human body,99 therefore rendering the
animal corpse doubly abject, in that where we see an animal in art we also see ourselves. While
modernist art dematerialises, replaces and eclipses the body, Abject Art and postmodernism
recuperate it. 100 The animal corpse in art is a fetish for the human body in anthropological and
Freudian terms,101 being an inanimate object irrationally thought to embody a spirit or magical
power of attraction, seduction or obsession because of the materials or processes used in making
it.1°2 Not only does this magical power make the dead animal abject, but seeing ourselves in the
dead animal in art renders us abject too.

95 D. Cameron, 'Horn's Dilemma: the Art of Rebecca Horn', Arts Magazine, vol. 62, no. 3, 1987, pp. 72-75.
96 Sussman establishes a connection between Trockel's anthropological humanism and gendered consciousness with
'a little-known episode of modernism that James Clifford termed "ethnographic surrealism".' Ethnography is the
scientific description and classification of the various cultural and racial groups of mankind. This movement
attempted to break down the boundaries between art, ethnography, culture, archaeology and popular culture. In
Clifford's words 'The sublime and the vulgar were treated as symbols of equal significance.' (James Clifford, The
Predicament of Culture; Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Mass., 1988, p. 129).
97 Although the viewer requires a number of 'interpretive vocabularies' (S. Stich (ed.) & E. Sussman, Rosemarie
Trockel, Prestel-Verlag, Germany, 1991, p. 28.) to understand her work, essentially Trockel's art, according to
Sussman, like a woman, defies fixed and normative meanings. She rejected 'a single, sacrosanct symbolic order that
did not bear witness to banal, everyday reality with all its idiosyncrasies and ambivalences'. (S. Stich (ed.) & E.
Sussman, p. 11.)
98 Julia Kristeva, p. 2.
99 Jennifer Riddell, New Art Examiner, vol. 23, 1995, pp. 26-53.
1°13 Ben-Levi, Houser, Jones & Taylor, 1993; p:-80.
101 Freud believed the fetish represented the lacking maternal phallus.
102 Surrealism: Revolution by Night, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra, A.C.T., 1993, p. 48, and The Concise
Macquarie Dictionary, 1982.
39
Frances Phoenix Chapter 2. Abject? Materials and Subject Matter

Joseph Beuys, for example, uses dead hares in many of his actions, including How To Explain
Pictures To A Dead Hare, 1965 (Fig. 36), partly because he personally identifies with the hare as
a symbol of abject 'self-sacrifice'.103 He also uses it because it represents for him his German
audience when they were cold, unloving and unloved, and whose collective psyche he felt had
died during the war, just as he had almost died when shot down as a pilot. Beuys' relationship
with dead animals is unique in that he maintains a physically affectionate relationship with them in
his actions and performances, and seems to rely on them for life energy.

Although humans may strongly identify with the dead animal in art, to depict this is considered
abject. Cartoonists often drew humans in the place of Damien Hirst's dead animals in
formaldehyde (Figs. 37, 38, 39 & 40) because viewers empathise with them. Lisa Wainwright
postulates that artists using taxidermy, such as Rauschenberg, Messager and Hirst, might
psychologically want to 'preserve' humans they have lost or desired. She notes that

Like Hitchcock's Norman Bates, whose hobby of taxidermizing animals was only the gentle
prelude for his ultimate project with Mom, the taxidermized animal in art may be a surrogate for
stuffed corpses of our own species.1°4

Perhaps all artists using the animal corpse in their art, as well as their audiences, displace human
desires onto dead animals in art.

***

The suggestion of Ben-Levi et al. that the dead animal is 'abject material'105 in art and can
therefore be considered Abject Art has been shown to be a fair claim in this chapter, with a few
provisos. Section I demonstrated that the animal corpse, whether fresh, decaying, preserved or
processed has been considered abject both in and out of art, despite arguments that art can
protect viewers from abjection. However, viewers will not experience abjection if they ignore or
avoid the animal corpse. They can also avoid 'the utmost of abjection' because there are levels of
abjection depending on how animals are used in art. It could be possible that some forms of the
animal corpse in art are not abject at all, which suggests that perhaps not all art that incorporates
the animal corpse may be considered Abject Art.

1°3-The-harels-known for -suicidally gifting- stilt if caught in--a--fire:Andit is likened to the-phoenix-or-Christ because of
its self-sacrifice.
104 Lisa Wainwright, p. 19.

40
Frances Phoenix Chapter 2. Abject? Materials and Subject Matter

According to Ben-Levi et al. the subject matter as well as the materials of Abject Art are also
abject in that they are considered unacceptable to the norms of conservative society. Section 2
demonstrated that the subject matters that emerged from a survey of artworks that incorporate the
animal corpse can be considered abject in that they expose social taboos, affirm the socially
abjected 'other' and negotiate liminal spaces between socially accepted binary categories.
However, once again, there are a few provisos, including the fact that subject matter may be
more or less abject and that abject classifications are often based on theoretical texts, rather than
experiential evidence. As well, it is not clear from which perspective Ben-Levi et al. believed the
subject matters and materials of Abject Art were abject whether from a theorized position,
where the concepts of Kristeva were confirmed, or because they observed viewer response of
abjection. Nor do we know if viewers really experienced these materials and subject matters as
abject. This issue of viewer response will be addressed in Chapter 4.

Finally, the fact that so many artists are increasingly dealing with ambiguous, 'in-between',
abject subjects, or what is considered 'inappropriate' by conservative society, may represent
what Klaus Oilman calls a new ecological and spiritual reconciliation in art:

Only a new, ecological spiritualityl°6 that abandons anthropocentricism and is in reverence of our
environment and all its inhabitants, can bridge the gap between religion and science, a gap that
has tragic consequences for the well-being of our planet.1°7

Surely such a reconciliation, which has been shown to have been wrought through art that
incorporates the animal corpse, while presently being unacceptable to conservative society,
cannot be simply considered as 'subversive', as Ben-Levi et al. would claim. Their theory, that
Abject Art aimed to be subversive of normative, conservative society, culture and politics, will
be further analysed, in Chapter 3, in relation to art incorporating the animal corpse.

105
Ben-Levi et al., p. 7.
106 This 'new, ecological spirituality' can be traced back to early European cultures. In ancient Celtic, Germanic,
Greek and Slavonic cultures trees and animals were sacred and many heroic gods, representing human character
traits, took animal form. With Christianity, one unapproachable, remote, abstract God was introduced and the sacred
trees were cut down. Christians called non-Christians 'pagans' (country dwellers) and 'heathens' (those who lived
on the heath). The urban Christians felt they were more sophisticated than these country people who couldn't write,
though they had an oral tradition. In this way the nature/culture divide became linked with the sacred/profane divide,
but what was considered sacred or profane depended on which side you were on or where you lived.
107 Accordingrto_Ottman there-is a-new spirituandimension-growing in-art-today-which aims-to-recover our sacred
connection to the earth and the oceans, animals and plants and to reconcile technology with nature. This movement
supports `Einstein's belief that the most important function of art and science is to awaken a cosmic religious
feeling'. (Klaus Ottman, 'The New Spiritual', Arts Magazine, vol. 64, no. 2, Oct. 1989, pp. 44-46.)
41
Frances Phoenix Table II. Categories of Abject Material

Table II: Table of Abject Material

CATEGORIES OF ABJECTION SELECTED ARTIFACTS INCORPORATING
THAT APPLY TO THE ANIMAL THE ANIMAL CORPSE
CORPSE AS MATERIAL
MATERIALS (selected) ARTIFACT

CORPOREAL Corpse: decay Rotting animal head with Fig. 8. A Thousand Years, 1990,
WASTE (active) maggots and flies. Damien Hirst.
Corpse: decay Smelly, rotting fish. Fig. 13. In Three Stages, c.1980,
Anne Marsh.
Corpse: fresh (stasis) Dead hare. Fig. 35. How to Explain Pictures to a
Dead Hare, 1965, Joseph Beuys.
Corpse: bodily fluids Bodily fluids emerging from Fig. 17. Running Dead Animal, 1973,
an opossum (road-kill). Alan Sonfist.
Corpse: organs/ fluid Animal organs in jars of Fig. 14. The Lovers,1991,
preserved formaldehyde. Damien Hirst.
Corpse: whole body ; Giant shark preserved in Fig. 18. The Physical Impossibility of
fluid preserved (looks formaldehyde solution. Death in the Mind of Someone
more dead than Living, 1991, Damien Hirst.
taxidermy); killed for
art
Corpse: clean skull Animal skulls. Fig. 15. Cenodoxus Isenheim
Altarpiece, 1981, Jean Tinguely.
Corpse: clean bones Chicken, fish and turkey Fig. 16. Homo Rodans , 1959,
bones. Remedios Varo.
Corpse: taxidermy Taxidermied hybrid animal. Fig. 21. Misfits (Nandu), 1984,
(looks alive); Thomas Grunfeld.
abnormal bodies
Corpse: processed Footstools made out of Fig. 22 & 23. Untitled (elephant
tourist products elephant feet. footstools, elephant skull), 1988,
Hiam Steinbach.
Corpse: substance Clam and cow reduced to Animal, Vegetable and Mineral
white powdery chemicals. Substances, 1972, Alan Sonfist.
Corpse: resin Fetal pig and Monarch Fetal Pig with Monarch Butterfly
embedded Butterfly wings in resin. Wings, 1995, Mike Westfall.
Corpse: badly stuffed 'Botched' taxidermied Fig. 10. & 11. Boarders at Rest,
animals that look sparrows. 1971-2, Annette Messager.
dead
FOOD Corpse: signs of Human head with meat on a Fig. 19. Materialaktion Stilleben,
TABOO cannibalism laid table. 1964, Otto Muhl.

Corpse: meat Dead animals (meat) and Fig. 5. Meat Joy, 1964, Carolee
rubbish used in an Schneeman.
orgy/happening.
SIGNS OF Corpse: udders; Cow udders & fur-skin to Fig. 20. Amazon, 1992, Dorothy
SEXUAL cowsldn represent feminine body hair. Cross.
DIFFERENCE

Table showing categories of abject materiality in art incorporating the animal corpse
(which summarises Chapter 2 Section 1)
Frances Phoenix Table III. Categories of Abject Subject Matter

Table III: Table of Abject Subject Matter

CATEGORIES OF SELECTED ARTIFACTS INCORPORATING THE ANIMAL CORPSE
ABJECTION THAT APPLY
TO THE SUBJECT SUBJECT MATTER (selected) ARTIFACTS
MATTERS OF ART THAT
INCORPORATES THE
ANIMAL CORPSE
Death Death symbolized by a giant shark Fig. 18. The Physical Impossibility of
THE preserved in formaldehyde. Death in the Mind of Someone
TABOO Living, 1991, Damien Hirst.
Celebrating death; moving skulls and Fig. 15. Cenodoxus Isenheim
machines. Altarpiece, 1981, Jean Tinguely.
Tableaux figure awaiting death The Wait, 1964-5, Edward Keinholz.
surrounded by momento mori, such as
animal skull, bones, stuffed bird and
photographs.
Meat used on the human body to Voice Overs, c2000, Lim Lee.
suggest human sacrifice or the
Buddhist practice of leaving the dead
for the vultures.
Killing Chicken ritually slaughtered as a Chicken Destruction Ritual,
political statement against human cancelled in 1966 but carried out at
violence. other times, Raphael Montariez Ortiz.
Two rabbits killed to highlight the Butcher, performance at CACSA,
issue of meat eating which is divorced Adelaide, 2001, James Dodd.
from animal death.

Death with 65 sparrows stuffed to look as if they Fig. 10. Boarders at Rest, 1971-2,
suggestion of are dead or tortured (rather than alive). Annette Messager.
maternal
violence/sadism

Violence Freshly killed dead animal carcass Fig. 24. Aktion 4, November 1963,
hanging from a chain and beaten to a Hermann Nitsch.
pulp so blood spurts over a sheet, as a
political statement against human
violence.
Exploding cow corpse (meat) and Fig. 50. Meat, 2001, Flatz.
animal blood on human body.
Invitation to kill Viewers invited to turn on blenders in Fig. 48. (Title unknown), 2001,
which goldfish swam. Marco Evaristti.
Artist invites shoppers to 'kill a bug Kill a Bug for Free, c1989, Rick
for free'. Gibson.
Suggestion of Rectangular floor installation of (Title unknown), 1988, Rasheed
violence animal bones suggests a massacre. Araeen.
Suggestion of beating a hanging Fig. 6. Untitled Turkey XVIII (La
piñata/stuffed turkey for the sweets Pinata), 1992, Meyer Vaisman.
hidden inside.
The Maternal Fashion mannequin with one huge Fig. 20. Amazon (from series of
(body) cow udder with projecting nipple Udder sculptures), 1992, Dorothy
Cross.
Photo/construction of a nun filled with Nun on a Highway, 1985, Petah
smelly, dead fish. Coyne.

Table showing categories of abject subject matter in art incorporating the animal corpse
(which summarises Chapter 2 Section 2)
Frances Phoenix Table III. Categories of Abject Subject Matter

continued Table 111: Table of Abject Subject Matter.

CATEGORIES OF SELECTED ARTWORKS INCORPORATING THE ANIMAL CORPSE

ABJECTION THAT APPLY
TO THE SUBJECT SUBJECT MATTER (selected) ARTWORK
MATTER OF ART THAT
INCORPORATES THE
ANIMAL CORPSE
THE Lesbian & Tea cup, saucer and teaspoon covered Dejeuner en fourrure (Luncheon
'OTHER' female with fur. in Fur), 1936, Meret Oppenheim.
sexuality
The monstrous A photo-construction of a nun filled with Nun on a Highway, 1985, Petah
feminine smelly, rotting fish. Coyne.

Female Vaginal form of fur-skin, with shiny Fig. 26. Fur Gash, 1993,
sexuality fabric. Linda Dement.
Identity Kero heater with screaming face on top Cry Surinam, 1992,
politics: Black with large bone commenting on Felix de Rooy.
necrophilia.
Identity Refers to totem animals used by non- Not Joseph Beuys' Coyote, 1990,
politics: indigenous cultures. Jimmy Durham.
Cherokee
Identity Fish packaged with sequins rot in plastic Fig.27. Majestic Splendour, 1997,
politics: Korean bags comment on women like the artist's Lim Lee.
mother who made sequined bags in a
cottage industry for the West in 1970s.
Animal Animal hybridity references genetic Fig. 21. Misfit (Nandu), 1994,
politics/issues: engineering, mythology, etc. Thomas Grunfeld
the animal itself Birds used as commodity, myth and self- The Seagull Salesman, His Goods
image. and Visitors, 1972, Kevin
Mortensen.
THE Subjects A hybrid mechanical/animal fan with Fig. 30. The Feathered Prison
LIMINAL between nature/ white peacock feathers acts like a male Fan, 1978, Rebecca Horn.
technology bird flaunting its plumage in a courting
display.
Subjects Baby birds `rebirthed' in egg/nests. Fig. 33. Phoenix Box, 1995,
between Ann Newmarch.
life/death
Subjects (Unfixed meanings) Found objects in art Fig. 34. Untitled (Cutting a
between are neither art nor life. Bobbed Hairstyle), 1988,
science/art/life Rosemarie Trockel.
Subjects Artist talks to a dead hare which Fig. 35. Haw To Explain Pictures
between represents the cold unloved dead psyche To A Dead Hare, 1965, Joseph
animal/human of himself and his audience. Beuys.
Anthropomorphization: a stuffed turkey Fig. 6. Untitled Turkey XV, 1992,
dressed as a human. Meyer Vaisman .
Symbolic use of animal organs to Fig. 14. The Lovers: (The
represent human emotions. Committed Lovers), 1991,
Damien Hirst.
Subjects Challenging the denial of death in society Fig. 15. Cenodoxus Isenheim
between and religion. Altarpiece, 1981, Jean Tinguely.
sacred/profane Used dried fish (which gradually rotted) Nun on a Highway, 1985, Petah
to represent the body of Christ. Coyne.

Continued: Table showing categories of abject subject matter in art incorporating the animal corpse
- (which summarises Chapter 2 Section 2)
Figure 13 In Three Stages, Anne Marsh, c.1980.
Performance/installation with table, fish, sand, Figure 14 The Lovers: (The Committed Lovers),
water, offal, plastic bags, bandaging. Damien Hirst, 1991. Glass, steel, MDF, jars of
internal organs from eight cows in formaldehyde
solution.

Figure 16 Homo Rodans,

Remedios Varo, 1959.
Chicken, fish and turkey
bones, wire.

Figure 15 Cenodoxus Isenheim Alterpiece,

Jean Tinguely, 1981. Metal frame, wooden
and metal wheels, found objects, animal
skulls, light bulbs, electric motors.
 Figure 17 Running Dead Animal,
Alan Sonfist, 1973. Opossum (road-kill), plaster.

Figure 18
The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living,
Damien Hirst, 1991. Giant shark, formaldehyde solution, glass,
steel, silicone.

Figure 19 Materialaktion Stilleben (Still-Life), Otto Muhl, 1964.

Table set with wine bottles, meat and other food, human heads, bull's head, plates and utensils, etc.

Figure 20 Figure 21
Amazon, Misfit
Dorothy (Nandu),
Cross, Thomas
1992. Grunfeld,
Mannequin 1994.
with Mixed
wooden taxidermy
stand, (swan,
cowskin rabbit, etc.)
with udder.
Figures 22 & 23
Details of Untitled
(elephant footstools, elephant skull),
Hiam Steinbach, 1988. Elephant footstools, shelf. Elephant skull, stand.

Figure 24 Figure 25
A ktion 4, Aktion 45,
Hermann Hermann
Nitsch, Nitsch, 1963.
1963. Performance,
Perform- sheep carcass,
ance, naked man,
sheet, blood,
animal ropes,
carcass, sheet.
knife.

26 Fur Gash, Linda Dement, Figure 27 Majestic Splendour, Yi (Lee) Bul,

1993. Fur, fabric. Size unknown. 1997. Fish, sequins, beads, plastic bags.

a a

Ifige41 .041,4
Figure 28
Silence is Golden, Ann Newmarch, 1983-84. Cat skin, plastic dolls, egg shells, dog leashes,
wishbone, photographs, star decoration, ceramic ornamental cat, etc. in wooden box.

Figure 29 Tursiops, Brian Blanchflower, Figure 30 The Feathered Prison Fan,

1981-83. Dolphin skull, oils, bitumen, Rebecca Horn, 1978. White peacock
canvas, reed boxes, wax, hessian, metal, feathers, mechanical fan, metal,
wood, ropes, sand. motor, wood.
Figure 31 The artist's studio (detail), Ann, Newmarch, 1999.

Figure 32 Figure 33 Phoenix Box,

Drawer Collection: Arm Newmarch, 1995.
Wanderer Butterflies Two fallen baby birds,
& Plastic Draught goose egg shell, wood
Horses, Ann. box, feathers, paint, fabric.
Newmarch, 1975.

Figure 34 Tear (detail), Anrk. Newmarch, 1992. Ceramic tiles, galah feathers, pigeon
skeleton wings, hologram of skull, wishbone, bird egg, wooden frame.
Figure 35 Untitled (Cutting a Bobbed Hairstyle),
Rosemarie Trockel, 1988. Metals, glass, wood,
women's shirt, pigskin.

11:

Figure 36
How To Explain Pictures To A Dead Hare,
Joseph Beuys, 1965. Beuys, gold leaf,
honey, dead hare, metal, felt, wire, etc.

Figure 37
Teacher,
Matt,
2 Nov.
1995.
Cartoon
in The
Daily
Telegraph.
Figure 38
God! Its Disintegrating!',
Heath, 24 Nov. 1992.Cartoon
in The Independent.

Figure 39 Figure 40
Turner Prize Latest, Hirst's Mother, Meyrick Jones,
Steve Bell, 24 Nov. 1992. June 17, 1994. Cartoon in
Cartoon in The Guardian. Private Eye.
Frances Phoenix Chapter 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims

CHAPTER 3.

SUBVERSIVE? ARTISTS' AIMS

AND THE ANIMAL CORPSE

Starting with Marcel Duchamp, a number of artists have incorporated or referred to the abject in
their artistic practices in order to confront dominant culture.

Ben-Levi, Houser, Jones & Taylor, Abject Art: Repulsion and Desire in American Art, 1993, p. 8.

When Joseph Beuys covered his head in honey and gold leaf, tenderly holding a dead hare in his
arms and talking to it of painting, spirituality and philosophy,/ he was not intending to destroy
society or shock and horrify his audience, but to transform them. Although it is not easy to
identify artists' aims, Chapter 3 nevertheless attempts to analyze a broad range of artists' aims
for their use of the animal corpse. It will do this in the context of Abject Art, which was defined
by Ben-Levi et al., in their catalogue for the 1993 Whitney Museum's exhibition of Abject Art,
as a subversive practice.

But why explore artists' intentions when post-structuralist theorists have declared artists'
intentions have little or nothing to do with the manner in which artwork is received. Kristeva
likewise has said that abjection 'is not an ob-ject facing' us, but about an experience or
response.2 Ben-Levi et al. not only described Abject Art as incorporating abject materials and
subject matter, which was discussed in Chapter 1, but suggested that artists producing Abject Art

Haw to Explain Pictures to a Dead Hare, Joseph Beuys, 1965. (Fig. 36).
2 Julia Kristeva, Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection, translated by Leon S. Roudiez, Colombia University
Press, New York, 1982.
42
Frances Phoenix Chapter 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims

aimed to be subversive of Western dominant social mores and institutions.3 They claimed that
Abject Art included:

...work which incorporates or suggests abject materials such as... dead animals... in order to
confront taboo issues.. 4 (my emphasis)

Ben-Levi et al. not only believed Abject Art aimed to be subversive by confronting taboo issues,
but they also curated their exhibition of what they defined as Abject Art, for their own
subversive purposes:

Our goal is to talk dirty in the institution and degrade its atmosphere of purity and prudery.. .5

While the Whitney curators aimed to be 'subversive' of conservative American culture and
politics, in this thesis I will use the term subversive not as it applies to one particular culture or
society,6 but as it is defined in the dictionary. In this thesis, therefore, to have a subversive aim
means to undermine prevailing social, cultural and political norms, and is essentially destructive
of the status quo, whereas to have normative aims means to support and maintain social and
political norms.

Although the Whitney curators focus, in their separate essays in the catalogue, on the politically
transgressive aspects of the contemporary interest by artists in abjection7 they warn that the
subversive capacity of the abject is limited by normative society.8 However, this does not seem
to diminish the subversiveness of the artists' intentions according to Ben-Levi et al., nor do they
suggest that these artists might have had other than subversive intentions. So in order to further
our understanding of the relationship between Abject Art, as Ben-Levi et al. describe it, and art

3 'Abject art' is described as 'confronting', 'transgressive', 'subversive' and a 'profound attack' against conservative
society, 'dominant culture', institutions and politics. (Ben-Levi, pp. 7-8 & pp. 13-14.)
4 Ben-Levi, Houser, Jones & Taylor (eds), Abject Art: Repulsion and Desire in American Art; Selections from the
Permanent Collection, Whitney Museum of American Art, N.Y., 1993, p. 7.
5 Ibid.,
6 It is too difficult to equate being subversive of a conservative society with being subversive of a radical society,
therefore I have chosen to take the value out of the analogy and return to the basic strategy rather than its target. It
could be argued that Abject Art was an American phenomenon that cannot be applied to other societies, but in this
thesis I am really focusing on art incorporating the animal corpse, and that is a world-wide phenomenon. Therefore
when I say 'subversive' I mean this art is undermining or destructive of the status quo.
'Ben-Levi et al., p. 12.
8 For example, some artists using abject materials and subjects prior to Abject Art were 'jettisoned, or abjected, from
historical memory', which suggests that they were a subversive threat to society and culture. They were also
verbally abused and censored by some right wing media. Subversive Feminist Art of the 1960s and 70s was also
'defused' by gender-biased critics 'despite their transgressive aims (my emphasis) through the use of the abject'
Taylor warns that 'transgressive practices may amount to reinscription of taboos' (Ben-Levi et. al. p. 7-15). Chapter
4 of this thesis also deals with the response to artists' subversive intentions.
43
Frances Phoenix Chapter 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims

that incorporates the animal corpse, this chapter will explore the subversiveness of artists'
intentions.

The previous chapter showed that the materials and subject matter of art incorporating the animal
corpse can generally, at least theoretically, be described as abject in agreement with Ben-Levi et
al. However, Chapter 3 argues that their further suggestion, that artists working with abject
materials and subject matters aimed to be subversive of social mores, is not the complete story.

neither NORMATIVE nor SUBVERSIVE

SUBVERSIVE NORMATIVE

both NORMATIVE and SUBVERSIVE

Diagram 1. Conceptual framework used to analyze artists' aims

and viewer response to art incorporating the animal corpse.

In seeking to analyze artists' aims in their use of the abject dead animal in their art, I have found
it necessary to provide a coherent framework (Diag. 1) for the plethora of artistic aims, given
that there are as many aims as artists. So I have selected the major dominant trends implied by
the 'subversive' definition provided by Ben-Levi et al. Firstly, the subversive itself, secondly its
binary or dichotomous opposite the 'normative', and thirdly their combination, a category of
aims that are 'both subversive and normative' of dominant societal values. The primary trends in
this category are ambivalence and abjection. Finally I have added a category of artists' aims that
are 'neither subversive nor normative', such as the aim to transform subjectivity and society.

44
Frances Phoenix Chapter 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims

This diagramatic conceptual framework is also used in Chapter 3 and 4 to clarify the four
conceptual categories of artists' aims and viewer response. The Whitney curators used a
traditional binary conceptual framework when they discussed the aims and outcomes of Abject
Art as subversive of normative society and politics, despite the fact that postmodern art is
'contradictory,9 and Kristeva's theorized abjection as both subversive and normative. The
changing diagrams in this chapter explain a shift from the exclusive, binary thought model used
by the Whitney curators to a more inclusive, circular framework. Because the binary model
(Diags. 2 & 3) proved to be too simplistic and reductive to adequately serve the purposes of this
thesis, a shift was made in order to accommodate all artists' aims, including those that are 'both
subversive and normative' (Diag. 4) and 'neither subversive nor normative' (Diag. 5).

The purpose of chapter 3 is not to prove that any one category of intentions is more prevalent or
valid than another, but to demonstrate the multiplicity of artists' intentions in their use of the
animal corpse. I have focussed on a number of artists who have already been introduced, namely
Rauschenberg, Beuys, Messager and Hirst, and have selected others from Table 1 to illustrate
particular points. This chapter will add complexity to our understanding of the relationship
between art incorporating the animal corpse and Abject Art as it is commonly understood.

Section 1.
Dichotomy and Artists' Aims: Either Subversive or Normative

Much of the debate about Abject Art in the 1980s and 90s seems to have been in terms of
whether it was subversive or normative. When the Whitney curators and others described Abject
Art as subversive of conservative society and politics they were using a simple `either/or', binary
conceptual construct that pairs subversion with the norm. Consequently Section 1 will explore
this idea by analysing artists' aims in their use of the animal corpse in particular artworksl° in
terms of being either subversive or normative.

9 Simon Morley, 'Close Encounters', TATE Summer 2000, TATE, London, 2000, pp. 55-56._
I° In this thesis I am focusing on artworks that incorporate the animal corpse. I am not making generalisations about
particular artists' aims unless a generalisation is made in the texts and applies to a body of works incorporating the
animal corpse by the artist.
45
Frances Phoenix Chapter 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims

ARTISTS' SUBVERSIVE AIMS ARTISTS' NORMATIVE AIMS

Abject Art (according to the Whitney curators) Jane Alexander's Butcher Boys (Fig. 42)
Huckaby' s Fashionable Entertainment (Fig. 41) Herman Nitsch's Action 4 (Fig. 24)
Messager' s Boarders at Rest (Fig. 10 & 11) Robert Rauschenberg' s Monogram (Fig. 12)
Terry Fox's Pisces
Carol ee Schneeman' s Meat Joy (Fig. 5)

Diagram 2. Dichotomous model showing artists who aim in particular artworks incorporating the animal
corpse to be either subversive or normative of the social order.

Diagram 2 illustrates this binary thought construct. It shows that artworks such as Huckaby's
Fashionable Entertainment, 1988 (Fig. 41), and Messager's Boarders at Rest, 1971-2 (Fig. 10 &
11) were created with subversive intentions. However, it also shows that not all artists use the
animal corpse for subversive purposes and that normative aims are not out of the question. For
example, Jane Alexander's The Butcher Boys, 1985-6 (Fig. 42), and Herman Nitsch's Action 4,
1963 (Fig. 24), were created to support social norms.

Abject Art and Subversion

As discussed in the introduction of this chapter, the curators of the aforesaid 1993 Whitney
Museum's exhibition of Abject Art suggested that artists producing Abject Art had subversive
intentions. Simon Taylor, Hal Foster, Riddell and other theorists argue that Abject Artists aimed
to be subversive through their use and exploration of the abject. Riddell firmly believes that
Abject Art is 'founded on an aesthetic of negativity' and that its aims are essentially to reject,
cast off, negate, deny and repudiate, even though she agrees with Kristeva's notion that abjection
is also normative. 11

Simon Taylor, one of the Whitney curators, defines some of the subversive aims of Abject Art.12
According to Taylor, many Abject Artists13 aim to reclaim the body and sensuality, exteriorize

"Jennifer Riddell, 'The Abject Object: A Recent History of the Ephemeral Found Object in Contemporary Art',
New Art Examiner, vol. 23, Oct 1995, pp 26-53
12 Simon Taylor, 'The Phobic Object: Abjection in Contemporary Art', Abject Art: Repulsion and Desire in
American Art: Selections from the Permanent Collection (exhibition catalogue), Whitney Museum of American Art,
New York, 1993, pp. 59-84.
46
Frances Phoenix Chapter 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims

interiority, challenge notions of the body's stability, and undermine the contemporary fascistic,
technological body as well as the dematerialized body. He writes that Abject Artists also intend
reclaiming difference and otherness, as well as opposing totalising and homogenising notions of
identity, system and order. According to Taylor, in a world where stereotypical associations of
the 'other' with the abject" abound, Abject Artists aim to force human stereotypes to `resignify
and circulate in alternately parodic, celebratory, and non-oppressive ways'.I5 He also explains
how some Abject Artists challenge the gallery's neutrality16 through explorations Of the abject.
Taylor's account of Abject Artists having subversive aims is supported by Hal Foster in his
essay, 'Obscene, Abject, Traumatic', written three years later, even though he criticizes Abject
Art for not achieving these aims.

Hal Foster explains how Abject Artists such as Cindy Sherman, John Miller, Andres Serrano and
Mike Kelly were consciously exploring abjection in the mid 1990s for the purposes of
challenging Western society. Foster believes that contemporary art is increasingly refusing its
traditional role of protecting viewers from the trauma of beholding 'the real'17 in 'all its glory or
horror'.18 Although he doesn't mention artists using the animal corpse, he confirms that artists
working with abjection in the 1990s held subversive intentions in that they were plumbing the
depths of the repressed abject in order to attack and destroy 'the screen'. Some artists were also
exploring the repressed maternal body, which is said to underlie the symbolic order, in order to
'exploit the disruptive effects of its material and/or metaphorical rem(a)inders'.19 Other Abject
Artists, identifying with the abject, approached it by probing the wound of their own trauma in
order to touch what Foster calls 'the obscene object-gaze of the real'. 20 Yet other artists
represented the condition of abjection in order to provoke its operation in the viewer and so catch
abjection in the act. Foster suggests that some of these artists seem to require a shocked reaction

13 Abject Artists include: Cindy Sherman, Kiki Smith, Mike Kelley, Robert Gober, John Miller, David Hammond.
(Taylor, p. 59). These artists don't usually use animal materials in their art.
14 Taylor refers to the association of women with menstrual blood, gay men with disease, working class with trash,
and blacks with dirt. To this I would add that animals and animality are associated with nature (as opposed to
culture), violence, murder, crime, lust and death.
15 Simon Taylor, 'The Phobic Object', p. 80.
16 Ibid.
17 Hal Foster suggests this return of Lacan's real marks an increasing "turn to psychoanalysis in critical culture".
(Foster, The Return of the Real; The Avant-Garde at the End of the Century, The MIT Press, Cambridge and
London,1996, p.138) and signals an attack on the 'armoured subject' by its most feared forces 'sexuality and the
unconscious, desire and the drives, the jouissance...that shatters the subject, that surrenders it precisely to the
fragmentary and the fluid' (Simon Taylor, 'The Phobic Object', p. 80).
18 The actual animal corpse in art can be considered an example of 'the real'.
19 Hal Foster, The Return of the Real; the Avant-Garde at the End of the Century, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.,
c1996, p. 157.
47
Frances Phoenix Chapter 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims

from the audience to be successful or for the particular artwork or event to be completed. 21
However, Foster is skeptical about the results of Abject Art and reminds us that 'the danger, of
course is that the mimesis may confirm a given abjection',22

Very often the rhetoric of subversion is spoken of in terms of artists wanting to shock, even
though it is possible to use shock for normative purposes. In a discussion on Arts Today about
why artists want to shock, the reasons given were that artists wanted notoriety, to make us think
and to present gross corporeal violence.23 These artists were thought to be a part of a twentieth-
century avant-garde tradition of 'shocking art' but nevertheless are desperate to find anything
shocking today. In his book, Art and Outrage Walker argues that artists want to be shocking in
order to, for example, get a competitive edge in the modernist avantgarde, bring about social
revolution or reform, or to stimulate personal change or transformation.24

Art, the Animal Corpse and Subversion

Messager, Huckaby, Fox and Dodd are just three of the many artists who intend subversion of
their audience in their use of the abject animal corpse in their art. The 'part surrealist, part
conceptualist' ,25 Annette Messager, intends to create 'confusion within the systern'26 in her use
of taxidermied animals in conjunction with appropriated visual elements from various sources
such as women's magazines and black magic. 27 Her work transgresses cultural rules, mixes its
genres and subverts its hierarchies.28 She also questions 'the proper look, place and repercussions
of so-called women's work'29 and women's role. An example of this is what is considered her
ambivalent 'tenderness and sadism'3° towards 65 dead sparrows in The Boarders at Rest, 1971-

20 Hal Foster, 'Obscene, Abject, Traumatic', October, no. 78, Fall 1996, p. 115.
21 p. 116.
22 Ibid.
23 'Why is there such an interest in shock art today?', interview with Barbara Lewis, Chris Palmer and Chris James,
Arts Today, ABC Radio National, Fri 13th Oct. 2000.
24 J. A.Walker, Ari and Outrage: Provocation, Controversy and The Visual Arts, Pluto Press, Sterling, V. A., 1999,
pp. 1-2.
K. Johnson, 'Annette Messager at Gagosian', Art in America, May 1997, p. 121.
26 S. Cotter, 'Annette Messager. Teaching Grandmother to Suck Eggs', Contemporary Visual Arts, issue 20, 1998,
Ei 82.
Labelle gives examples such as her Handbook of Everyday Magic in which she, 'like a fortune teller reading tea
leaves' and 'casting spells', finds patterns in Rorschach designs. My Works 'reads like a cabbala'; palmistry in Lines
of the Hand; voodoo in My Little Effigies; conjuring in The Story of Dresses (Charles Labelle, 'Annette Messages',
World Art, April_1995, p. 105).
28 K. Johnson, 'Annette Messager at Gagosian', Art in America, May 1997, p. 121.
29 Andrea Liss, 'Our Messenger', Afterimage, Sept/Oct 1996, pp. 15-16.
" Anne Rochette & Wade Saunders, 'Savage Mercies', Art in America (U.S.A.), vol. 82, pt. 3, March 1994, p. 80.
48
Frances Phoenix Chapter 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims

72 (Fig. 10 & 11). In this work Messager knitted tiny woollen dresses for the same pathetic
bodies upon which she appears to enact unnamable tortures. This is not a usual separatist
feminist tactic31 according to Conkelton, but more subversive and 'anti-utopian'. However
Messager pays for this by being thought of as the 'abject maternal' incarnate by many critics.

Audiences and critics seem to enjoy pretending that they are not clear if it is Messager's
personality or her artistic strategy at work, or if her intention is repressed or conscious. Whether
these questions are important or not is irrelevant, because, according to Rochette and Saunders
'it's altogether natural to wonder who killed the birds and commissioned the taxidermist to give
them their pathetic permanence'.32 Liss, however, is not fooled into thinking these questions
should be laid at Messager's door and writes that The Boarders at Rest is far more subversive
and

insinuat(es) questions that bear on the hierarchy that art-world judgements pronounce, questions
that relate to the formation of collections, value, gender and context. For example, is this the work
of a caring mother, a pathological sadist, an ornithologist or an artist?33

Another artwork made with subversive intentions is Huckaby's Fashionable Entertainment,

1988 (Fig. 41). With its two dog carcasses dancing with wineglasses in place of their heads and a
revolver and leg-hold trap in place of their genitals, this work was exhibited in a pub. This kind
of art represents, according to Huckaby, 'the arts of refusal' or campaigns waged by artists in
response to 'the beast impinged' in taxidermy, culinary, fashion, and other arts." Huckaby and
other political artists aim to challenge their viewers to move from passivity to thinking about
their own complicity in the status quo:

The critical beast is presented instead of represented to allow a natural yet uncanny reception with
the grim authenticity of forensic evidence. Much becomes abandoned at the white walls; this
order is to go.35 (my emphasis)

31 Tamblyn theorises that Messager's work can be seen as a feminist tactic but one with an 'anti-utopian stance', in
opposition to feminists who have tried to create an alternative, separatist world. These tactics include refusing
dichotomous thinking, excessively repeating of the way the feminine is defined as lack, creating as a female sexual
subject, representing forbidden, taboo topics, dissolving boundaries between oppositional categories, indulging in
the abject maternal rather than being a respectable mother and doing things badly rather than conventionally. These
tactics challenge and begin to break down the normative codes (Christine Tamblyn, 'The River of Swill: Feminist
Art, Sexual Codes, and Censorship', Afterimage, no. 18, Oct. 1990, p. 10).
32 Anne Rochette & Wade Saunders, 'Savage Mercies', Art in America (U.S.A.), vol. 82, pt. 3, March 1994, p. 80.
33 Andrea Liss, 'Our Messenger', Afterimage, Sept/Oct 1996, pp. 15-16.
34E. K. Huckaby, 'The Critical Beast', Art Papers, Atlanta, vol. 13, pt. 2, Mar-April 1989, p. 22.
49
Frances Phoenix Chapter 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims

Deliberately less dramatic than many artists working with animal issues is Adelaide artist, James
Dodd. A 200-1-performance -by -Dodd -at Adelaide's -Contemporary Art-Centre, Buicher,---in-which
he adeptly killed, skinned,.and....barbwd. to xhbiits partof.a_proje_036.wilickaddressed the
notions of trading within a fruit and vegetable marketplace, aimed to address the issues of meat
eating in a culture that divorces it from animal death. Dodd explains in an email:

The performance was one which I had hoped to do for a long time. It was as much a personal
journey for myself as an act of highlighting the issues of meat eaters within suburban consumer
culture. My childhood was spent on a farm where I was taught, from an early age, how to kill and
prepare animals for eating. Those of us who.grow up within suburbia do not come into contact
with the death of animals very often. If people do witness the death of an animal it is often a pet;
where the process is dramatised and turned into mourning. At the same time, however, consumers
will walk into any supermarket and buy meat which is packaged ready for preparation. The meat
as an object is removed from the_process of death. Myperformance was aimed to highlight ... the
fact that I, as an individual was comfortable with the concept of killing an animal for the purpose
of food.37

Although this work is subversive of city dweller's double standards when it comes to eating meat
and killing animals, the performance was intended to demonstrate that this is not a dramatic
event forthose who-must eat in-the-bush: James-writes thatkilling-animals

... was a skill I had been taught as a child and that death, in my experience, need not be
drar.n.atised_when.it sornethin g.th at. we_rnust _do_ ..The...proces s i nvolve d.." stretching the._rabbi ts
(2) necks to break them this is a very quick and humane (as determined with the RSPCA) way
of killing. Lthen_proceeded..to. skin_and .gut_the_animals,...after which..they were..placed. on a_ small
BBO to cook.38

In complete contrast to Dodd's agenda, yet also subversive, is Terry Fox's performance Pisces,
1997, in which he 'murders', in the words of Cindy Nemser, two sea bass and experiences their
death throes-by-reclining-on-the -floor-while -they-are-tied-to-his tongue-and-penis-as -they -die:
Later he slept through his exhibition opening shrouded in white canvas with the two decaying
fish fastened to his teeth and hair as viewers looked on from outside the room. He makes it
known that:

his intention is to charge a space with feeling so powerful that after the performance the space
_r_emains_thargecLenough_to havesome_effect_on_filture.visitors 39

35 Ibid., p. 22.
-36-Performance as part ofone ofPliil-Tiind's Move projects, vifildh are recorded onVideo.
37 James Dodd, quoted from an email to Frances Phoenix, Mon. 14th Jan. 2002.
38 'bid:

50
Frances Phoenix Chapter 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims

According to Cindy Nemser, body artists like Fox often use such forceful props 'to ensure
empathy on the part of the viewer' and when this happens 'the viewer cannot help but feel the
vibrations of these actions in his (sic) own body'.4° In this way, Fox may well intend to subvert
his viewers' physical self-control and thereby undermine Western society's required separation
of mind and body.

An artist whose desired aim was to provoke abjection in her audience, for subversive purposes, is
Carolee Schneeman. In 1964 she choreographed a performance, Meat Joy (Fig. 5), in which
naked actors frolicked with rubbish, meat and dead animals. Schneeman described the happening
as 'an exuberant sensory celebration of the flesh'. She intended this erotic work to push the
limits of sensuality 'to the frontier of the disgusting in the hope of making the disgusting
pleasurable.' Although she could not have been aware of Kristeva's theory she may have read
Bataille. Nevertheless, her aim describes the simultaneous attraction and repulsion of abjection.
Though she clearly aims to engender abjection in her audience she also aimed to subversively
expand her New York audience's senses so that their experience would challenge and ultimately
destroy social taboos. 41 This work has been called Abject Art and features in the Whitney's
catalogue. Although Schneeman and the Whitney curators obviously believed her aims were
subversive, the abjection achieved may still have had a normative outcome. Artists therefore,
who use abjection without realizing its potential for both subversive and normative outcomes,
may have their intentions thwarted.

Abject Art, the Animal Corpse and Artists' Normative Aims

The modernist agenda of the 'new' and shocking has made it seem almost inconceivable that
contemporary artists might use the abject animal corpse with normative intentions. However, to
do so is to connect this art with the cultural tradition of using the abject to frighten, horrify or
disgust viewers into following a normative path. Examples of this might be Bosch's depictions
of hell on earth and Catholic depictions of the torture of the saints.42 The church and art,

39 Cindy_Nernser,_`Subject-Object:_Body Art', Arts Magazine, no. 45, Sept-Oct 1971, p. 42.

40 Ibid., p.41.
41 Leslie C. Jones, p. 50.
42 mid
51
Frances Phoenix Chapter 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims

according to Kristeva and Creed, can provide a space where viewers who transgress taboos are
protected from the annihilation of abjection and so are able to return to a normative path.43

Jane Alexander, an artist from Johannesburg, seems to have used the animal corpse in her art for
normative purposes. This is suggested by the fact that she felt disheartened by the fascination her
horrific art elicited when she won first prize in the National Fine Arts Students Exhibition in the
early 1980s. Her art explores the contradictions of violence, aggression and cruelty offset against
insecurity and vulnerability as these emotions are revealed through life-sized, super-realistic,
three-dimensional, cast human figures incorporating animal bones, feathers or hair. The Butcher
Boys, 1985-6 (Fig. 42), with animal horns and bones and animal-like faces sit naked and
vulnerable on a bench, and two skeletal bodies hanging from metal hooks," Untitled, 1982 (Fig.
43), were intended to remind that only those individuals and societies that are insecure need to
bully and be aggressive. Her intention for these works was normative in that she attempted to
uphold civilized society. However, she felt that she failed to bring about a serious
reconsideration of human violence.45 Perhaps she was unaware of just how fascinating the abject
animal bones and features made her hybrid figures. Her viewers came back to look, drawn by the
horror.

The celebrated Viennese artist, Hermann Nitsch (b. 1938), illustrates the difficulty in
categorizing artists as subversive or normative. Because he belonged to DIAS, a group of artists
who worked in the 1960s to raise awareness of and halt the growing violence of humans in
contemporary society, his aims are normative. Yet his abject enactment of bloody violence upon
animal carcasses in his art is what Kristeva calls 'the utmost of abjection'. His Action 4, 1963
(Fig. 24), in which an animal carcass was destroyed, was intended to promote a cathartic
response in his audience whereby they would turn away from such violence in real life. His
'powerful theatrical tragedies', developed in the 1950s, were based on the cathartic ritual
cleansings of initiates into ancient Greek mysteries. Another work built around violence, blood
and death, is his annual six day Orgy of Mysieries Theatre which involves orchestra, choir and
butchers slaughtering animals as sacrifice. The difficulty in categorizing his work is to do with
the ease with which aims, means and even outcomes can be collapsed. However, I need to make
clear here that my main concern is not to get the classification 'right' but to show that there is a

43 Julia Kristeva Powers of Horror, p. 4; Creed, 'Monstrous Feminine', p. 53.

" Jane Alexander. (Reference unknown. See Appendix III).
52
Frances Phoenix Chapter 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims

variety of artistic approaches and aims, and they defy easy classifications such as that made by
Ben-levi et al.

In January 1958, Artnews magazine called Rauschenberg's assemblage art `neo-Dada' because
of his use of paradox and ambiguity, junk and found objects in his abject, hybrid painting-
sculptures which he called `combines'.46 An example to consider is Rauschenberg's Monogram
(1955-59) (Fig. 12), consisting of a wildly painted stuffed Angora goat with a rubber tyre around
its waist, standing on a collage painting in abstract expressionist style and incorporating rubbish
off the New York streets where he lived. Rauschenberg's use of taxidermy 'broke the rules of
abstract expressionism'47 and modernism, the current normative style in New York in the 1950s.
He believes that extraordinary changes in the world come out of chaos" and the goat certainly
caused chaos.

However, contrary to opinion, Rauschenberg did not primarily intend to challenge the art-world
in his use of stuffed animals. Rather, he longed for the art world's acceptance,49 which indicates
a split between his aims and the artistic process to which he was committed. Joshua Taylor called
Rauschenberg 'a classical artist, bent on preserving an inner integrity of order by a constant
destruction of external schemes and circumstances'. 50 According to Taylor it seems that he, and
other artists dealing with the abject, achieve normative aims using subversive means.

Rauschenberg had a deep need to resolve the very real separation of art from life that he
experienced as a young man when he first discovered that The Blue Boy was not just an
illustration on a pack of playing cards, but an actual painting in an Art Museum.51 This was not a
subversive urge but a normative one. So too, was his use of the found stuffed goat and other
animals he bought for his art. He speaks of his father's callous attitudes to the family's hunting
dogs 'they were just tools for him'. His love of animals, especially his dogs, made him feel

45 Ibid
46 R. Atkins, Artspeak: A Guide to Contemporary ideas, Movements, and Buzzwords, Abbeville Press Publishers,
New York, 1990.
47 Chris Granlund (film director), Robert Rauschenberg: Man at Work (film), ABC TV, Sunday March 18th 2001.
48 Rauschenberg believes that 'a mixture of poetry and a lack of organized information...chaos...can produce
extraordinary changes in the world' (Barbara Rose, 'An Interview with Robert Rauschenberg by Barbara Rose',
Rauschenberg, Vintage Contemporary Artists, Elizabeth Avedon (ed.), Vintage Books, Random House, N.Y., 1987,
p. 98).
49 Granlund (film).
59 Robert Rauschenberg, National Collection of Fine Arts, Smithsonian Institution Press, City of Washington, 1976,
p. ix.

53
Frances Phoenix Chapter 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims

'unacceptable without being a criminal' to his father. He was expelled from University for
refusing to dissect a live frog52 and when he first saw the stuffed animals sold in New York he
thought 'it's too bad they're dead...I can do something about that.' His real aim in using the
stuffed animals was 'to continue their life' in his art. 53 This was a healing or resurrection urge,
not a destructive or subversive one. He stopped using stuffed animals when he realized that the
taxidermist was killing the animals especially for him.54

Dichotomy: An Inadequate Model

ARTISTS' SUBVERSIVE AIMS ARTISTS' NORMATIVE AIMS

Abject Art (according to the Whitney curators) Jane Alexander's Butcher Boys (Fig. 42)
Huckaby's Fashionable Entertainment (Fig. 41) Rauschenberg' s Monogram (Fig. 12)
Messager's Boarders at Rest (Fig. 10 &11) Herman Nitsch' s Aktion 4 (Fig. 24)
Terry Fox's Pisces
Carolee Schneeman's Meat Joy (Fig. 5)

Damien Hirst's Out of Sight, Out of Mind (Fig. 44)

Beuys' actions with dead hares (Fig. 7, 36, 47)
McChesney' s Bones No 14. (Fig. 45)

Diagram 3. This dichotomous, conceptual model of artists' aims is inadequate

because it does not account for the aims of many artists.

Diagram 3, the dichotomous conceptual model accounting for artists with subversive and
normative aims, fails to account for artists such as Rauschenberg, Beuys and Hirst, with non-
dichotomous aims in their use of the animal corpse. It only categorizes aims that those in power
value or directly oppose. Consequently aims other than the subversive or normative are described
only in relation to these opposed extremes. In a sense, they become merely poor 'performances'
of an idealized Subversive or Normative. This may be inevitable, as even the dichotomous pair
are defined in relation to each other in binarism.

51 Granlund (film).
52 Barbara Rose, p. 13.
53 Granlund (film).
54 Barbara Rose, p. 60.
54
Frances Phoenix Chapter 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims

A limitation of binarism, is that one category is considered positive, (for example: life) and is
therefore privileged over the other negative category, (death) which becomes abject or taboo.
Amongst contemporary artists subversion is privileged over tradition. Because non-dichotomous
aims are abjected under its rationale, binarism is therefore a form of extremism that makes an
artist's transgression of the death taboo shocking, horrifying and subversive.. Dichotomous
thought is like tunnel vision in that it looks at the opposite position from a position of primacy
and power, while being unable to see other positions. It not only means that death is described as
the Death, the End, Oblivion, Hell or Nothing in the West, but contributes to Modernism being
called the 'shock of the new'.55

Section 2.
Artists' Paradoxical Aims: Both Subversive and Normative

There is some difficulty in naming aims that are 'both subversive and normative'. Modernist
Western culture, bound to a language founded on binarism, finds them inexplicable and
paradoxical. The words 'ambivalence' and 'aims' seem antithetical. Having considered
'ambivalent' and 'ambiguous' aims I finally decided on the term 'paradoxical aims' because it is
less laden with negative associations.56 By paradoxical aims I mean that artists consciously
choose to cause or achieve paradox, ambiguity, ambivalence, or abjection, to name a few states
which are both subversive and normative. Paradox and ambivalence have been taken up in the
twentieth-century by postmodern theorists and artists as a way around oppressive, hierarchical,
dichotomous thought. As the art critic, Simon Morley, says

The context is neither the normative nor the oppositional paradigm. A sense of rupture with the
past has become more and more pronounced, but Post-modern culture no longer reacts to this rift
with acts of rejection, desecration, or desertion. Post-modernist art is characterised by a spirit of
pluralism, by a confusion of mutually competing and contradictory tendencies which opens new
ways of relating...57

55 Robert Hughes, The Shock of The New: An and The Century of Change, Thames & Hudson, London, 1991.
56 I originally chose to call these aims 'ambivalent'. However, there is such a stigma attached to the word that an
artist having ambivalent aims suggests they have a psychological problem, are confused or inconsistent, rather than
that they deliberately choose to cause, or work with, ambivalence or abjection as a radical stance. There isn't the
same stigma attached to the naming or owning of subversive or normative aims. However, I am aware that naming
things, 'generates, 'authoritative' readings and works against non-hierarchical analyses' (Riddell, p. 53).
57 Simon Morley, 'Close Encounters', Tate Summer 2000, TATE Museum, London 2000, pp. 55-56.
55
Frances Phoenix Chapter 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims

Hal Foster describes the radicality of an ambivalent position, as a 'dialectical'58 strategy to:

...rethink transgression...as a fracture traced by a strategic avant-garde positioned ambivalently

within this order. In this view the goal of the avant-garde is not to break with the symbolic order
absolutely...but to expose it in crisis, to register its points not only of breakdown but of
breakthrough, the new possibilities that such a crisis opens up.59

The growing appearance of dead animals in 'avant-garde' and postmodern art, must surely
register and expose such a crisis in the social order. So too, the growing focus on abjection and
ambivalence by theorists such as Bataille and Kristeva who created spaces and explanations for
paradoxical thought. These works clarify our understanding of artistic aims that are both
subversive and normative. There is a difficulty however, in that there is a difference between
Kristeva's and the Whitney's definition of 'abject': defined by the Whitney curators and many
others as subversive, yet defined by Kristeva not only as subversive, but also as normative.

SUBVERSIVE AIMS PARADOXICAL AIMS NORMATIVE AIMS

(both SUBVERSIVE and NORMATIVE)

Abject Artists (defined according Artists dealing with abjection Jane Alexander's
to the Whitney curators) (defined according to Kristeva) Butcher Boys (Fig. 42)
Hermann Nitsch's Aktion 4 (Fig. 24)
Huckaby's Fashionable Damien Hirst's dead animals in Rauschenberg's Monogram (Fig.12)
Entertainment formaldehyde (Fig. 14, 44)
(Fig. 41)
Messager's Boarders at Rest
(Fig. 10 & 11)
Fox's Pisces
Schneeman's Meat Joy (Fig. 5)

Diagram 4. Conceptual model inclusive of artists' paradoxical aims

for art incorporating the animal corpse.

Building on the dichotomous model (Diag. 2), Diagram 4 shows how artists who use the animal
corpse and who are thought to have subversively abject aims, really have, according to
Kristeva's definition, aims that are paradoxical. A further limitation of binarism, is that it
separates categories that are often more alike than unlike (such as animals and humans). So it
may be that subversive and normative positions on the dichotomous model (Diag. 2) are also
alike in many ways. Certainly Bataille and Kristeva see both categories as psychologically,
socially, spiritually and politically connected and equally necessary to each other. This suggests
a third conceptual model, for the purposes of this thesis, that is inclusive of aims that are both

58 Hal Foster, 'Obscene, Abject, Traumatic', October, no. 78, Fall 1996, endnote 12, p. 115.
59 Ibid
56
Frances Phoenix Chapter 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims

subversive and normative, such as aims that engender ambivalence or abjection. Diagram 4,
therefore, gives ambivalent or abject aims a name, category and equivalence of their own,
thereby challenging binarism. Paradoxical aims, being 'in-between' the subversive and
normative, are 'what disturbs identity, system, order. What does not respect borders, positions,
rules', 6° and are therefore abject according to Kristeva.

Paradoxical Aims: Damien Hirst

There is a popular impression that Damien Hirst's art is 'evil',61 and therefore the essence of
subversion, perhaps because he works from his own ambivalence and abjection. Kristeva says
abjection is 'shameless' and 'immoral',62 and Hirst doesn't seem to mind exposing this side of
himself. Gordon Burns calls Hirst 'Mr. Death' and 'the dead cow man' and his shark in
formaldehyde63: 'a prophetic - perhaps self-fulfilling - autobiographical portrait'. He thinks
Hirst's art

revels in catastrophilia...The longing for something terrible, for something that is terribly high,
sad, or far, terribly mean, dangerous or lovely, as long as it's terrible. 64

Hirst feeds these opinions about his subversive intentions when he says 'I have no social
conscience'65 and 'I get a kind of excitement thinking how this thing was living and now I'm
eating it'.66 He also flaunts his own abjection: that photos of dead bodies

'are completely delicious, desirable images of completely undesirable and unacceptable things.
They're like cookery books'.67

60 Julia Kristeva, p. 4.
61 Joseph Jackson, in writing for the general public, calls Damien Hirst 'the devil child, the transcendental image of
brattish evil ultimately comparable to Leonardo da Vinci, who would rob graves to improve his figure drawing.
Damien's personal devil-daddy is.. .Joseph Beuys. Damien's tanks are up-scaled replicas of Beuys' steel and glass
cases, Damien's visceral dead-things are flashier versions of Beuys' pots of animal fat and rolls of rabbit pelt...By
turning the dour Beuys into a swish atrocity exhibition, Damien has become the major artist of the late 20'h century'
(Joseph Jackson, 'The A to Z of Art: D is for Damien', The Modern Review, June-July 1994).
62 Julia Kristeva, p. 4.
63 The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living, Hirst, 1991 (Fig. 18).
64 'Is Mr. Death In?' by Gordon Burn, in Damien Hirst, I want to spend the rest of my life everywhere, with
everyone, one to one, always, forever, now, Booth-Clibborn Editions, London, 1997, pp. 7-13.
65 Damien Hirst, /want to spend the rest of my life everywhere, with everyone, one to one, always, forever, now,
Booth-Clibborn Editions, London, 1997, p. 18.
66 Helen Simpson, 'Meat for Thought', Modern Painters, Spring 1997, pp. 94-96.
67 Darnien Hirst, p. 18.
57
Frances Phoenix Chapter 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims

He uses the media for his own purposes and published their articles in his book. Hirst
transgresses social taboos in order to challenge the passivity of traditional art audiences who
want to escape from the realities of life (and death) through art. He wants his viewers to feel the
discomfort of being responsible for their own response to his art (and the world), rather than
being critical of him:

I want the viewer to do a lot of work and feel uncomfortable. They should be made to feel
responsible for their own view of the world rather than look at an artist's view and be critical of
it.68

On the other hand, Charles Hall describes Hirst as 'one of life's innocents' amongst his more
'knowing' contemporaries and that he is significant for not being 'bound up with the history of
ideas' but simply wanting to make sense of the world,69 which is a normal human desire. Hall
also believes that Hirst 'reintroduces into the artistic vocabulary, emotions long banished as
being in some way embarrassing: curiosity and awe.70 His works also have very human titles
such as I Want You Because I Can't Have You (1991), 'I'll Love You Forever (1994) and Love is
the Best (1994-95). Far from being evil or subversive, Graham-Dixon seems to see Hirst as
Christ-like when he describes his art as

parables (my emphasis) for human predicaments or feelings... (and)... despite their
unconventional materials, within the tradition of the vanitas: they are (literally) images of the
inevitability of death, images of futility (leavened, occasionally, by beauty).71

Hirst claims he isn't interested in shocking people and for this reason he didn't put the skinned
bull's head, Out of Sight, Out of Mind, 1991 (Fig. 44), in a restaurant exhibition. He relates that:

People say, 'When are you going to do a human in formaldehyde?' But I would never do that
because the shock factor would be too much, it would fail.72

Hirst is fascinated by death, but this comes out of a very real need to come to terms with death
and abjection in life and art. Hirst's ambivalence is reflected in another paradox: while his art is

68 Ibid. p. 18.
69 'There's only ever been one idea in art: what the hell are we doing here, and what's it all about?' (Damien Hirst, I
want to spend the rest of my life everywhere, with everyone, one to one, always, forever, now, Booth-Clibborn
Editions, London, 1997, p. 226.)
7° Charles Hall, 'A Sign of Life', Damien Hirst, ICA Jay Jopling Gallery, London, 1991, npn.
71 Andrew Graham-Dixon & Serpentine Gallery (eds), Broken English, Serpentine Gallery, 1 August-1 September,

1991, p. 6.
72 Helen Simpson, "Meat for Thought' Modern Painters, Spring 1997, pp. 94-96.
58
Frances Phoenix Chapter 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims

clearly about death and is as he says 'a glimpse of an idea of what it's like to die,73 he has also
said 'Art seems to me to be about life'.74 Burns refers to this as Hirst's fundamental position
statement. In an interview with Sophie Calle, Hirst admits to having ambivalent aims and
attempts a paradoxical explanation:

I want to do a piece called Still Pursuing Impossible Desires. I am aware of mental contradictions
in everything, like: I am going to die and I want to live forever. I can't escape the fact and I can't
let go of the desire, it's probably caused by images... magazines, TV, advertising, ...Images can
live forever and we are constantly being convinced that they are rea1.75

While we have seen that Hirst's intentions are both subversive and normative, he admits he is
ambivalent about his art being able to challenge life. He believes art is about life, but does not
exist without it, so has limitations, whereas life can exist without art. Despite this he wants to
keep trying to make a difference with art, but wants to be realistic as well:

There's a clash somewhere and a feeling in me that I can't override; the more I try to escape it the
more deviously it evades me, its an inescapable situation. If I follow my ideas about art through
to their final conclusion I realize I shouldn't make art, but I still do...I mean if I want to make art
more alive or more real... the result isn't art, it's life.76

Although Diagram 4 is more inclusive than the dichotomous model in Diagram 2, it is still
inadequate because it still fails to accommodate all artists' aims. For example, Joseph Beuys'
aims, in particular, do not seem to fit comfortably into the three categories so far discussed.

73 Sophie Calle, 'Damien Hirst & Sophie Calle', Damien Hirst, Jay Jopling Gallery & ICA, London, 1991, npn.
74 Gordon Burn, 'Is Mr. Death in? by Gordon Bum', in Damien Hirst, I want to spend the rest of my life
everywhere, with everyone, one to one, always, forever, now, Booth-Clibborn Editions, London, 1997, pp. 7-13.
75 Sophie Calle, npn.
76 Ibid.

59
Frances Phoenix Chapter 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims

Section 3.
Artists' Transformative Aims: Neither Subversive nor Normative

When Beuys spoke silently for three hours to a dead hare lying in his arms, in his first art
exhibition in the Dusseldorf art-world context,77 he probably spoke of how 'pictures' could
completely transform the individual, the art-world and German society. However,
transformation, as an artistic aim, does not find a place in the dichotomous (Diag. 2) or
paradoxical (Diag. 4) models of artistic aims in this thesis, because it is neither subversive,
normative, nor paradoxical. The dichotomous model can also be criticised in the way that
Kristeva's theory of abjection was criticised, 78 in that the abject is still being described in terms
of the dichotomous model. This is because it is constructed as an oscillation between
dichotomous opposites. Section 3 will discuss a conceptual model that accommodates Beuys'
wholistic aims for his use of the animal corpse in his art actions.

Art is traditionally transformative of materials and subject matters. For example, artists may aim
to achieve an 'aesthetic transformation' or 'transfiguration'79 by raising the abject from its
mundane/base/profane existence. Robert McChesney, for example, influenced (or constrained)
by the modernist notion of 'art for art's sake', aimed to transform abject bones into an
aesthetically pleasing abstract work, titled Bones No. 14, c1960s (Fig. 45). 80Not Vital, on the
other hand, aimed, in works such as Greyhound Carrying My Broken Leg, 1997 (Fig. 46), to
transform viewer attitudes that often construct animals as abject, by demonstrating a sense of

77 Joseph Beuys, How to explain pictures to a dead hare, 1965, (Fig. 36) action, Galerie Schmela (Caroline Tisdall,
Joseph Beuys. Thames and Hudson, Great Britain, 1979, p. 101).
78 Kristeva was criticised by feminists for not being able to see beyond the binary opposition as it exists in patriarchy
between the masculine/Symbolic and the feminine/Semiotic. For Kristeva, to embrace the abject (the Other and the
borderline) or transgress the taboo concerning death and the maternal, leads to a reinforcement or re-creation of the
taboo; a reaffirmation of patriarchy. In the case of the animal corpse in art this means that to transgress societal
taboos by attending the exhibition may well bring about an experience of abjection (a moment when fascination
holds the viewer while horror undoes them) and lead to a normative reaction where they decide not to attend such
exhibitions again, and so recast the taboo.
79 Eleanor Heartney believes it is possible for art to enact an 'aesthetic transformation' or 'transfiguration' of the
abject which lifts it into the 'the realm of the spirit' (Eleanor Heartney, 'Postmodern Heritics'. Art in America, vol.
85, Feb. 1997, p. 35). According to the dictionary, transfiguration is a change in appearance and therefore more
superficial than 'transformation' which is a more fundamental or structural change (Concise Macquarie Dictionary,
Doubleday, Australia, 1982).

60
Frances Phoenix Chapter 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims

their sacredness. 81 Joseph Beuys, however, aimed for a deeper, structural transformation of his
own and his audience's psyche as well as German society and politics.

TRANSFORMING AIMS
(neither subversive nor normative aims)

Beuys' Auschwitz (Fig. 7)

Beuys' Haw to explain pictures to a dead hare (Fig. 36)
Beuys' The Chief- Fluxus Chant (Fig. 47)
Beuys' Show your wound (Figs. 51 & 52)
McChesney's Bones No. 14 (Fig. 45)
Not Vital's Greyhound Carrying my Broken Leg (Fig. 46)

SUBVERSIVE AIMS NORMATIVE AIMS

See Diagram 2 See Diagram 2

PARADOXICAL AIMS
(both subversive and normative)
e.g. abjection, ambivalence

see Diagram 4

Diagram 5. Holistic conceptual model showing a full range of artists' aims,

including those that are neither subversive nor normative, such as the transformational.

A traditional, yet theoretically unpopular conceptual format that is able to accommodate a full
range of artists' aims, including transformation, is the circle, or cycle, as illustrated in Diagram 5.
In a circular model, all categories are equal, and on a cycle nothing is 'new' or 'shocking',
because, like the seasons, change is expected and accommodated. Dichotomy and hierarchy also
become meaningless, as Hall points out in relation to installations by Damien Hirst, such as A
Thousand Years,82 1990 (Fig. 8):

8011. Rasmussen, & A. Grant, Sculpture from Junk, Reinhold Book Corporation, New York, 1967, p. 36.
81 Donald Kuspit, 'Not Vital at Sperone Westwater Baron/Boisante', ArtForum, vol. 36, no. 9, May 1997, p. 107.
82 Although Hall sees Hirst's A Thousand Years as transformational, Hirst is not included in this section because he
doesn't claim to have transformational aims.
61
Frances Phoenix Chapter 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims

Hirst's installations return again and again to the notion of the individual life and death as
spectacular but transitory manifestations of an endless cycle... Hirst offers parodies of the desire
to, as it were, dissect ourselves out of that continuum.83 (my emphasis)

The cycle structure is wholistic and in the words of Neitzsche, says 'yes to everything'.84 It
eliminates the two 'straw men' of a mind-based, dichotomous thought process; for an embodied,
'experiential path'.85 Wendy Wheeler also describes postmodernism as replacing Cartesian
dualism, with 'what is, in the broadest possible sense, an ecological sensibility' :86

In this 'more holistic' new perspective, notions of order, reason and the body are, she contends,
being expanded 'through a growing understanding of the creative complexity of the world, and of
the creatures amongst whom we move and in whom we have our being as they do M us'.87

The cycle structure resolves the paradoxes of ambivalence and abjection, which turn out to be a
by-product of dichotomous thought and it incorporates all that is neither subversive nor
normative.

Joseph Beuys, who incorporated integrative philosophies into his art, such as Steiner's
Theosophy, alchemy and shamanic practices, was able to use the dead hare for transformative
purposes. He was not afraid of death, appearing as it does in his actions in the form of dead
hares, and nor was he fascinated. For him the dead animal was a possessor of energy, a resource,
and a natural part of life and of himself. According to Kotte, he obviously felt at one with it in
his art:
For Beuys animals are not just animals, and they are not chosen for only aesthetic reasons, or as part of a
narrow symbolism. Animals are for him carriers of a particular kind of energy.. .nor is it a question of
whether they should be looked at, but that one follows, reproduces, reactivates the... (energy of the)
object.88

A wholistic, cyclic model also allows an audience to see the dead animal as a part of life and the
life cycle. Western binarism opposes the dead animal to life and makes it abject and taboo. If we
see death as opposite birth and a part of the life cycle (cyclic model) rather than opposed to life
(binary model), then there is no need for viewers or societies to keep oscillating between

83 Charles Hall, 'A Sign of Life', Damien Hirst, ICA Jay Jopling Gallery, London, 1991, npn.
84 Rutledge, Noys, Smith, Taylor. 'An Encounter with Georges Bataille', Encounter, ABC Radio National, Sunday
22" April 2001.
85 Brooke Medicine Eagle, 'Earth Wisdom', New Dimensions, ABC Radio National, Sunday 21" October 2001,
4.30am.
86 Baker, p. 17.
87 Ibid.

62
Frances Phoenix Chapter 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims

fascination for (transgression) and horror of death which is taboo. Death can be seen as a
necessary step in the process of life, in the sense that, in nature, death is necessary for life and
regeneration (Appendix IV).

Some artists don't use, as their goal, the animal corpse for the purposes of forcing viewers to
experience abjection. Instead, they desire that the viewer consider or experience a reconciliation
or resolution of these opposites, as did Breton in his argument against Bataille's constant
oscillation between profanity and the sacred.89 I am arguing here for a non-dichotomous, non-
paradoxical experience of transformation, which involves a healing change for the positive,
unlike Kristeva's cathartic abjection which she says can never heal but only temporarily
reprieve.90 The word transformation is often seen as a spiritual experience, but in this thesis I
use it to mean an operation implying a wholistic change on the level of the body and mind, of
matter, emotion and spirit, and of society and politics.

Transforming Aims: Joseph Beuys and the Dead Hare

Joseph Beuys is a rare example of an artist who endeavoured to change society and himself
through the use of the dead animal and other abject materials in his art. He aimed for a deep,
structural transformation of subjectivity, society and politics. His aims seem to be neither
subversive nor normative, in the sense of being neither destructive nor supportive of the status
quo. Beuys identified with the abject and probed the wound of his own childhood and wartime
trauma from a healing rather than a subversive urge.91 Nor did he aim to cause shock,
ambivalence and abjection, or to heal simply in order to return to a normative condition. He
aimed for complete wholistic transformation through his art.

In The Chief- Fluxus Chant, 1964 (Fig. 47), a nine hour long meditative, ritualistic sound
performance, Beuys enacted abjection itself: a 'mock death'. 92 In this action he was wrapped in
felt, linked with two dead hares at his head and feet and connected with wires to a speaker and a

88 Wouter Kotte, The Function of the Hare for Beuys', Joseph Beuys, Heinz Holtmann (ed.), Galerie Heinz
Holtmann, Germany, 1989, P. 16.
89 Surrealism: Revolution by Night, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra, A.C.T., 1993, p. 48.
9° This is why Christian and other rituals need to be repeated, for we can never get rid of abjection (translated as the
guilt of transgression and sin), according to Kristeva.
91 Beuys made much art about healing, for example The Art Pill, 1963, (Tisdall, Joseph Beuys, p. 89). Also see
Hinrich Murken's Joseph Beuys and Medicine, (F. Coppenrath Verlag Munster, Munster, West Germany, 1979).
92 Caroline Tisdall, Joseph Beuys, p. 97.
63
Frances Phoenix Chapter 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims

copper rod wrapped in felt. Concerning The Chief Beuys said he switched off his own species in
order to tune into, carry and transmit sounds found in the animal kingdom and other forms of
existence.93 Making animal sounds, he becomes a transmitter of the hare's energy. For Beuys
this was not simply a performance piece, but 'a real action', disciplined and difficult:

Such an action, and indeed every action, changes me radically. In a way it's a death, a real action
and not an interpretation. Theme: how does one become a revolutionary? That's the problem.94

Beuys called this personal transformation the 'evolution principle', whereby to become truly
revolutionary one had to first transform the self, soul, mind and will for evolutionary change to
take place. For Beuys, dead animals are not simply abject base material, but have an energy,
power or spirit even in death that helps bring about healing, resurrection and evolution.

Beuys used the dead hare in his art as an 'example' to his audience.95 It was not so much a hare,
although its mythical significance was important to him, but its hare-ness that he was using. It
was the energy of the hare and its behaviour in fear and normal states that could teach us or
demonstrate how to survive and transform ourselves into revolutionaries. The energy in Beuy's
images/actions was to be reactivated by his audience when they needed it to transform
themselves. He used the analogy of the hare becoming one with the earth; transubstantiating
from hare-substance to earth-substance and back again. For Beuys the base materials of
sculpture, including thoughts and sounds, could be transformed, as in alchemy or shamanism,
into energy for individual and social change. Caroline Tisdall calls this 'the real transcendental
position of production in general'.96 Concerning How to Explain Pictures to a Dead Hare, 1965
(Fig. 36), Beuys explained that the dead hare has creative energy:

...this is not just an animal, but a dead animal. Even this dead animal has a special power to
produce.97

Beuys was also able to make everyday materials such as animal fat and felt come alive with
significant meaning. According to Marion Briggs 'he had an alchemical relationship to matter'
He was concerned with:

93 Ibid., p. 94.
94Jbid. p. 95.
Wouter Kotte, p. 16.
96 Caroline Tisdall, Joseph Beuys, p. 86.
97 Ibid. p. 101.
64
Frances Phoenix Chapter 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims

- the redemption of matter through an engagement of the human spirit in the transformation of the
earth,98

and in his hands natural and animal materials became a language with which to convey political
and spiritual truths.

In 1946 Beuys gave up a scientific career to commit himself to a new art form he invented called
'social sculpture'. By this term he meant forming a social structure that aimed to unify rather
than separate science, medicine and art, thereby overriding the modernist agenda of 'art for art's
sake'.99 He considered the art world 'so fossilized as to constitute a class in its own right' which
he wanted to overhaul. However, for Beuys, an overhaul didn't require that he destroy it. Like
Rauschenberg he believed creative chaos could replace the status quo with an alternative form:

Chaos can have a healing character, coupled with the idea of open movement, which channels the
warmth of chaotic energy into order or form.'°°

Siberian Symphony, Section 1, 1963, for example, consisted of Beuys playing a piano to a dead
hare tied in front of a blackboard. Small heaps of clay on the piano connected up with pine twigs
and wire formed a kind of electric pylon system leading from the piano. Beuys did not aim to
shock in the manner of the Dadaml or Fluxus art groups, but to express spiritual ideasl°2 about

98 Marion Briggs, 'Contemporary Art, Joseph Beuys & the Second Goetheanum: the Unity of the Arts'.
Transforming Art, vol. 4, no. 3, 1997, p. 60.
" The new art also blurred the barriers between artistic disciplines, was a healing force, was available to all, not just
to privileged artists and refused to be technically excellent, traditionally beautiful, a leisure activity, a commodity or
collateral. It was accessible and multi-cultural and it worked hard. To do this De Domizo Durri says 'he had both
provoked and challenged so he was considered a tireless agitator. He provoked without respite' (De Domizo Durri
p. 82. Although Beuys sought to overhaul traditional Western definitions of art and contemporary avant-garde an
practice, Masters says he was not so reactionary as to deny or extinguish art history altogether (G. Masters, 'Joseph
Beuys: Past the Affable', Athena, electronic text (http://athena.home.pages.de) Jan. 1999, paragraph 6).
10° Caroline Tisdall, Joseph Beuys. Thames and Hudson, Great Britain, 1979, p. 21.
101 While Dada slapped the public's face in order to demand alternatives to the affable, Beuys does not condemn but
offers alternatives. He takes Dada's revolutionary spirit and moves it beyond the art scene into political, social and
spiritual realms (Masters, 'Joseph Beuys: Past the Affable', 1999).
192 These ideas were inspired by his friend, the founder of the Anthroposophical Society, Rudolph Steiner. Scheerer
explains how Beuys' transformative vision was influenced by Rudolph Steiner, the founder of the Anthroposophical
Society. Beuys demonstrated these theories in his performances. He believed that between the 16th to 18th centuries
man redefined himself as `materia' and biology as opposed to his previous status as being created in God's image as
soul, spirit and body. Man killed God. Beuys believed that this incarnation (embodiment in flesh) really brought
man to earth and was a kind of suicide, a crucifixion of man on the Cartesian dualist coordinates (analytical
thinking). The task for man then is to rise again like Christ did. Man must re-create himself; must find 'the will to
create; the will to power' and find the dignity he has lost. (`The Joseph Beuys e-Mail Review a dialogue between
Karen Aachten & Thorsten Scheerer (Version 1.1)', Edited by Scheerer & Schonfeldt, Athena Information
Providing Service, Mannheim-Furtwangen-Heidelberg, http://home.pages.de/--athena/ March 1996, paragraph 3-7).
65
Frances Phoenix Chapter 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims

life, death and transformation through material. Beuys noticed that the Fluxus audience was
surprised at the depth of Siberian Symphony, Section 1.103 He wrote of this work:

I played the piano all over not just the keys with many pairs of old shoes until it disintegrated.
My intention was neither destructive nor nihilistic: 'Heal like with like"- similaia similibus
curantur in the homeopathic sense. The main intention was to indicate a new beginning, an
enlarged understanding of every traditional form of art, or simply a revolutionary act.1°4

Auschwitz, 1958 (Fig. 7), was also intended to be healing in the naturopathic sense. Beuys
wanted to immerse his German audience in an Auschwitz-like experience, by which he hoped to
heal them of the post-war psychic pain. The work was a collection in a showcase of all the
objects and drawings Beuys had created or collected that related to Auschwitz. It included a dead
rat, charred remains, goggles, poison phials, etc. According to Tisdall all his materials act as holy
relics because they 'pass freely from one level of existence to another'105 Beuys himself says
that

Art is a genuinely human medium for revolutionai change in the sense of completing the
transformation from a sick world to a healthy one'

Beuys believed that everyone has the potential to perform this priestly role because everyone can
be creative, and to this end he ministered to numerous dead hares in his art. It was as if the dead
hares were not so much a subversive element, meant to bring people to their knees, but were a
reflection of himself and the German people already being in a state of post-war abjection.
Beuys' art aimed to show a way through and beyond this current state of abjection to a
transformation.

***

This chapter set out to explore, through art incorporating the animal corpse, the idea supported
by Ben-Levi et al. in their catalogue of Abject Art, that Abject Art aimed to be subversive of
social, cultural and political norms. While artists' aims are not readily accessible, it was also
difficult to define artists as being subversive, normative, ambivalent or transformative in

103 Tisdall, Joseph Beuys, p. 88.

104 Ibid. p.87.
1°5 Ibid.
106 G. Masters, 'Joseph Beuys: Past the Affable', Athena, electronic text (http://athena.home.pages.de) Jan. 1999,
paragraph 4.
66
Frances Phoenix Chapter 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims

particular artworks, because artists' aims are easily confused with their means.1°7 It was found in
Chapter 2 and 3 that while artists' means (materials, techniques and subject matters, etc.) are
generally considered abject, their aims were various and often defied binary defmitions.
Although the disjunction between aims and means is not a focus of this thesis, it may be a sign
that artists did not realize the normative power of horror and disgust.

This chapter found that artists such as Messager, Huckaby and Fox often aim to be subversive
through particular artworks incorporating the animal corpse. However there are also artists, such
as Alexander, Rauschenberg, and Nitsch, who aim to maintain the social order in their use of the
corpse, and in doing so may remind us that the Catholic church and artists throughout history
have represented the abject with the normative intentions of frightening viewers away from sin
and damnation.

However, Chapter 3 has demonstrated that these dichotomous aims (subversive/normative) are
far from the whole story. For instance, Damien Hirst reveals aims that are ambivalently both
subversive and normative of the social and cultural order. Such paradoxical aims, which
engender ambivalence or abjection in art audiences, were considered in the light of the theories
of Kristeva, Bataille and Foster. That artists who aim to engender ambivalence and abjection are
mostly uninformed by Kristeva's theory of abjection means that their aims may be undermined
by the paradoxical powers of the abject corpse.

There are also artists who aim to provoke ambivalence or abjection in their viewers for
subversive purposes, such as Schneeman in Meat Joy, (Fig. 5). Her aim indicates a contradiction
between aims and means, because she is using abjection to achieve subversion in the system, yet
abjection is both normative and subversive, according to Kristeva, and a `primer'l08 of Western
culture.

Finally, this chapter discussed how artists may have transformational aims, which are neither
subversive nor normative (Diag. 5). In his art, with its Theosophical and shamanic
underpinnings, Beuys aimed to achieve a total structural transformation of the individual psyche
as well as the wider German society, culture and politics. Abject Art, in general, is not seen as

107 By 'means' I am referring to the materials, processes, techniques and subject matters artists used to achieve their
aims, as were discussed in Chapter 2.

67
Frances Phoenix Chapter 3. Subversive? Artists' Aims

aiming for a creative outcome but for a subversive breakdown or collapse of the individual
subject and social order, however, Beuys' new 'social sculpture' does. His transformational ideal
seems to move beyond Kristeva's theory of ambivalent abjection in its ability to describe the
potential power of the abject animal corpse in art. Although Kristeva and Bataille speak of the
purification of the abject as if it were an outcome of abjection, Kristeva also says that abjection
never goes away and cannot be resolved. I argued in Section 3 that abjection can be resolved by
those who embrace a non-dichotomous, wholistic thought model, which is illustrated here as
circle or cycle (Diag. 5). This is supported by Bauman's theory, discussed in Chapter 1, which
suggests that without binarism there would be no abject.

This chapter also introduced a number of diagrams to show how artists' aims in their use of the
animal corpse have been assumed to be subversive. It explained that the Western binary model
of 'subversive versus normative' (Diag. 2 & 3), used by many theorists discussing Abject Art in
the 1980s and 90s, limited a more complex understanding of artists' aims for their use of the
animal corpse and possibly even of Abject Art as a phenomenon. Binarism, with its tunnel
vision, fails to make sense of art that aims to engender abjection in the viewer or to transform
viewers, art and society at large. Kristeva's theory of the abject also supports this claim, for
nothing can be called 'abject' unless it engenders abjection, with its simultaneous
attraction/repulsion, in the viewer. Chapter 4 will therefore explore the viewer or audience
response to art incorporating the animal corpse, as well as its social, cultural and political
outcomes.

108 Julia Kristeva, p. 2.

68
Figure 41 Figure 42
Fashionable Entertainment, The Butcher Boys, Jane Alexander, 1985-86.
Huckaby, 1988. Preserved Plaster, paint, bone, horns, wooden bench.
dog carcasses, wine glasses,
revolver, leg-hold trap.

Figure 43 Untitled, Jane Alexander, 1982.

Wax, paint, bone, plaster, wood, steel.

Figure 44 Out of Site. Out of Mind, Damien Hirst, 1991.

Glass, steel, formaldehyde solution and bull's head.
 Figure 46
Greyhound Carrying My Broken Leg,
Not Vital, 1997. Hydrocal, hair, painted
taxidermized greyhound.

Figure 45 Bones No. 14,

Robert McChesney, c1 960s.
Bones, metal strapping.

Figure 47 The Chief- Fluxus Chant, Joseph Beuys, 1964. Felt, copper, microphone, amplifier.
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

CHAPTER 4.

SUBVERSION? VIEWER RESPONSE

AND THE ANIMAL CORPSE

Abjection within recent art practices signals a profound attack whose weapons are the very
forces that the armoured subject most fears...

Simon Taylor, 'The Phobic Object: Abjection in Contemporary Art', p. 80.

Having looked in some depth, in Chapter 3, at the aims of artists using the animal corpse, this
chapter will focus on viewer' response to the corpse in art, as well as responses from
conservative society, culture and politics. It will identify subversive and normative viewer
responses as well as responses that defy dichotomous definitions, such as ambivalence, abjection
and transformation. Because the debate about Abject Art was primarily established along
adversarial lines, Section 1 begins with a diagram (Diag. 6) that separates viewer response into
subversive and normative categories, which are then explained by outlining the debate
surrounding Abject Art, and analysing the response to art incorporating the animal corpse.
Section 2 begins with a diagram (Diag. 7) that accommodates more complex paradoxical viewer
responses that are both subversive and normative. Finally, Section 3 concludes by proposing a
non-dichotomous, inclusive thought structure (Diag. 8) to account for responses to Abject Art
and art that incorporates the animal corpse that are neither subversive nor normative. In all three
sections viewer response has been surmised primarily by textual analysis with supporting
material from artist interviews (Appendix I).

In using the term 'viewer' I mean as broad a range of respondents as is possible, including individual critics and
writers, the public, interest groups, the media, church and the state.
69
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

Just as there is no single response to art incorporating the animal corpse, so there is no single
response to an artist's body of work or to a particular work. We cannot generalize about artists
when discussing the responses to their art. This is why no artist or artwork features in Diagrams
6, 7 and 8. The diagram simply shows a range of responses, without aiming to establish all
possible responses. Every viewer will experience a unique response, and every artist will achieve
a variety of responses. For example, even though viewers had a choice to attend James Dodd's
2001 performance, Butcher ,2 in which he killed, skinned and barbecued two rabbits to address
the issues of meat eating in a culture that divorces it from animal death, the response ranged from
intrigue to threat, as Dodd explains:

The reactions to this performance were all those which could be expected. I had previously
advertised the event which meant that viewers had a choice of whether or not they wanted see it.
People have often commented on their personal reactions to the event. Some people admitted that
the idea had challenged their point of view but having seen the act had only found themselves
intrigued and not necessarily shocked. A lot of people, mostly having heard of the performance
second-hand have approached me with their disgust, but have been willing to discuss my exact
motives etc. Some people have approached me hysterically and threatened me personally. It has
been one of the best art experiences I have had in the fact that it was quite challenging for me to
carry out and also the way in which it was able to constructively challenge other peoples
perspective on the subject.3

2 James Dodd's performance Butcher is photographed in Broadsheet Contemporary Visual Arts and Culture, vol 31,
no. 1, Adelaide, South Australia, 2002, P. 16.
3 James Dodd, quoted from email to Frances Phoenix, Mon. 14'h Jan. 2002.
70
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

Section 1.
The Dichotomous Debate: Subversive versus Normative Viewer Response

SUBVERSIVE VIEWER/SOCIETAL RESPONSE NORMATIVE VIEWER/SOCIETAL RESPONSE

Disgust
Looking at taboo subjects/objects Shock
Fascination with taboos (death, violence, etc) Horror
Addiction to shock Fetishism
Transgress societal taboos to be cool, hip and Avoidance
fashionable Animal rights demonstrations
'Voracious public appetite' Censorship
Fame seeking iconoclasm Withdrawal of funding/sponsorship
Acceptance by normative institutions Arrest
Viewers conditioned by artists to accept the Court cases
subversive Fines
Media hype/obsession Imprisonment
Fatigue
Normative cynicism
Iconoclasm
Find it meaningless
Indifference

Diagram 6. Dichotomous conceptual model showing subversive and normative

viewer responses to art incoiporating the animal corpse

The Whitney curators, Ben-Levi, Houser, Jones & Taylor, stated that Abject Art was subversive
of American conservative culture and politics.4 However, when its full effects could be critically
assessed, many commentators5 found that the primary viewer and societal response to Abject Art
was a normative one, suggesting that Abject Art was actually supportive of, or at least not
subversive of, established society, culture and politics. Diagram 6 identifies subversive and
normative viewer responses and this Chapter will go on to discuss these responses in relation to
particular examples of art.

4 Ben-Levi, Houser, Jones & Taylor (eds), Abject Art: Repulsion and Desire in American Art; Selections from the
Permanent Collection, Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, 1993, p. 14 & p. 66.
5 These commentators are discussed in the sub-section Abject Art and Theories of Normative Response, in this
chapter.
71
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

Abject Art and Theories of Subversive Viewer Response

Several theorists who argue that Abject Art primarily elicits subversive rather than normative
responses are Ridell, De Zegher and two of the Whitney curators, Taylor and Houser.
As previously discussed Jennifer Riddell is convinced of the essentially 'negative'
subversiveness of Abject Art6 and M. Catherine De Zegher agrees, stating that artists can work
Kristeva's notion of abjection for their own subversive political ends and thereby challenge
normative culture:

One way to be legible and comprehensible is to copy and overdo Western male discourse. An art
practice that "doubles the mimicry back on itself, miming the miming, to the point where it
becomes a strategy" produces a reverse discourse.7

This may be seen in Dorothy Cross's Udder sculptures, such as 'Bust ', with its many breasts or
cow udders, and Amazon, (Fig. 20), with its one enormous maternal breast, that overdo the
patriarchal stereotype of the maternal and the feminine to the point of being confrontational.
Although Simon Taylor believes that Abject Art represents 'an oppositional practice'8 and that
abject stereotypes9 should be confronted, not disavowed, he warns that abjection is not the most
radical strategy for challenging patriarchy in the short term. He argues that once the
transgression of taboo is made by Abject Art, it generally results in 'destabilization' in the long
term, although it seems at first to 'draw attention to the power of the norm'.10

As we have discussed it is clear that there is a tension between Abject Art being subversive and
abjection being 'both subversive and normative'. Although Annette Messager has never stopped
aiming to be subversive, she has nevertheless become a highly acclaimed and accepted artist.
Public institutions and audiences are prepared to engage with her challenges. The fact that
museums and audiences can now view Messager's art without rejecting it indicates that societal

6 By negative Jennifer Riddell means the subversive is destructive of normative society (J. Riddell, 'The Abject
Object: A Recent History of the Ephemeral Found Object in Contemporary Art', New Art Examiner, vol. 23, Oct
1995, pp. 26-53).
7 M. Catherine De Zegher (curator & ed.), Inside the Visible: An Elliptical Traverse of Twentieth Century Art in, of
andfrom the Feminine, The Mit Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England & The Institute of
Contemporary Art, Boston, 1996, pp. 24-25.
Simon Taylor, 'The Phobic Object: Abjection in Contemporary Art', Abject Art - Repulsion and Desire in
American Art, p. 59.
9 Abject stereotypes include homosexuals, blacks, women, etc.
1° Simon Taylor p. 66.
72
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

codes and taboos can be changed over time. Although it could be argued that Messager has
finally become a part of the normative art establishment, Gourmelon, suggests that it is the
viewer who has finally been subverted:

Over the years... Messager has formalized the concept of unremitting subjugation of the body,
thus conditioning the spectator not to take offence, constraining us into an unavoidable familiarity
with it."

Art, the Animal Corpse and the Subversive Viewer Response

In 1997 the Sensation exhibition was launched in London. It consisted of work by young British
artists, including Damien Hirst, and represented part of the art collection of British advertising
baron, Charles Saatchi. According to the British curator, Elizabeth McGregor, 95,000 visitors
saw the Sensation exhibition in six weeks, which was five times the total number of visitors to
the gallery in the previous year.I2 How can this fascination for death, or the dead animal, be
explained? One answer might be found in the suggestion that Western society is addicted to
shock and violence in the media and the arts.I3 McGregor, however, believes that the media,
spectacle and celebrity attached to the exhibition attracted a new, young audience responding to
the art as hip and contemporary, like pop music and fashion. She was concerned, however, that
media hype should not be the principal means of attracting an audience, because eventually the
audience will become jaded with the art. She believes that serious artists are also misrepresented
and disserviced by such media outcry.

Included in Sensation was Damien Hirst, one of the most popular British artists in 1980s-90s.
Morrissey considers A Thousand Years, Hirst's first fly work of 1989 (Fig. 8), as 'true
brilliance', having

...a mesmeric, visceral violence that makes the majority of the later works look more like
oversized paperweights than meditations on death ... 14

11 Mo Gourmelon, 'An Accomplished Schemer', Annette Messager: Telling Tales, Arnolfini, Bristol and
Cornerhouse, Manchester, 1992, p. 9.
12 Elizabeth McGregor, 'After the Fall Constructing A Future', Telstra Adelaide Festival, Artist's Week, 6th Mar.
2000.
13 J. Walker, Art and Outrage: Provocation, Controversy and the Visual Arts, Pluto Press, Sterling, V.A.. 1999,
p.18, and Shariff Abdullah, 'Interview with Michael Thom', New Dimensions, ABC Radio National, 18th Sept.
2000, 3am.
14 Simon Morrissey, 'Sensation: Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection', Contemporary Visual Arts,
issue 17, 1997, pp. 70-71.
73
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

However, perhaps Morrissey is correct when he says

The voracious public appetite for the artist's work demonstrated that Damien Hirst is, perhaps
more than many of us may wish to admit, undoubtedly the defining artist of his generation.'

Perhaps this generation wasn't interested in art until its subversive interests were represented.
The media attention to Hirst no doubt also encouraged Mark Bridger, an unemployed artist and
the 'black sheep' of his family, to make an iconoclastic, or what he called 'conceptual', addition
to Hirst's Away from the Flock, an exhibit involving sheep in glass boxes of formaldehyde.
Bridger poured black ink into one box and stuck a label, 'Mark Bridger, Black Sheep, May 9,
1994%16 over the original label and immediately cashed in on Hirst's infamy.

Jane Alexander also received a subversive response to her art. The Butcher Boys (Fig. 42), seeks
'to identify the manner in which violence, aggression, cruelty and suffering are conveyed
through the human figure'. A critic suggested that the work forced one to acknowledge one's
own violence and to see oneself as both aggressor and victim. However, the response was not
generally so normative. When Alexander won a prize for her work she admitted:

I wondered, would I have won it if it had not been that sort of subject? Violence imposes itself
easily. The public is drawn to violence. It intensifies reality, disrupts mundane daily existence and
perhaps creates a sense of worth. People are fascinated by car accidents, for instance."

She started out with very violent images, but 'discovered that the more horrific my work, the
more readily people looked at it. I began to wonder if people would respond to more restrained
images'. She then began the difficult task of trying to reveal aspects of violence through passive
forms. (Appendix III)

One would not normally expect a subversive response from the Catholic Church. However, in
response to her 'smelly' Nun on a Highway, discussed earlier, Petah Coyne was invited to Rome
to exhibit at the Vatican. This response surprised her, but, not knowing the full story, we can
perhaps surmise that it illustrates the Christian 'corporeal culture wars'18 or the so-called mind

15 Simon Morrissey, pp. 70-71.

16 Damien Hirst, I want to spend the rest of my life everywhere, with everyone, one to one, always, forever, now,
Booth-Clibborn Editions, London, 1997, P. 296.
17 The source of this article is unknown, as the article was given to me, so it is included in Appendix III.
18 As described by Eleanor Heartney, the culture wars were between fundamentalist Christians who don't like artists
to focus on 'the body and its processes, on sexuality.. transgression and death' (Heartney, pp. 33-39) and those
Christians who 'emphasize the role of the (physical) human body as a vessel of the divine spirit'. (The former
includes Protestants who see the body as profane and the soul as sacred, whereas the latter includes Catholics who
74
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

body split in Western society both within the Catholic Church and between Protestantism and
Catholicism.19 In these terms, Coyne's Nun on a Highway may have illustrated to the Vatican the
idea of the body as a vessel of the divine spirit. The Vatican's response can then be considered to
be the result of the artists subversive tactics. She was undermining at the same time as
mimicking or exaggerating Catholic ideas.

Abject Art and Theories of Normative Viewer Response

Although the animal corpse in art has been shown to be subversive, Foster, Ward, Riddell, De
Zegher, Stone and Jones all criticize Abject Art for serving the very society it claimed to subvert.
As Stone puts it, 'Whenever theory is used to explain the repellant, it runs the risk of promoting
it'.20 This is also her criticism of Kristeva's theory of abjection, upon which Abject Art was
largely developed. Ward, also skeptical of the subversive power of the abject, suggests its
radicality is merely superficial:

Abjection, formlessness, the pathetic, gnmge, the loser aesthetic: these related terms and
categories, alongside and intertwined with "difference" and frequently overgeneralized notions of
"the body", have come in part to stand for aesthetic radicality in the U.S.21

Leslie Jones' research shows that Abject Art serves no transgressive purpose for those it would
seek to serve22 and that it can therefore only be normative. Hal Foster, too, critiques the supposed
subversiveness of Abject Art and abjection on at least eight counts. He accuses Kristeva (and by

connect the body and soul. To conservative Christian, US politicians and religious fundamentalists the 'mixture of
the sacred and profane' appears as blasphemy and sacrilege. The body/soul link nevertheless persists in ex-Catholic
artists, such as Coyne, who have discarded orthodox doctrine.
19 Perhaps Vatican officials decided that the symbolic value of the fish (symbol of Christianity) was more powerful
than the actual value of decay and death, or perhaps they thought that this was a true physical representation of the
sacrificial death of Christ. The rotting fish may therefore contain 'echoes of the art and literature of Christian
martyrdom'(Heartney, p. 34) and the idea that the mortification of the flesh purifies the soul. However, on the other
hand, Christian fundamentalists may find her work sacrilegious and respond normatively to it. Andres Serrano, a
photographer of the abject, despairs that the religious right is too literal and therefore unable to distinguish between
a symbol and what it represents, or to what it refers. He believes this religious group fetishizes the symbol so that it
becomes what it symbolizes. In the case of Coyne's Nun on the Highway, this could mean that they do not
distinguish between the rotting fish and the artist's depiction of a rotting Christ. In this way the fish does not
represent Christ; it is Christ.
29 Jennifer Stone, 'The Horrors of Power: A Critique of "Kristeva, in Francis Barker et al., eds., The Politics of
Theory, Colchester; University of Essex, 1983, pp. 38-48.
21 Frazer Ward, 'Abject Lessons', Art +Text, no. 48, May 1994, pp. 46-51.
22 Leslie Jones has revealed that practices of Abject Art deemed 'feminine' are only considered transgressive of
culture if they are used by male artists. They serve no transgressive purpose for those they would seek to serve
(women). (Leslie C. Jones, 'Transgressive Femininity: Art and Gender in the Sixties and Seventies' (exhibition
catalogue) in Ben-Levi, Houser, Jones & Taylor (eds). Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, 1993, pp. 32-
57.)
75
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

implication Abject Art) of tending 'to primordialize disgust'. He questions whether the abject
can really be represented at all in culture if it is 'opposed to culture' and comes from the
unconscious. He questions whether Abject Art can escape 'moralism' and whether it is a refusal
of power, its ruse, or its reinvention.23 He suggests that some Abject Artists are wallowing in
'infantile perversion' in the hope of becoming sacred/potent or seeking punishment for 'Oedipal
naughtiness' in the gallery. He questions how abjection can be foundational of subjective and
social orders and yet be subversive of them. He also believes that abjection is a dangerous
political tactic, in terms of subverting the status quo, because it 'reconfirms a given abjection'.24
Both the political right and left, he explains, unite against it and this supports the normative
symbolic order. Finally, he scathingly concludes that if truth or authority reside in the abject
subject, then politics will be restricted to abjectors, such as sexists and racists, and the abjected,
or phobic objects, and therefore the only 'subject of history for the cult of abjection at all ... is ...
the Corpse.'25 In other words, it would seem that if Abject Art were truly subversive the response
or result would be death, and so be it, beginning with the animal corpse in art and ending with
the human corpse.

Ward also criticizes Abject Art's capacity for subversion. He begins with the observation that
there is little evidence, in the reaction of conservatives, of the 'fascination' and 'repulsion' that
the presence of the abject requires.26 Nor does Abject Art 'convulse' the viewer.27 This, he
writes, may be because 'there is a big difference between shit and shifting'. One, he explains, has
had the time taken out of it. Like Foster, he criticizes the idea, supported by Ben-Levi et al., that
if it looks like shit or vomit, then it virtually is shit or vomit, and so is automatically abject.28

According to Ward, to use abject materials to refer to abject identity and status is normal, not
radical, and there is little evidence, apart from scandal, that Abject Art has destabilized any
normative assumptions. According to Ward, Kristeva's relatively orthodox theory of abjection is

23 Hal Foster, The Return of the Real: The Avant-Garde at the End of the Century. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass,
c1996, p. 168.
24 Ibid p. 157.
25 Ibid. p. 166.
26 Frazer Ward, p. 48.
27 Abjection is said to be a 'convulsion' which is at once an attraction and repulsion: abjection, and reveals to the
viewing subject the way the limits of its own clean and proper self are established. (Frazer Ward, p. 48)
28 Ben-Levi et al., p. 7. and Ward, p. 49. Michael Newall (`Wilful Misunderstandings', Broadsheet, 28 Feb. 1999,
p. 23) disagrees with Ward suggesting that we can respond to a 'work as if it were abject because it is like things
which are, in reality, abject' - floorbound, awkward, cursory, crude, uncared for, rubbish, small, in corners or edges
of rooms, and related to the body not text.
76
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

'not a radical social process, much less a political program', but is 'inherently recuperative'
because, according to Kristeva, transgression tends to guarantee the social order. Because her
theory naturalizes abjection as a condition of normative subjectivity,29 Abject Art as a subversive
practice is not supported by it. We could conclude from Foster and Ward's criticisms alone that
Abject Art, without the support of Kristeva's theory of abjection, is merely a paper tiger.

Art, the Animal Corpse and the Normative Viewer Response

Normative responses to the animal corpse in art come from individuals, social groups and
cultural and political institutions and seem to support the suggestion that Abject Art is not
subversive. The responses include shock, horror, avoidance, animal rights demonstrations, lack
of support for and censorship by art galleries who are guided by normative conservative power
interests, as well as court cases, fines and the imprisonment of artists for transgressing social
taboos.

To fetishize the dead animal in art means to see art as real life, and not on its own terms like 'a
game' with its own rules. To ignore the rules of art by making a symbolic object into a fetish, is,
according to Rowland, to be a 'spoil spot-C.3° Viewers or institutions who treat the dead animal
as symbol seem to be protected from abjection while fetishists either revel in it or need to take
normative action such as censorship, funding withdrawal or calling in the law. For example,
viewers may treat an animal corpse hanging on a cross, not as an animal corpse symbolizing
Christ, but as Christ himself The consequence for Paulette Nenner, who did just this in 1981 in
the Animals in the Arsenal exhibition at New York's Central Park Zoo, was 'arbitration, protest,
arrest, trial,'31 according to E. K. Huckaby.

29 This means that an individual child or subject cannot become a member of patriarchal society or independent from
the mother (who represents the abject) without casting aside or repressing within the unconscious all that is abject
and all that is considered unacceptable to society. Thus abjection is necessary in order to become a member of
society. This means women, gays, blacks etc. cannot be other than abject. They are naturally abject so there is no
way that a subject cannot feel a natural disgust for them as 'figures of alterity' (ethnic, sexual, etc). Ward writes that
her theory is 'a description of what she sees as the natural condition of an implicitly normative subjectivity.' (Ward
pp. 49-50.)
Sally-Ann Rowland, 'The Censor's Nightmare', Broadsheet: Contemporary Visual Arts & Culture, vol. 28, no 4,
Summer 1999-2000, p. 4.
31 E. K. Huckaby, 'The Critical Beast', Art Papers, Atlanta, vol. 13, pt. 2, Mar-April 1989, p. 22.
77
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

Animal rights groups have consistently protested against artists who use the animal corpse, even
when these artists engage in 'the arts of refusal',32 in an attempt to work for animal rights and
against speciesism. Huckaby relates how, in response to several of his own works:

Animal welfare agents are set into motion by concerned viewers caught in assumptive fictions. (I
am consistently absolved accolades to curators who are not intimidated.) Distressed by
presence, results are taken for causes, causes deferred.33

The art critic, Helen Simpson, describes how a London animal action group used an exhibition of
Damien Hirst's art incorporating animals preserved in formaldehyde to support their wider
agenda. They conducted a demonstration against the meat industry outside Quo Vadis, the
restaurant where the exhibition was held because they considered Hirsts' art to be obscene and
disgusting and believed it should be declared illegal. However Simpson believes that they used
this exhibition (and therefore used the animal corpse themselves) for their broader cause because
'only flesh, blood and visceral items still have any shock value'.34

Animal supporters also respond with horror to blatant animal cruelty in art, and the results can be
considered normative. The Straits Times reports in 2000 that Marco Evaristti, a Chilean-born
artist living in Denmark, exhibited an installation in the Trapholt Museum (Fig. 48), in which he

...gave visitors the power of life and death over his creation - 10 goldfish swimming in food
blenders with a tempting 'on' button within reach.35

The police were called in at the exhibition's launch by animal-rights activists when two goldfish
were 'cut to ribbons in blenders' because a journalist convinced visitors to press the button. The
police unplugged the blenders and warned the artist of possible criminal charges for cruelty to
animals. The incident was reported on Danish television and animal supporters stole six of the
remaining fish, which were replaced. The director of the museum, Peter Meyer, defended 'the
principle of freedom of expression' for the artist. The only critical comment the article made was
in its ironic title 'And they called it art ...'36

32 Ibid
33 lbid
34 Helen Simpson, 'Meat for Thought', Modern Painters, vol. 10, Spring 1997, pp. 94-96.
35 'And they called it art ...', The Straits Times, Wed. 16th. Feb, 2000.
36 Ibid
78
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

The response of animal rights groups is a complex one. It seems to be subversive of society and
artists who hold normative, oppressive attitudes towards animals, yet it is also subversive of
artists who support animal rights issues. They respond to the animal corpse itself, rather than to
the art's subject matter or the artists' intentions. However, if we think of these artists as exposing
the taboo regarding cruelty to animals, then the response of animal rights groups can be
considered normative because they react against it. This is because artists exposing the horror
and abjection of animal life and death in Western society are forced by censorship and the law to
acknowledge the taboo and support society's need to hide the grim reality from sight; they are
forced onto double standards.

Artists using the animal corpse may find that galleries also cater to normative social tastes. For
instance, in 1999 the National Gallery of Australia cancelled the Sensation exhibition, which
included Hirst's animal corpse and other Abject Art, planned for viewing in 2000.37 This
demonstrates the power of public opinion (and disgust) over attempts by publicly funded art
galleries to keep abreast of the times. According to Brian Kennedy, Director of the National
Gallery, the exhibition was surrounded by too much controversy to even begin to discuss its
artistic quality when he was deciding to exhibit it. He said that one gallery showing Sensation in
New York had spent millions of dollars of litigation in just two months in mid-1999 to deal with
issues such as ethics, financing, sponsorship, and religious criticism.38 Another example was
when the Los Angeles County Museum of Art felt that it had to remind their audience that
Messager's Boarders at Rest (Fig. 10), was a harmless work done by the artist. They thought it
might be offensive to animal rights supporters and therefore placed a huge placard saying so at
their entrance.39

Some art incorporating the animal corpse has been censored to protect normative society from
work deemed offensive. In her article 'Meat for Thought',4° Simpson reports that a banning in
New York on health grounds prevented Hirst from exhibiting Dead Couple Fucking Twice, (Fig.
49, ,41
) the hydraulics-driven copulating carcasses of a cow and a bull in a glass tank of
formaldehyde'.42 Presumably, sexual grounds were not used in order to avoid media

37 Brian Kennedy, interviewed on Arts Today, 29th Nov. 99.

38 Brian Kennedy, Arts Today, 29th Nov. 99.
39 Andrea Liss, 'Our Messenger', Afterimage, Sept.-Oct. 1996, pp. 15-16.
4° Helen Simpson, 'Meat for Thought', Modern Painters, Spring 1997, pp. 94-96.
41 This artwork (Fig. 49) is represented in the figures as a sketch of the original sculpture.
42 Helen Simpson, pp. 94-96.
79
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

sensationalism, because, as J. A. Walker puts it, artists get great publicity out of controversy:

Every time a public controversy occurs in the arts, I am struck by the failure of the puritans and
anti-modernists to understand that they are the best PR agents an artist could have...43

Mick Finch comments that the challenges to normative society made by British Abject Artists,
such as Hirst, does not go far enough, and in fact it has helped to increase the British art audience
and market." This would suggest that Hirst has achieved a normative effect rather than a
subversive one.

A health inspector was also called in to deal with a recent exhibit in Tasmania where a young
local Tasmanian artist exhibited two figures made of anchovies covered in latex and hung in a
tee-pee structure, for the 2001 International Sculpture by the Sea Festival:45 In a classic
normative response, members of the public complained to the local council and the health
inspector asked the exhibition organizers to remove it to the local tip. The organizers refused to
bow to public philistinism and council iconoclasm because the artist was a serious prize-winning
artist:46 In another example, the American animal rights artist, Huckaby, tells us how his
Fashionable Entertainment, 1988 (Fig. 41), consisting of two dog carcasses dancing, was
accepted for an exhibition in a local bar. However, the bar locked the work out of sight after the
first day of exhibition and blatantly destroyed it at its close.47

Some artists have been taken to court for art that simply exposes the double standards in the law.
In our society it is often unacceptable to do in public what is acceptable in private. Huckaby
describes how, in the Animals in the Arsenal exhibition, taxidermied animals used to criticize
human treatment of animals, such as Paulette Nenner's Crucified Coyote, 1981, were treated
differently, by both exhibition organizers and the public, to taxidermied animals used in ways
resembling natural history exhibits. 48 In another example, according to Huckaby, Rick Gibson's
exhibition at Cuts Gallery in 1984, titled Dead Animals, 'gained an inordinate amount of

43 J. A. Walker, p. 14.
44 Mick Finch, 'Keeping the Dialect of the Tribe Alive: A Century of British Sculpture', Contemporary Art, issue
13, 1996, pp. 38-39.
45 Mark Collins, ABC Radio National, 5.30-6pm. Friday 29 or 30th March, 2001.
46 This incident was related on ABC Radio National by Mark Collins who broke up into hysterical giggling and
couldn't bring himself under control for quite some time. This giggling response is one way people protect
themselves from or express the discomfort of abjection. (Mark Collins, ABC Radio National, 5.30-6pm. Friday 29
or 30th March, 2001.)
47 E. K. Huckaby, p. 22.
80
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

reproach'.49 Huckaby describes how Gibson's exhibitions have achieved 'persistent public
disquiet' and that this led him to start doing public performances such as offering Saturday
morning shoppers the opportunity to 'kill a bug, kill it dead, for free'.5° He was subsequently
arrested by the police for this, 'for his own protection'.51 In 2001, the Austrian artist, Wolfgang
Flatz, was taken to court by an animal loving teenager to prevent him from causing 'spiritual
shock' by carrying out his aerial performance with a cow carcass, Meat, (Fig. 50). Thousands
watched from a street closed off from traffic as Flatz was suspended, naked, bloody and in
cruciform position, from a crane while a helicopter dropped a headless, skinned cow carcass into
a demolished building where it exploded. However, although this work referred to religious
categories of abjection such as sacrifice,52 it was not banned because, according to a Berlin
official, 'throwing food around is not illegal.'53

The abject, according to Kristeva, is meant to fascinate and even seduce the viewer into
subversion, however viewers, in the examples above, were more often than not simply disgusted,
shocked or horrified. George Orwell, described by Miller as the 'poet of disgust',54 believed that
disgust is basic to our definition of self 'Barriers of disgust' protect and defend our core self,
and soul, our tastes, sexual proclivities, friends, morality, etc. Because it lacks responsiveness to
will, and therefore binds body and soul together, disgust is good for the job of giving continuity
to our personal character.55 Disgust, according to Miller's reading of Orwell, is therefore a
normative response to the animal corpse in art, in that it supports the socialized individual.

Viewers are shocked by the animal corpse in art, for many reasons. They can find themselves
shocked by an artist's unethical or immoral behaviour, which Kristeva would perhaps describe as
abject. For example, Hirst's audiences were often shocked to find that he paid other people to
make his art. In The Physical impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living, 1991 (Fig.
18), for example, Hirst paid to have the shark killed in Australia. Burns puts viewer shock down
to Hirst's artistic practice, not his art:

48 Ibid.
49 /bid
5° Ibid.
51 Ibid
52 Because, according to Kristeva, our life depends upon the existence of and our rejection of the abject, including
death, 'such wastes drop so that I might live' (Kristeva, pp. 3-4).
53 Reuters, 'Is it Art or Mootilation?', The Weekend Australian, July 21-22, 2001, P. 14.
54 William Miller, The Anatomy of Disgust. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts & London, 1997,
p. 250.

81
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

There was nothing obviously shocking about The Physical impossibility of Death in the Mind of
Someone Living to a non-art-going public apart from the minimum intervention on the part of the
person who had made it and the amount reputedly paid by its owner Charles Saatchi, to realize its
installation.56

Chris Palmer observes that viewers are also often shocked if artists reveal artistic intent in using
the abject, or if abject images are discussed in an aesthetic context.57

Shock is an aspect of subversive, normative and ambivalent responses to the animal corpse in art,
and while Damien Hirst's dead animals have shocked many, some viewers find his work less
than shocking. Gordon Burns in fact believes that the non-art going public found nothing
obviously shocking about the shark in The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of
Someone Living,58 He felt that it was

full of empty content, waiting to be filled. There was an initial uncertainty about what it stood for
or symbolized; about what it `rneant'.59

He suggests that widespread media reproduction of the image of the shark led to it becoming 'a
60
kind of logo of the times; a blank and yet peculiarly charged emblem' Wilson supports this
view when he writes that Abject Art is merely an illusion of the truth or an illustration of the
abject state:

In striving to be abject, or to register the abject, too much art today just serves to provide an
illustration of the abject, just as the 18th and 19th Centuries provide many illustrations of the
sublime. 61

Bill Hare, art historian and critic, believes that when animal materials are used metaphorically, as
Hirst has done, they lose their true shock value. Symbolism and metaphor protect viewers from a
direct experience of the animal corpse by encouraging them to focus on what the corpse 'means'.
Hare writes that 'metaphor is by its very nature a second-hand experience.'62 Elizabeth Grosz

55 William Miller, pp. 110-110.

56 Gordon Burn 'Is Mr. Death In?' in Damien Hirst I want to spend the rest of my life everywhere, with everyone,
one to one, always, forever, now, Booth-Clibborn Editions, London, 1997, p. 7-13.
57 'Why is there such an interest in shock art today' Discussion between Barbara Lewis, Chris Palmer and Bruce
James, ABC Radio National, Arts Today, Fri 13th Oct 2000.
58 Gordon Burn, pp. 7-13.
59 lbid
60 Ibid.
61 Andrew Wilson, 'The Art Experience: Art that Strives for Effect but Fails to Affect', Art Monthly, no. 190, Oct.
1995, pp. 3-6.
62 Bill Hare, 'The Pain and Pleasure Principle: from Francis Bacon to Damien Hirst', Contemporary Visual Arts,
Issue 18, 1998, pp. 49-55.
82
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

believes that by making or visualizing abject art, artists can create a safe space where they are
protected from abjection.63 Perhaps the art gallery or context can also be a safe space for viewers
to approach the abject animal corpse, and thereby they avoid subversion.

Morrissey considers Saatchi's collection, which contains much of Hirst's art, to be concerned
with the sensational, the instant, the surface impact, and with 'an adolescent fascination with the
64
supposed breaking of taboos or minor clevernesses which all too quickly turn to affectation'
Hare compares the work of Francis Bacon with the Sensation artists, such as Hirst, and
concludes his argument in agreement with Morrissey:

like the earlier eighteenth-century lovers of the Sublime, we prefer to experience our fears and
horrors vicariously as demonstrated by most of the Sensation exhibition. What we got there was
not sensation but sensationalism, not horror but the horrific.65

Mick Finch responds with equal cynicism, noting that Hirst's art doesn't change anything and
that in Britain it is too easy for artists to 'feel beyond the pale' and that

recent artists of an avant-garde spirit could be said to be involved in a ritual of dissent which
neutralizes any real challenge to the prevailing social order.66

New York's art audience found Rauschenberg's art-work disgusting and degrading because it
incorporated rubbish from the streets of New York and taxidermied animals. His stuffed goat in
Monogram (Fig. 12) couldn't be explained in 1959 so was considered a 'joke' or an `affrone.67
In some ways the disgust it aroused relates to Douglas' theory that dirt, and in this case the
'disgusting', is simply matter out of its usual place.68 The art gallery was not a fit place for
taxidermy, let alone painted taxidermy. The curator of Rauschenberg's exhibition, Ileana
Sonnabend, said that the goat 'was so powerful. There was no symbolism involved. It just hit
you in the eye'.69 This may be explained by Hal Foster's notion that Abject Art and other
postmodern art is exposing us to the real, unprotected by the screen and other filters. Huckaby
suggests there is a limit to an audience's ability to 'assimilate' the animal corpse in art:

63 Elizabeth Grosz, 'The Body of Signification', p.93.

64 Simon Morrissey, 'Sensation: Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection', Contemporary Visual Arts, 17,
1997, pp. 70-71.
65 Bill Hare, pp. 49-55
66 Mick Finch, 'Keeping the Dialect of the Tribe Alive: A Century of British Sculpture', Contemporary Art, 13
1996, pp. 38-39.
67 Chris Granlund, Robert Rauschenberg: Man at Work (film). ABC TV, Sunday March 18th, 2001.
68 Mary Douglas, discussed in Miller, 43-44.
69 Chris Granlund, (film).
83
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

Essentially negative, exacerbating rather than mitigating, such projects not only represent limits
but may approach their own limits as contemplative objects/events.70

There are those too, who feel anger at Hirst, seen by some as a non-artist winning prestigious art
prizes. Indeed a group called the Stuckists were formed to protest against 'anti-artists' and
business people 'pretending' to be artists and winning art prizes such as the Turner Prize.7/

As discussed earlier, art audiences, as well as artists, may use metaphor or symbolism as a
protective filter. Layers of meaning can place viewers at a distance from the abject dead animal.
However this isn't always successful, as Buddhist, Adelaide artist, Gishka Van Ree, observes
about his use of a taxiderrnied owl in his art:

It worked well but at the same time it was a bit of a cliché when it was up in the exhibition space.
One of the things I felt was, I was playing God. It's like trying to bring it back to life and putting
it in a work of art and then hopefully tryin to communicate to other people ... it didn't work.
Maybe I should have put a live owl there.7'

Perhaps the power of the abject corpse was working against his intentions. Perhaps this is why
many recent postmodern artists are working with live animals in their art practice and refusing to
use animals (alive or dead) and nature as symbol or metaphor. As Huckaby declares in his article
'The Critical Beast':

Campaigns of refusal respond, all denying the beast as symbol, affirming presence as evidence,
not mere reference.73

For viewers who refuse to play the game of art74 and accept its rules, the dead animal is nothing
but evidence of human atrocity, and is therefore horrifying. For others it prompts feelings of
shame. 75 Breynard believes that the ethics of the artwork 'is an important criteria for evaluating
the success or failure' of the work and in a discussion about the ethics of using birds in art, he
writes:
I think it is most often damaging to... our perception of birds as we are encouraged to see them
as simply servants to our aesthetic whims... 76

70E. K. Huckaby, p. 22.

71 ABC TV, 29 July 2001.
72 Gishka Van Ree in taped interview with Frances Phoenix, at Adelaide Central School of Art Studios, 3/11/98.
73 E. K. Huckaby, p.22.
74 The game of art means that art is not real life, and the dead animal is not a fetish, symbol or metaphor for
something else.
75 Steve Baker, The Postmodern Animal, Reaktion Books, London, 2000, pp. 60-61.
84
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

It may be, however, that it is impossible to refuse to use the animal corpse as reference to
something else when its very existence as an abject category means that it refers to the human.
While many artists are attempting to negotiate an ethics of 'reciprocity' with live animals, this is
not so easy with dead animals. Few artists therefore have actively attempted to let the dead
animal speak of itself or for itself.77

It is clear that there are degrees of normative response to the animal corpse in art. A powerful
normative response can make an artists' challenge impotent or counter-productive. On the other
hand though, the British, unlike the Europeans, have kept a safe distance from violent art in the
twentieth century, according to Bill Hare, so that a recent popular form of the Sublime, seen in
the work of Hirst and other Sensation artists, has failed to genuinely horrify:

Like the eighteenth-century Sublime they briefly terrorize their audience but never really threaten
the polite psychological distance between the artifice of art and the viewer's security in their
detached positions of critical and skeptical power.78

A visitor at the Contemporary Art Centre when James Dodd killed two rabbits for a barbeque,
Julie Roszko, chose not to stay because she could not make a connection between killing animals
and art. Dodd's proposal aroused strong feelings of 'shock and disbelief even though she could
rationalise his work. She didn't want to see life being taken unnecessarily, saying that: 'If I went
I wouldn't be able to forget it, so I would rather not go in the first place.'79 It would seem that
abjection can be experienced merely at the thought of killing animals in art, but refusing to
attend is a normative response.

Refusing to see the art is also a normative response, in that it is conditioned by societal taboos.
Adelaide artist, Gishka Van Ree, whose Buddhist art often acknowledges death as a part of life,
describes how some viewers at his exhibitions walk past work that includes bones as if they did
not see them. He cannot sell these works either. He believes this is because viewers
are either 'conservative', `squeemish', 'scared' or phobic about the inside of the body.8°

76 Shane Breynard, 'Bird Notes', Broadsheet, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 14-15.
77 One artist who attempts this is Hiam Steinbach in Untitled (elephant footstools, elephant skull), 1988, (Fig. 22 &
23).
78 Bill Hare, 'The Pain and Pleasure Principle: from Francis Bacon to Damien Hirst', Contemporary Visual Arts,
issue 18, 1998, p. 53.
Julie Roszko, in interview with Frances Phoenix, 10th January 2002.
8° Gishka Van Ree in taped interview with Frances Phoenix, at Adelaide Central School of Art Studios, 3/11/98.
85
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

Although he acknowledges artist's subversive intentions, Foster suggests that abjection, the
ambivalent response of the audience to Abject Art, is really a posture of indifference. He argues
that it expresses 'little more than a fatigue with the politics of difference (social, sexual, ethnic)',
though sometimes it can indicate a deeper fatigue:

a strange drive to indistinction, a paradoxical desire to be desireless, to be done with it all, a call
of regression beyond the infantile to the inorganic.81

Foster's 'fatigue' response hardly seems to be subversive, as nothing is being undermined or

destroyed, apart from subversion itself. Nor is it paradoxical in the sense of being both
subversive and normative. However, it can be considered normative, along with the many
responses described in this section, in that nothing changes, the status quo remains intact, and the
abject 'other' remains at bay.

Section 2.
Paradoxical Viewer Response: Both Subversive and Normative

While we may be able to keep the abject at bay, more often than not our own ambivalent
fascination or desire forces us to transgress our prohibitions. However, it is considered a paradox
to hold seemingly opposite feelings or thoughts at the same time. Paradoxical responses to the
animal corpse in art and Abject Art include addiction to shock, disgust, ambivalence, abreaction
and abjection. Viewers who are fascinated by the abject animal corpse in art, despite feeling
repulsed, may be described as experiencing one of these paradoxical responses. Because
paradoxical responses involve seemingly conflicting feelings of attraction and repulsion they can
be considered to be both subversive and normative of subjectivity, society, culture and/or
politics.

Binarism has no time for ambivalence. However, postmodernism is generally critical of binary
thought, and many theorists have promoted more inclusive ways of thinking. 'Ambivalence' has

81 Hal Foster, The Return of the Real, p. 164.

86
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

become a key word for the idea of linking, rather than separating and marginalizing opposites
within dichotomies.

SUBVERSIVE PARADOXICAL RESPONSES NORMATIVE

RESPONSES (both normative and subversive) RESPONSES

Abjection
See Diagram 6. Disgust See Diagram 6.
Ambivalence
Addiction to Shock
Abreaction

Diagram 7. Conceptual model inclusive of paradoxical viewer responses

to art incorporating the animal corpse.

Diagram 7 indicates a range of non-dichotomous viewer responses to the animal corpse in art
that are paradoxically both subversive and normative of subjectivity and society. Because one of
these responses is abjection,82 we can conclude that Abject Art should expect to achieve an
ambivalent response, and not merely a subversive one as claimed by Ben-Levi et al.

Art, the Animal Corpse and the Paradoxical Viewer Response

Addiction to shock, disgust, ambivalence, abreaction and abjection can be classified as

paradoxical viewer responses to the animal corpse in art, not because they are necessarily
radically different from eachother, but because writers use these terms to describe their
experience. They may just be different names for the same thing. a feeling of simultaneous or
oscillating attraction and repulsion.

William Miller, in The Anatomy of Disgust, proposes that disgust is ambivalent. Bataille
described abjection as an oscillation between the dichotomous responses of subversive
fascination/desire and normative disgust/horror for the taboo. Similarly, Kristeva's theory of
abjection suggests that repulsion follows attraction: 'the image at first seduces but then
threatens'.83 Taylor believes that Abject Art is sadomasochistic in that it turns the viewer away,
punishing voyeuristic desires.84 However William Miller, in Anatomy of Disgust, proposes that

82 The diagram shows that abjection is only one kind of paradoxical response.
83 Simon Taylor, p. 62.
84 Mid.
87
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

the initial reaction is always one of repulsion, and it is followed by attraction, curiosity,
fascination or the 'desire to mingle'. Miller suggests that 'the way disgust in fact works, means
that it has to get its hands dirty';85 it has to be ambivalent. He advises that we shouldn't
necessarily oppose desire to disgust, or attraction to repulsion, because they are necessary to each
other as part of one complex system. Miller notes that Freud, too, recognized that disgust didn't
just prevent pleasure, but heightened it and even created the conditions for it. According to
Miller 'disgust helps create conditions of scarcity which build up demand, and increase value'.86
This is much like saying that the 'absence (of the disgusting) makes the heart grow fonder' and
so societal taboos make Abject Art more appealing!

Some art critics believe that the British public went, in its thousands, to see Hirst's exhibitions in
order to be shocked. It is often considered that the viewer is forced by the artist to confront art
that society deems unacceptable or taboo. However, this denies the fact that many viewers seek
to be shocked and horrified by the arts. Bataille, and other Surrealists, sought out experiences of
paradoxical abjection, and Hermann Nitsch strove in his art to meet his own and society's needs
for safe rituals of abjection. The author, Shariff Abdullah, believes we are 'addicted to shock'
and attracted to negativity because the media focuses on drama, not process (which affects much
more of our lives). In a culture of apathy shock may well offer an adrenalin boost as remedy for
overly passive lives. Thus the media creates the need for an addiction to shock.87 Some artists
could also be accused of trying to shock viewers into having a response because of a notion that
audiences feel so 'overwhelmed' by life that they need to be shocked or tricked into having a
response. Wishing to be shocked is therefore a 'desire to feel alive'. 88

Hirst's animals in formaldehyde could be considered `undecideables' 89 because they don't fit
into known categories and we don't know whether they are acceptable or taboo, safe or
dangerous. Simpson records finding Hirst's art more 'distressing' and even 'cruel' in comparison
to the traditional vanitas symbol, the clean skull, especially when exhibited in the environment of
a restaurant rather than an art gallery. In her article 'Meat for Thought', Simpson documents her
attempt to understand this distress and ambivalence about Hirst's animal corpses, despite the fact

85 William Miller, The Anatomy of Disgust , Harvard University Press, Cambridge and London, 1997. p. 111
86 Ibid., pp. 109-114.
87 Shariff Abdullah, 'Interview with Michael Thom', New Dimensions, ABC Radio National, 18th Sept, 2000, 3am.
88
Barbara Lewis, Chris Palmer and Chris James, 'Why is there such an interest in shock art today?' ABC Radio
National, Arts Today, Fri 13th Oct 2000.
89 Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and Ambivalence, Polity Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1991, pp. 55-56.
88
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

that they are `hallow(ed)'9° in the art gallery. She eventually concludes that while meat-eating is
defensible in a restaurant, 'meat as interior decoration' is not.9'

Some viewers experience intensely 'rewarding, cathartic experiences'92 known as 'abreaction'

when confronted by animal death or violence in art. One of its most famous proponents is
Hermann Nitsch. In the 1960s Nitsch attracted a warning of two years imprisonment from a
conservative Austrian government if he didn't stop his art, and in Britain was embroiled in a long
court case.93 He lived in Germany until Austrian conservative society and law had progressed,
and today his home city of Vienna has taken him to its heart. 'Their artist' is able to create 'the
most powerful theatrical tragedies being produced in the world today'.94 The public participate in
his occasional six-day long Orgies Mysteries (O. M.) type of theatrical events95 and also in his
sado-masochistic rituals of excess, which unite all the arts with elements of tragedy and Catholic
purgative processes and stimulate the senses through real rituals. In these, butchers slaughter
sheep and Nitsch dismembers them while an orchestra plays. Although 'many viewers are
squeamish' his work is not censored or taboo. Courtney explains that:

The confluence of these two forms (Mass and tragedy) is natural to the lives of all who reside in
and around Prinzendorf Hermann Nitsch's art makes discursive the richness of their lives.%

Chapter I described how abjection was theorized by Kristeva as both subversive and normative
of subjectivity, society, culture and conservative politics.97 How then does this paradox manifest
itself through viewers' responses of abjection?

9° Helen Simpson, 'Meat for Thought', Modern Painters, Spring 1997, pp. 94-96.
91 Ibid
92
J.A. Walker, p.46
93 David Courtney, 'Studio: Hermann Nitsch'. Sculpture (Washington, D. C.), vol. 13, pt. 2, Mar-April 1994, p. 16;
J.A. Walker, pp. 44-47.
94 B. Courtney, p. 16.
95 Ibid.
96 Ibid
97 Julia Kristeva's theory of abjection, the response to things perceived as abject, is also characterized by
ambivalence and ambiguity, and has been described by Kristeva as being both subversive and normative. According
to Kristeva the response of abjection is ambivalent and paradoxical in that it involves fascination and horror, desire
and disgust, or attraction and repulsion. Creed says that to desire oneness with the abject (eg the mother), or to be
seduced by it, gives rise to 'a terror of self-disintegration, of losing one's self or ego', and this response is more
acute in societies 'which value(s) boundaries over continuity (death) and separateness over sameness'. (Creed, 'The
Monstrous Feminine', p. 63.) Kuspit says the skull makes 'fascinated philistines' of us. He believes that the
ambivalent response of abjection is about our difficulty or inability to control the death instinct, which must be
restrained in order for us to live and to become a socialized subject. (Kuspit, 'The Only Immortal', p. 174.)
89
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

To be attracted to the corpse yet also having to reject it is abjection. According to Kristeva, death
is the ultimate subversion but society must reject death in order to live:

The corpse (or cadaver: cadere, to fall), that which has irremediably come a cropper, is cesspool,
and death...the sickly, acrid smell of sweat, of decay, does not signify death... .No, as in true
theatre, without makeup or masks, refuse and corpses show me what I permanently thrust aside in
order to live. 98

Even Foster, who damns Abject Art as a cult, scathingly concludes that the corpse is the only
subject of history worthy of abjection.99 It is as if he is asking artists to do the job properly or not
at all, so perhaps the animal corpse in art would meet his expectations of a truly abject art.
However we must not forget that unless we follow the animal corpse in art into death, physically
or psychically, we will never be completely subverted by it. If we are subverted by this desire we
will experience psychosis, according to Kristeva, and only abjection, with its associated return to
normative values, can save us from the ultimate subversion of death and the corpse. We can only
ultimately reject it, as Kristeva says, and this is what finally makes it abject, or both subversive
and normative; in other words it remains ambivalent and therefore incapable of effecting its
ultimate subversion.

Barbara Creed also believes that death is subversive, and writes that death, or black extinction, is
one form of the archaic mother. 100 According to Creed, the desire of the subject or individual,
that has become a separate autonomous self, to return to the womb is pictured as a desire for
oneness with the mother and the world; this means non-differentiation and psychic death.
However, because it cannot be contemplated, viewers must reject the corpse. Perhaps this is why
Abject Art appeared to be more normative than subversive to critics and art audiences, but
responses that are both subversive and normative in this way are abject.

The most common aspect of viewer abjection in response to the animal corpse in art is
'fascination with the horrific', or fascination and horror. This ambivalence is described by
Murkin when he writes that Beuys"especially morbid' art, for example Show Your Wound, 1976
(Fig. 51 & 52), 'must equally repulse and draw the viewer'.101 According to Caroline Tisdall,

98 Julia Kristeva, Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection, translated by Leon S. Roudiez, Colombia University
Press, New York, 1982, p. 3.
" Hal Foster, p. 166.
100 Barbara Creed, 'The Monstrous Feminine', p. 63.
1°' A.H. Murkin, p. 139.
90
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

this 'tragic' installation, in an underground urban 'sick spot',102 had an atmosphere like a
'mortuary'. It combined many objects, including animal fat and a thrush's skull in a test tube,
that were metaphors for individual and collective sickness, alienation and death that were being
inflicted upon 'the entire natural universe'. 103 She cites Gloser's description of the complex
effect of Show Your Wound, which can be considered as abjection.

What hits home is the after-effect of the transformed objects which completes the field of
association. This potential psychic intensity is thus achieved through the multiplications of
several connections which create tensions between individual effects of each object and their
various different extended meanings. This intensity, which can register as a long-lasting shock in
the mind of the confronted viewer, is certainly the most essential characteristic of Beuys'
sculpture.1°4

Rochette and Saunders also describe how Messager manipulates viewer ambivalence in her
work:

Messager repeatedly discomforts us; by turns, we are made into reluctant voyeurs or enticed to
laugh by her grotesque combinations or plunged into despair.1°5

I have discussed in Chapter 3 how Jane Alexander had wanted people to reconsider violence in
society rather than simply fascinate viewers with her horrific, The Butcher Boys (Fig. 42). She
was disappointed however that the more horrific she made her work, the more people seemed to
want to see it. This viewer response, which occurred despite her aims to the contrary, illustrates
the ambivalent nature of abjection, which requires just such a seduction in order to achieve its
normative outcome.

Kristeva describes her own repugnance for the corpse as a form of abjection involving a
'fascinated start that leads ... toward the corpse', followed by spasms and vomiting which
protects and 'separates ... from it'.106 To face death, as when we look at a corpse, is to be, in
Kristeva's words, 'at the border of my condition as a living being', a border from which we must
extricate ourselves in order to survive. The Catholic Church understood the cathartic role of
abject art in the Middle Ages, and mediated ambivalent responses of worshippers through the

102 Laslo Gloser said 'It is typical of Beuys to seek out a wound, a sore spot, which is also a very concrete
representation of the wider context of social failure ... he attempts to heal the place by selecting it, processing it and
then making it disappear.' (Caroline Tisdall, Joseph Beuys, Thames & Hudson, Great Britain, 1979, p. 248.)
1°3 Caroline Tisdall, Joseph Beuys, Solomon Guggenheim Fund, New York, 1979, p. 214.
1°4 Ibid
1°5 Anne Rochette & Wade Saunders, 'Savage Mercies', Art in America (U.S.A.), vol. 82, pt. 3 March 1994, p. 82.
91
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

sanctity and ritual of the church. Commonly the artist's role was to portray torturous death as a
form of 'mnemonic device' whereby remembering corporeal pain and death, through
identification and empathy with the figures in the painting or sculpture, reminds viewers not to
sin. Hall points out that in abjection our bodies may respond with repulsion to the work, forcing
our minds to follow suit:

The intellect is still engaged, but it is an intellect involved in an anxious body, viscerally
conscious.. .The mind may be capable of conceiving death, but the flesh seems acutely aware of
it. The intellectual desire to be 'made safe' begins to appear as an act of treachery towards the
107
body.

The abject is, according to Kristeva, ambiguous and therefore difficult to categorize and
emotionally resolve. If we ask why a taxidermied goat features in Rauschenberg's best known
work, Monogram, 1955-59 (Fig. 12), when dead animals feature in so few of his thousands of
works, we may well find that its ambiguity or difficult categorisation rendered it significant for
critics and viewers. Monogram caused horror and became notorious when first exhibited, but,
twenty years later, it became Rauschenberg's most loved and visited work. Perhaps this
ambivalent response arose from the stuffed animal having an ambiguous nature and history. 108 It
appears to be both alive and dead, art and science, culture and nature, rubbish and treasure, and
in art, animal and human and object. Its history is also ambiguous in that an Angora goat is not
the usual subject of a trophy, or a pet remembered, or even a museum specimen? Perhaps
because we cannot easily explain taxidermy in art and feel ambivalently attracted and shocked by
it, we keep trying to do so. This makes it mysteriously and disturbingly memorable.

Ambivalence is also implicated in the way viewers identify with and feel disgust for the abject
animal corpse in art. Hall suggests that viewers 'imaginatively identify' 109 with the dead animal
and unconsciously insert themselves into Hirst's vitrines./1° Although he suggests that viewers
become a 'precious object', they equally become a dead human, and certainly various cartoonists
verify this identification in that they invariably draw a human in the vitrine rather than an animal
(Figs. 37, 38, 39 & 40). If viewers are enticed to identify with the dead animal in this way they

106Juli a Kristeva, p. 2.
107 Charles Hall, npn.
108 Rauschenberg says 'I like the history of objects' (Barbara Rose, 'An Interview with Robert Rauschenberg by
Barbara Rose', Rauschenberg, Vintage Contemporary Artists, Elizabeth Avedon (ed.), Vintage Books Random
House, N.Y., 1987, p. 96).
109 Charles Hall, npn.
II° Ibid
92
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

must face their disgust for their own animality and fear of death, which may result in feelings
ranging from a 'holiday' from the 'proper' to the undoing of the viewer as a 'proper' social
subject.

Another way abjection affects its ambivalent subversion and normativity is that viewers, and
more particularly the media, seem intent on abjecting artists who work with animal corpses or
abject animal materials. Maybe this is because, as Susan Miller"' has said, disgust rubs off:

contact with the disgusting makes one disgusting. To study disgust is to risk contamination; jokes
about his or her unwholesome interests soon greet the disgust researcher.112

For example, journalists as well as many art critics were quick to get mileage out of the response
to Hirst's abject exhibitions. The Modern Review, for instance, described Hirst as evil:

The evil little tyke of The Omen films pales next to the devil child Damien Hirst. Damien 11, the
artist, has become so famous that criticism is almost redundant.113

Other artists suffered the same fate. Grunfeld was thought to be involved in the necromantic
tradition and sorcery because of his monstrous Misfits (Fig. 21). Some critics also indicate an
obsessive, ambivalent fascination and disgust for, not only Messager's art, but for Messager
herself. Her Boarders At Rest, (Fig. 10), has been interpreted as if she herself is psychologically
and maternally suspect. Messager was called a witch, monstrous mother and puppeteer, because
of her so-called 'mistreatment' of dead animals.The horror of her art contaminates her person.
Charles Labelle cannot accept that she is a woman acting out of her full female potential and
uses her art against her, calling her 'Bad Mother/ Good Witch'. He writes:

More than just a cruel mother (in Boarders, 1971, she constructs 'punishment devices' for dead
sparrows), Messager acts as a witch embroiled in the manifestation of her own familiars.114

Seminal artists receive their fair share of abject response. Joseph Beuys was described as a
clown, 'a charlatan, a diseased preacher, or a crafty buffoon.., excessive for an artist; inadequate
for a real artise.115 Some called his art 'silly and ridiculous'."6 Beuys was called a 'shaman' for

111 William Miller, Anatomy of Disgust, p.711.

112 Ibid., p. 5.
113 Joseph Jackson, 'The A to Z of Art: D is for Damien', The Modern Review, June-July 1994, p. 156.
114 Charles Labelle, 'Annette Messager', World Art, 4/1995, p. 105.
"5 De Domizo Durri, p.81.
93
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

performances such as those with the dead hare.117While some see this as his gift, others used it as
a way to dismiss him. Beuys preferred that these shamanist qualities should:

not be overstressed. For me it meant the continuation of the threads in my biography that had led
me to scientific and biological experiments.118

Artists can be contaminated by the abject to the extent that they are considered dysfunctional
misfits, more than professional artists. By constructing them as Other, viewers may thereby
dismiss artists and their challenge to society. On the other hand this contamination by the abject
can also make artists and Abject Art infinitely fascinating to viewers and the media. While some
artists may become victims of such name-calling, Hirst refused. He believes that all media
coverage is good publicity because most viewers don't have their normative prejudices
reinforced by the media and 'the conspiracy of critics'.19 While name-calling may seem a
normative response it is really a deflection of viewer abjection, or contamination from the taboo,
back onto the artist. As such it attempts to render artists socially and politically powerless, and
maintain viewers opinions of themselves as beyond reproach.

Section 3

Transformation:
Neither Subversive nor Normative Viewer Response

Not all critics were cynical of Hirst's art and not all viewers experienced an abject response. Hall
considers that Hirst's installations showing the life cycle of the fly, A Thousand Years, 1989
(Fig. 8), and A Hundred Years, go further than simply illustrating life and death, but offer
revelations for the viewer. He feels that they `nudge(s) the viewer towards a consideration of

116Greg Masters, 'Joseph Beuys: Past the Affable'. T. Scheerer & K. D. Schonfeldt (eds). Athena, electronic text,
(http://athena.home.pages.de), Jan 1999, paragraph 38.
17 Beuys saw himself as both animal and human; as a spiritual healer he exposes and heals the psychic wound; he
communes with animal and spirits of the human dead; he is serious and humorous; he works in semiotic realms; his
artistic practice operated on the borders between art, science and healing; and because he communicated with dead
animals in his actions.
118 Caroline Tisdall, Joseph Beuys, Thames and Hudson, Great Britain, 1979, p. 21
119 Elizabeth McGregor, speaker at Adelaide Festival Artists' Week, 6/3/2000, said that not only did the tabloid
press dismiss Hirst's art with the usual 'it's not art', but, as one visitor to the exhibition said: 'there seemed to be a
conspiracy of critics against it as well'. (Elizabeth McGregor, 'After the Fall Constructing a Future', Artists' Week
Program, Telstra Adelaide Festival, 2000.)
94
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

what death is actually for': life. He argues that it's the maggots that make us uneasy about this
work:

Traditionally seen as symbols of death, we have to reconsider them (maggots) as living forms
within a complex life-cycle. The whole thing leaves you with the feeling that our fear is
unreasonably focused on the physicality of decay, of rotting, rather than on death itself death in
the sense of stasis, of redundancy.120

Transformation: Joseph Beuys and 'Social Sculpture'

More significantly however, Joseph Beuys' audience and later generations found his art to be not
simply revelatory but transformational. Beuys' practice of 'social sculpture' transformed
previous notions of art, culture, society and politics. Through the 'morally and socially engaged
act' of art he exposed Germany's abject post-war wounds and its environmental crisis and
promoted ways of transforming them through creativity. He attracted a group of followers who
helped him carry out his social and political agenda 'the greening of art' and Germany.121

Although laughter is one way to avoid abjection in response to the abject animal corpse, Beuys
himself took advantage of the potential of humour to help his audience face the abject.122 He did
this by combining humour and self-parody with deadly seriousness, thereby undermining the
rationalist tradition. Beuys once said that 'in places like universities, where everyone speaks so
rationally, it is necessary for a kind of enchanter to appear'.123 Tisdall, who accompanied Beuys
on many of his art actions, suggests that the humour in his work raised an element of doubt in a
world of rationality, and `cut(s) into the consciousness like a knife'.124

Beuys took his humorous provocation beyond the art gallery into the realms of politics and
economics where they were not readily accepted. As a co-founder of the Green Party in Germany
he ran unsuccessfully for the European Parliament as a candidate. His politics were inseparable
from his art and his love and `empathy'125 for animals in actions such as How to Explain Pictures

120 Charles Hall, 'A Sign of Life', Damien Hirst, ICA Jay Jopling Gallery, London, 1991, npn.
121 John Beardsley, Earthworks and Beyond: Contemporary Art in the Landscape. Abbeville Press Publishers, New
York, London & Paris, 1998, p. 159.
122 It is commonly held that 'comedy is the flip side of tragedy'.
123 Caroline Tisdall, 79, pp. 23.
124 Ibid., p.25.
125 John Beardsley, p. 159.
95
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

to a Dead Hare, 1965 (Fig. 36). He wrote 'I founded a political party for the animals. This may
sound absurd but I meant it seriously.'126 The fact that Germany eventually elected the Green
Party into power indicates a radical transformation at the heart of the German psyche as well as
society and politics. This coupled with the fact that Germans now consider Beuys one of their
greatest artists surely implicates Beuys, as well as the dead hare, in that transformation. Masters
notes that non-Germans also embraced Beuys' art as a way to reconcile themselves with the
more positive aspects of German culture after the war.

Even though Kristeva describes the corpse as the 'utmost' of abjection, that can bring us to a
state of meaninglessness,127 Beuy's art seems to refute this. There is nothing meaningless about
the dead hares in Beuys art. Kuspit suggests that the abject corpse does not always remain abject
in art, when he comments that: 'Such objects ... are momento mori and have been transformed
into signs of hope.'128 Perhaps too, the love and compassion Beuys showed for the dead bares in
his art actions made abjection impossible. He held them close, tied himself to them, channelled
their energy, talked with them and identified with them, saying: 'I am not a human being, I am a
hare'.129 Few artists touch the corpse with love. This is transformational healing at the deepest
level of the psyche both his own and his audience. For as Masters claims:

The whole body of Beuys's project is to suggest transformation, to show the way, to set the
example ... Skeptics can call these acts silly and ridiculous ... but the art initiates change. One is
131)
changed simply by contact with the site ... (and) these photographs ... from twenty years ago.

Viewers were entertained by Beuys' novelty and humour, and like the traditional Fool, he
worked with serious, taboo subjects for healing purposes. The Danish author, Troels Andersen's
response to seeing Beuys at work in 1969, was that he appeared to transcend the ambivalent
position he trod between comic and criminal

If you consider his outward appearance he is a fantastic figure, somewhere between clown and
gangster. As soon as he goes into action he is transformed... intense and suggestive.131

Beuys captured the imagination and sensibility of the German art world and general public, often
by using animals132 and animal products such as felt, tallow and fat133 in his art. His audience

126 Joseph Beuys, unsourced quote.

12'1 Julia Kristeva, p. 2-4.
128 Donald Kuspit, Signs of Psyche in Modern & Post-Modern Art. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993.
129 Steve Baker, p. 49.
130 Masters, paragraph 38.

96
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

loved him and their active participation in his actions indicates that they, at least at some level,
'understood the importance of the creative gesture'.134 Those that engaged in his 'rituals',
according to Masters,135 were changed, even healed in some way. Some even wanted to 'place
him on an artistic altar'.136 Beuys answered the German peoples' need to have their war
experience exposed and healed and their post-war standards challenged. Author, Thorsten
Scheerer explains Beuys' invaluable contribution to her own practice and to contemporary art:

The Austrian artist Hermann Nitsch said to me in an interview "Beuys encouraged me a lot." I
share this feeling just knowing that Beuys was there, and furthermore I think that there is no way
out as an artist you have to face the fact that there was Beuys his ideas, his works. Some may
feel encouraged by Beuys attitude, some may say he was a charlatan, but I can hardly imagine
any artist working without Beuys in mind no matter what his or her opinion is. At least in
Germany, one may ask his or her friends who have nothing to do with art if they know Robert
Rauschenberg or George Baselitz. They don't. But Beuys ... at least they know the name.

Viewer responses to Beuys' art suggest that it had a transformative power; in other words it acted
as a force for positive change in both individuals and social groups. This notion of positive
change differentiates Beuys' art from the negativity of either a subversive or normative viewer
response. It also differentiates it from Kristeva's notion of abjection, which invariably reinforces
social taboos and repressions. For as Masters states:

Beuys' work doesn't need to condemn or indict or find blame or name names. It reacts by
offering alternatives, by not playing the rules of that system which would destroy itself.137

Beuys transformed aspects of normative subjectivity, society, and politics by embodying his
conception of a new structure for society. In Beuys' non-dichotomous, non-paradoxical social
sculpture dichotomy and hierarchy become meaningless.

***

131 Caroline Tisdall, Joseph Beuys. Thames and Hudson, Great Britain, 1979, p. 105.
132 Tisdall writes that animals play a part in Beuys art 'as a demonstration of levels of communication other than
written or spoken human semantics ... (they) reach to areas of feeling beyond strthghtforeward rational explanation.'
(Tisdall, 1979, P. 179)
33 According to Caroline Tisdall 'fat suggests a less physical level, Beuys' metaphor for spirituality and the passage
from one state to another. Fat can appear in solid or liquid form, definite in shape or chaotic in flow, according to
temperature' (Tisdall, 1979, p. 10). Tallow is mutton fat granules and beef fat melted down and cast.
134 Lucrezia De Domizo Durri, The Felt Hat. Joseph Beuys: A Life Told, Charta, Italy, 1997, p. 74.
135 Greg Masters, paragraph 38.
136 Lucrezia De Domizo Durri, p.81.
137 Masters, paragraph 20.
97
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

Research indicates that responses to Abject Art and art using the animal corpse are primarily
normative, and that subversion was not as common as some curators had anticipated for Abject
Art. Secondly, the presence of paradoxical responses indicates that the categories 'subversive'
and 'normative' cannot be used in a strictly binary way. Thirdly, transformative responses to
Abject Art and art using the animal corpse, as for example with Beuys' art, indicate that the
categories 'subversive' and 'normative' cannot entirely encompass the range of responses to the
use of the dead animal in art. The term `transformative' needs to be included in the range of
terms defining viewer responses. Diagram 8 uses a circular format that is inclusive of a full range
of viewer responses.

Transformation is a positive, healing outcome for art incorporating the animal corpse, as opposed
to the other three ranges of responses considered. Subversion is essentially destructive and
undermining, while normative responses resist change and can use violence to maintain the
status quo through taboo and repression. Paradoxical responses are also uncomfortable in that
they oscillate between being subversive or normative, without a final resolution. Transformation,
however, is able to embrace positive change by making peace with the abject (object?) and
privileging a wholistic conceptual model over Western dichotomy, thus eliminating ambivalent
abjection as a category altogether.
TRANSFORMATIONAL RESPONSES
(neither subversive nor normative)

Revelation
Transformation

SUBVERSIVE RESPONSES NORMATIVE RESPONSES

see Diagram 6 see Diagram 6

PARADOXICAL RESPONSES
(both subversive and normative)

see Diagram 2

Diagram 8. Holistic conceptual model inclusive of all viewer responses

to art incorporating the animal corpse including those that are neither normative nor subversive.

98
Frances Phoenix Chapter 4. Subversion? Viewer Response

A non-dichotomous thought structure was proposed in this chapter to account for the variety of
responses to the animal corpse in art. To use an oppositional and hierarchical conceptual
framework limits the potential of art that incorporates the animal corpse for artists and viewers
alike. It also limits the role of the abject dead animal to its position as 'Other', but a holistic
structure replaces 'Other' with 'one-another'.138

While Hall considers Hirsts' art to explain that the purpose of death is life, Beuys believed that

The purpose of philosophy is to arrive at materialism. In other words, to move towards death:
matter. In order to be able to say anything about life, one has to understand death: the
methodology of reduction.I39

Both concepts illustrate the larger concept of the non-dichotomous, non-hierarchical life cycle
whereby life leads to death, which leads to life, ad infinitum. Beuys use of dead hares, felt made
from animal fur and blocks of animal fat illustrates this alchemy.

138 Stephanie Radok, Winterbodies (exhibition catalogue), Radolc/Harmes, Adelaide, 2001, back page.
139 Caroline Tisdall, Joseph Beuys; We Go This Way. Voilette Editions, London, 1998, p. 79.
99
Figure 48 (Title Unknown), Marco Evaristti, 2000. Figure 49 Couple Fucking Dead
10 goldfish, 10 food blenders, powerpoint. (Twice), Damien Hirst, 1994.
Pencil drawing on paper.

Figure 50
Meat
(plus detail),
Wolfgang Flatz,
2001.
Artist, 40,
cow carcass,
blood,
helicopter,
sheet, nails, Figures 51 & 52 (details)
explosives. Show Your Wound, Joseph Beuys, 1976.
Animal fat, bird (Thrush) skull, 2 forks
with red rags, 2 hoes, newspapers, paint,
2 blackboards, 2 dissection tables,
2 zinc covered boxes covered in
translucent fat, 2 glass jars, 2 boxes,
2 thermometers, test tube.

Figure 53Drawing of Sculptural Work in Progress,

Gishka Van Ree, f1998. Pastels.
Frances Phoenix Chapter 5. Conclusion

CHAPTER 5.

CONCLUSION

The presence of an acutely critical object/event can be unfortunately as well as ideally

unbearable.

E. K. Huckaby, 'The Critical Beast', p. 22

In the catalogue to the 1993 exhibition, Abject Art: Repulsion and Desire in American Art at the
Whitney Museum, the curators defined Abject Art as incorporating base and abject materials,
such as the dead animal, and abject subject matter. They also claimed that Abject Art aims to be
and is subversive of conservative culture and politics. This research thesis demonstrates that the
postmodern phenomenon of art incorporating the animal corpse shares certain characteristics
with Abject Art, and does indeed incorporate abject materials and subject matter. However, the
thesis further shows that art incorporating the animal corpse cannot be adequately understood by
the curators' notion that Abject Art is necessarily subversive.

Chapter 1 and the Table of Artifacts (Table 1) show that the occurrence of the animal corpse in
art increased dramatically in the 1980s and 90s and coincided with the rise of Abject Art and
postmodernism. The categories of Abject Art and art incorporating the animal corpse both share
particular artworks and include the work of canonical twentieth-century artists. Chapter 1 also
outlines Kristeva's theory of abjection: an ambivalent and embodied experience of fascination
and repulsion, in which a horror can occasion moments ofjouissance or transcendence in
confrontation with all that normative society considers taboo. Art incorporating the animal
corpse was assumed to be Abject Art because the dead animal is considered taboo and abject in
100
Frances Phoenix Chapter 5. Conclusion

Western society. Chapter 1, however, explains that the abject object is not intrinsically abject,
and only perpetually threatening because it is a by-product of enduring, Western, binary thought
processes.

Chapter 2 demonstrates that various material forms of the animal corpse have been considered
abject both in and out of art, despite arguments that art protects viewers from abjection.
However, because viewers can experience levels of abjection, some forms of the animal corpse
in art may not be considered abject or Abject Art at all, and sometimes the corpse can easily be
ignored and abjection avoided. In its analysis of the subject matter of art incorporating the animal
corpse, Chapter 2 generally agrees with Ben-Levi et al.'s claim that the subject matters of Abject
Art are abject, or 'inappropriate' to conservative society. I Three broad categories of the abject
were identified, which account for the abject nature of various subject matters found in art
incorporating the animal corpse. These subjects are considered abject because, by dealing with
the taboo, the 'other' or the liminal, they are, in Ben-Levi et al.'s terms, unacceptable to
conservative society. However, as was found with the animal corpse as material, some subject
matters may be more abject than others and, because their abjection is primarily theoretical,
some subjects may not be abject at all. The Table of Abject Materials (Tables II) and Table of
Abject Subject Matters (Table III) summarize ways in which particular artworks can be
considered abject. Chapter 2 concludes by generally supporting the claims of Ben Levi et al.,
with some reservations, that the animal corpse is abject material in art and the subject matters
that the animal corpse is used to explore are also abject.

Chapter 3 explored the Whitney curators' belief that Abject Art aims to be subversive of
normative subjectivity, society, culture and/or politics, by applying it to art incorporating the
animal corpse. The research indicates that many artists using the animal corpse do not do so for
subversive purposes, though many do. Some artists use animal materials with the intention of
supporting normative society. Others aim to provoke paradoxical responses such as ambivalence
and abjection in the viewer. Finally, artists also have aims that are neither subversive nor
normative, such as the aim to transform individual psychology, society, culture and/or politics.

Ben-Levi, Houser, Jones & Taylor (eds), Abject Art: Repulsion and Desire in American Art; Selections from the
Permanent Collection (exhibition catalogue), Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, 1993, p. 7.
101
Frances Phoenix Chapter 5. Conclusion

At this point in the thesis three threats to the idea that artists can have subversive aims at all
emerge. The first of these is that a major disjunction between Abject Art, as it was defined by
Ben-Levi et al., and abjection, as defined by Kristeva, suddenly confuses the research. This
disjunction is crucial because Abject Art was named after and based on Kristeva's theory of
abjection. The disjunction is that Abject Art's aims were said to be 'subversive' while abjection
was theorized by Kristeva as both being 'subversive and normative'. This disjunction becomes
critical when we realize that artists aiming to provoke an ambivalent abjection in their audience
or society, are not necessarily aiming to be 'subversive' as they think they are, but are
unwittingly aiming to be both subversive and normative. Consequently, from this point the thesis
becomes an exploration of the relationship between art incorporating the animal corpse,
Kristeva's theory of abjection and Abject Art. Previously the latter two categories were
collapsed.

The second threat arises upon a closer look at Kristeva's theory of abjection, which suggests that
'the abject', often considered an object such as the animal corpse in art, is not intrinsically abject
but abject only if and because viewers experience abjection when they see it. This suggests that
analyzing the materials and subject matter of art objects, in the way Ben-Levi et al. suggest, is
not how the 'abject' can be defined. Western twentieth-century society has theoretically
constructed the animal corpse as abject because, amongst other things, it refers to death (which
has been taboo) and the animal (which is considered Other in relation to the human), and because
it is not a traditional or normative art material. Consequently the final chapters of the thesis
explore the viewer response and social outcomes of art incorporating the animal corpse.

A third threat to Ben-Levi's notion that artists aim to subvert conservative cultural and political
systems by using materials such as dead animals, comes from the postmodern concept of
intentionalism. This theory proposes that authors and artists cannot control the response to or
outcomes of their art, so what is the point of having aims, let alone researching them. The idea of
'the death of the author' is a poignant one in the context of this thesis, considering that many
believe that the dead animal in art represents a dead part of the artist or the death of creativity in
society.

Chapter 4 explores individual, social, cultural and/or political responses to art incorporating the
animal corpse, further to Kristeva's notion that something is abject if we experience abjection
102
Frances Phoenix Chapter 5. Conclusion

account for transformation. Therefore the relationship between Abject Art and the phenomenon
of art incorporating the animal corpse hangs in the balance between modernism and
postmodernism, dichotomous and non-dichotomous thought, and between the disjunctive
theories of Abject Art and abjection.

This thesis has reinterpreted the reading by the Whitney curators that art incorporating the animal
corpse is Abject Art and therefore subversive of conservative culture, society and politics. It has
also reinterpreted the assumption that all art incorporating the animal corpse is 'abject', which,
according to Kristeva, both undermines and supports normative society. The thesis has
demonstrated that some art incorporating the animal corpse is transformational and therefore
beyond a dichotomous reading. Beuys 'social sculpture', for instance, made no dichotomous
distinctions between art and life, between a dead hare and himself, or between 'the greening of
art,2 and the greening of Germany 'for the animals'. However, by exposing and tenderly
administering to the 'unbearable'3 weight of German post-war abjection, Beuys established a
socially responsible art practice in which the 'dead hare' was neither repressed, cast aside, nor
used for its shock value, but used to help bring about a structural transformation of the German
psyche, society, culture, environment and politics.

A final irony emerges, however, from Derrida's theory that 'undecideables', or the abject, are
actually created by the Western binary thought and classification system. Binarism must both
produce and cast aside, or abject, new (abject) categories as it continually creates systems of
classification. Therefore, if we discard this fundamentally flawed Western binarism and adopt a
non-dichotomous, inclusive or cyclical thought and material structure, such as that which can
account for transformational art, we can 're-inter' what we have understood as the abject and
bury the animal's corpse.

2 Beardsley, J. Earthworks and Beyond: Contemporary Art in the Landscape. Abbeville Press Publishers, New
York, London & Paris, 1998. p. 59.
3
Huckaby, E. K. 'The Critical Beast'. Art Papers, Atlanta, vol. 13, pt. 2, Mar-April 1989, p. 22.

104
STUDIO/ARTIFACT

COMPONENT

of the research thesis

440 1,
10°41
r
And then the question arises why didn't I just bury or burn it
... to return to the worms and dust, to allow it to truly 'die'?

Kristeva explains that by speaking of the abject object, naming it,

visualising it, the subject "establishe(s) a distance or space which

may keep its danger at bay...protect oneself against it while at the

same time relying on its energetic resources."

Author's journal, 2001, quoting Elizabeth Grosz, 'The Body of Signification', p. 93.
Frances Phoenix Studio/Artifact

STUDIO/ARTIFACT COMPONENT REPORT

Section 1.
Summary of Research Proposal, Revisions and Outcomes

Brought up a beachcomber and bush-walker, I have to admit to obsessively collecting natural

materials such as bones, feathers, snakeskins and dried carcasses (Fig. 54) and occasionally
using them in artworks such as Destiny (Fig. 55). However, my lack of knowledge of
preservation, construction and display techniques was a frustration and I felt a need to resolve
my ambivalence regarding being drawn to use animal materials and loving animals. I hoped that
this Research Masters of Visual Arts would resolve these and other issues for my art practice.

My provisional thesis title was Raising the Dead: Animal Practices in Twentieth-Century Visual
Arts and it aimed to address an area in the visual arts and in theoretical literature where
twentieth-century sculpture/installation and museum techniques as they are applied to dead
animals meet with death related issues. The studio/artifact component of the thesis aimed, rather
ambitiously on hindsight, to investigate in the light of contemporary theory and artistic practice,
issues such as the meanings, motives, psychology, ethics, responses and technical considerations
involved in the collection, preservation and display of dead animals in my own artistic practice.

The proposed research was to involve creative work in the studio, interviews with artists, tours in
institutions such as the museum and writing about my work in the context of twentieth-century
theory. My primary approach to the creation of artworks would involve an intuitive and
experimental exploration of materials and technical practices, as well as personal and political
experience, within a critical and feminist theoretical framework and in consideration of ethical
requirements.

106
Frances Phoenix Studio/Artifact

I am of the belief that in my work, in the words of Pat Hoffie:

form does not follow thinking but is created from un-thinkable feeling. If the art is 'successful' in
objectifying the subjective, it becomes an extension of language, that is thinking follows art.'

An outcome in the form of a series of original artworks/artifacts incorporating animal materials,

addressing the issue of death and constitute a museum style installation was intended. A studio
report from journals kept was also desired.

Initially (1998-99) I did focused on what I called 'animal practices' and the artifacts I produced
were influenced by observations, library research, a tour of Artlab2 and the anatomy collection at
Flinders Hospital, as well as informal interviews with artists, Anne Newmarch and Gishka Van
Ree, and with staff at the Museum of South Australia. Interviews were conducted in accordance
with the University of South Australia's Human Ethics Protocol (Appendix I), while
correspondence in respect of ethical considerations concerning my collection and use of animal
materials are outlined in Animal Ethics Protocol (Appendix II). As I had intended, this earlier
work was inspired by museological collections and animal preservation practices combined with
childhood, animal and death themes (Figs 56, 57, 61, 62 & 73).

In the final two years of my studies I became more interested in the theoretical concepts of
abjection and ambivalence and in postmodern approaches to the animal as they applied to my art
practice. Consequently my proposed aims and provisional title for the thesis were revised to
accommodate this new focus. Outcomes achieved from the studio/artifact research include the
production of a series of sculptures/installations, some of which can be seen in the assessment
exhibition or illustrated on the following pages (Figs 54-77). Exhibitions involving these works
are listed in Section 4. Group Exhibitions 1998-2001, (Figs 72-77). Works produced are listed in
Section 3: Experiments/Artifacts 1998-2001, (Figs 56-71).. I also gave slide talks, produced
regular installations and studio statements for studio reviews and kept working journals. A
selection of quotes from these documents are loosely presented in Section 2. Overview of the
Studio/Artifact Process 1998-2001. Finally, Section 5. Assessment Exhibition 2002: Artist's
Statement documents the three parts of the final assessment exhibition.

Pat Hoffie, 'Art's Ineffable Value', Art Monthly Australia, May 1996, p. 6.
Artlab restores artifacts in Adelaide, including those that incorporate animal materials.
107
Figure 54 Artist's Collection ofAnimal Remains,
Frances Phoenix. Wooden boxes, animal remains.

Figure 55 Destiny,
Frances Phoenix,
1982. Timber and
glass cabinet,
paper mache,
clay, snakeskin,
bird carcasses.
Frances Phoenix Studio/Artifact

Section 2.
Overview of the Studio/Artifact Process 1998-2001

an abject (dead animal of a) glossary...

... for the purposes of a dubious transformation

Collecting enlightened men emptied the graves dispatched remains to

basement rooms culture locked away by discourse of structure
... when the unspeakable chases
and form baskets and tools for everyday life in storage boxed
the inedible, prestige alone is at stacked and labeled in places where no-one goes relics estranged
stake. But it is a prestige of a from a sacred landscape (Greg Lehman, 'Containment Dreaming'. Siglio Journal
for the Arts, issue 10: Collection/ Recollection, Autumn/Winter 1998, p. 12).
particularly fundamental kind ...
ritual hunting establishes the
correct relationship between the rationale is not scientific taxonomy, but rather a taxonomy
mankind and the natural world of a girl child's psyche. They contain the discarded bird-dolls
which the trophy on the wall in their bony armatures for physical and psychic flight and
makes manifest (Susan M. Pearce,
Museums, Objects and Collections: A protection, the latex doll skins and finger casts, and small
Cultural Study, Leicester University constructions using found and natural materials made in an
Press, Leicester & London, 1992. p. 69).
attitude of play. There is a drawer of bird-dolls embalmed in
I found a whole lot of bones wax and one full of large bones collected from the beach,
at Normanville ... there's lots bush and desert over many years. The bottom or basement
of old sheep bones. That's drawer contains the remains of a decaying possum I found in
one of my collection spots for my garden. (Journal entry for Chest, 1999, Fig. 62)
bones. The place has a really
weird feeling about it ... when Ann Newmarch puts the creatures into box artworks they
because there are lots of are more about 'heart' than about 'museum style collecting' ...
dead sheep there; smells, (Notes from a discussion with Anne Newmarch, 23/10/1998.)

maggots (Gishka Van Ree in taped

discussion with Frances Phoenix, at Castration complex ... In Lacanian psychoanalysis, the concept of
Adelaide Central School of Art Studios, castration indicates the loss or lack which each subject experiences
3rd November 1998). on her or his entry into the symbolic order. This experience of loss
shapes desire. (Rosemarie Buikema & Anneke Smelik, Women's Studies and Culture. A
We call those objects Feminist Introduction, Zed Books Ltd., London, 1995, p. 189.)
valuable that most resist
our desire to possess them. Yesterday we went to my most favourite death site Boomer Beach
(George Sirnmel) at Goolwa. Julie walked the beach and I searched the sand hills
with some success a snake's bones, a mummified animal intact, as
Property is linked to the well as some small whitened bones and a skull. But the search was
displacement of subjectivity. brought to a halt by a small sick bird I found head-first down a
(Jones, G. 'Skulls, Fontanelles & the sandy hole Dying to find shade. We revived it with some water and
Spaces Between'. UTS Review, vol. 1,
no. 2, Nov 1995, p. 170.)
soaked bread... (Journal, 4/12/97, Fig. 54)

108
Frances Phoenix Studio/Artifact

Momento Mori
The obsession of this garden or 'Paradise' is death itself or the
afterlife of the abject animal corpse. Therefore it reconciles nature
and culture. Alan Saunders describes gardening as being about
Abject Objects impermanence because gardens don't survive and their fate depends
on the vigilance of the gardener. (Alan Saunders, The Comfort
... collections and the
individual objects within Zone, ABC, Radio National, Sat. 8th Oct. 2000.) This garden is
them immediately acquire symbolic of our need for permanence despite our knowledge of
what we are accustomed to impermanence ... (Journal notes for The Abject Garden 'exhibition proposal.)
call a life of their own, the
ambiguous relationship of Prior to the twentieth century death appeared in a variety of
control by objects. Objects 'moment° mori' images. These included seventeenth-century
acquire a kind of power for Dutch still life van itas paintings with their extreme trompe
good or evil ... the l'oeil effects which contrasted objects of worldly power and
psychological power of symbols of transience such as the skull. There were also
objects-endowed-with-life is 'Death & the Maiden' images --`the young woman confronts
at the roots of our experience her inevitable fate which, though externalized, resides within
of the material world. her as the skeleton concealed beneath the voluptuous flesh'
(Susan M. Pearce, Museums, Objects
and Collections, 1992.) (Stephanie Brown, "The Wait: Barthes, Keinholz,
Photography and Death", in Intimations of Mortality,
the child plays with illusion Stephanie Brown & Stephen Hobson (eds), Available Light,
uses imagination on an 1995, p.14-26). Other popular death images involved
external object to create anamorphic devices such as the distorted skull in Holbein's
something for which a need is
The Ambassadors, 1533. Stephanie Brown notes that in
felt (Susan M. Pearce, Museums,
Objects and Collections, 1992, p. 46.) Keinholz's The Wait you have to move to the side too, to see
the skull behind the photo. She suggests that photography is
... it is the remains of also 'moment° mori', being preserved moments from the past.
the remains ... Maurice Blaussyld's photographs of autopsy subjects and
(Journal entry for Untitled (wall Andre Serrano's photographs of mortuary subjects have
cabinet), 1999.) forced us to confront our denial of death and acknowledge
our fascination and disgust with the corporeality of death. We
don't like to think about a connection between beauty and
death. We cannot contemplate a sensuality or aesthetics of
death, even though artists have been exploring it for a long
time. For instance the image of the dead Christ has been an
image of sublime beauty. (Journal notes on Moment° Mori,
1999)

Where it falls across the floor it is drawn in canary

seed and attracts flocks of sparrows and pairs of
pigeons. However, Shadow is also an anarnorphic
device used in the traditional way - as moment°
mori. (Journal entry for Shadow, 2001, Fig. 76)

An animal calls from a relentless labyrinth of stalls, each

mirroring each other. An ear listens somewhere.
(Journal entry for Listen, 2001, Fig. 69)

109
Frances Phoenix Studio/Artifact

The Abject
The postmodern animal in art is not likely to be a symbol or
metaphor, or a romantic, sentimental creature. Instead the human is
... a pile of cattle horns asked to engage awkwardly with the animal as to 'another'
built on an intersection (Stephanie Radok, Winterbodies -exhibition catalogue,
between sheep pens. As a Radok/Harmes, Adelaide, 2001, back page) rather than the 'Other'.
circle overlaying a cross it In this work I am asking viewers to become animal, to get down on
represents cyclic thinking all fours, to see oneself as animal, and to engage with the animal as
overlaying, co-existing to an equal. To stop observing and be observed, to stop speaking
with or replacing about and speak with. (Journal entry for Intelligence, 2001, Fig. 77).
dichotomous thought.
However, as my thesis However, never let it be said that any process reaches a final
proposes, the horns speak conclusion. Steve Baker, in his book The Postmodern Animal,
for themselves of the focuses on artists working with live animals who respect them
slaughter of animals and as beings with their own creativity and intelligence, not just
some viewers express deep for use as symbols. Countering the 'harness' is a wild rabbit
emotion and the desire to corpse hankering to speak for itself My attempt to address
"reconsider this is encapsulated in Intelligence (Journal entry for Intelligence, 2001,
Fig. 77)
vegetarianism". This is
really what I want it to say If there is a subject of history for the cult of abjection at all, it is not
so why the theory and
references? How ethical is the worker, the woman, or the person of colour, but the corpse. This
it to speak of theory and is not the politics of difference pushed to indifference; it is a
thought in the face of an politics of alterity pushed to nihility. (Hal Foster, The Return of the Real: The
animal's death? (Journal entry
for Heracle's Journey, 2001, Fig. 68) Avant-garde at the End of the Century, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, c1996, p. 166.)

The concept of 'becoming-animal' (devenir-animal), which

Becoming-Animal Deleuze and Guattari elaborate in their 1975 book Kafka and then,
in more detail, in ... A Thousand Plateaus ... is a
`deterritorialization', a kind of un-humaning of the human ...
The oversized chair was 'which the animal proposes to the human by indicating ways out or
means of escape that the human would never have thought of by
made to accompany the himself. '(Steve Baker, The Postmodern Animal, Reaktion Books, London, 2000, p. 102).
chest, fridge and wall
The rabbit forced me to reconsider the circle, ensuring it was not
cabinet in a distorted, overlooked. I was being taught to gaze by the gaze of the Other; a gaze
imaginary, childlike born of mistrust and a will to survive. I learnt to classify edges, borders

environment ... it kneels and spaces, to confront centers and avoid traps, contemplate the paradox
of progress and the possibility of nothing. (Statement for Intelligence, CACSA,
down to the rabbit ...
Adelaide, 2001, Fig. 77)
becoming animal.
(Journal entry for Kneeling Chair, 1999,
Even a dead animal can communicate with us if we are
Fig. 63.)
watching and listening to the voice within. There is a dead
animal in all of us. (But can the real animal corpse speak to us
in its own voice?) (Journal entry for Intelligence, 2000, Fig. 77)

110
Frances Phoenix Studio/Artifact

Playing Dead
Mummification holds off the inevitability of decay and brings
the cycle of life to a stasis ... for me wrapping is a way of
In the dark halls of the
museum that is now what invoking 'Mummy', of making something that is not mummy
remains of Auschwitz, I
into mummy ... and of containing/restraining mummy ... (Journal
see a heap of children's
entry for The Un-remembered Garden, 2000, Figs 74, 67, 66 & 65)
shoes, or something like
that, something I have
already seen elsewhere,
An anthropomorphic chair kneels down like an animal. A
under a Christmas tree, for
instance, dolls I believe. strange wall cabinet reveals ... the burnt out, blackened,
The abjection of Nazi
disintegrated remains of the remains of a stuffed bird tableau.
crime reaches its apex
when death, which, in any A stuffed rabbit on the floor seems more alive than dead, and
case, kills me, interferes
the dead possum in the bottom drawer makes me realize just
with what, in my living
universe, is supposed to how science protects us from real death. (Journal entry for Feast/Shop
save me from death: Art installation, 1999, Fig. 63)
childhood, science, among
other things. (Kristeva, As I was making this piece I read Derrida's Differance in which he notes
Julia. Powers of Horror: that Hegel's Encyclopedia compares the graphic capital 'A' to a pyramid
an Essay on Abjection, and because the small 'a' in differance is only seen and not heard 'it
translated by Leon S. remains as silent, secret and discreet as a tomb'. I have playfully
mummified his 'a' in this work, but it also refers to texts within the
Roudiez. Colombia pyramids and to the abject. (Journal entry for Chamber, 1999)
University Press, New
York, 1982, p. 4.) ... the Tree House (Fig. 66) with its many sewerage outlets or
buttress roots. A pedestal has been toppled and a baby's dress,
a Silent Subject, mouths trailed wrappings, words and bones
"You know childhood gone to ground whispering of ... a site of childhood memories
was where I learned to of loss and absence as well as beauty ... A historical parterre
play dead" (Journal, design, Parterre (Fig. 65), is drawn with gravel on the floor
Thurs.23 Sept.1999, and painted up the wall. In The Un-Remembered Garden
preserved childhood memories have the potential to become
10.12am.)
unwieldy lumps that accumulate, to leak forever into the
future, unravel into nothing, speak the unspeakable, get to the
bone of the matter as well as to blossom into fantastic
creativity. (Journal entry for The (In-remenbered Garden, 1998-2000, Fig. 74)

111
Frances Phoenix Studio/Artifact

Preservation ... preserving things from decay ... also suggests

Techniques 'preserving from oblivion' and 'keeping in memory'
(Journal entry for wax experiments, 1998, Fig. 61)

Marina Warner, in Initially (1998) I focused my written research, or what I called

Waxworks and 'animal practices ', on a range of preservation techniques, used in
Wonderlands, describes artworks incorporating animal materials. Firstly, I researched
how wax holds light within technical information I could use in the production of my an work
it, doesn't reflect light and because artists are not taught taxidermy, bone reconstruction or
a has a slightly moist look care of animal materials as a part of their studies. The Museum of
which makes it like skin. South Australia became a focus of my interest. I explored its library
She proposes that it and spent an Open Day behind the scenes amongst its various
'exudes the spirit of death collections. Informal interviews were conducted with Janice
Forrest, Collection Manager; Mark Hutchinson, Curator or
and life equally' and so
Reptiles and Amphibians; Maya Penck, Bird Collection; Terry Sim,
functions as moment° mori Fish Collection, Adrienne Edwards, Collection manager of reptiles,
and its association with and Joe Bain, the museum's taxidermist. He alerted me to laws
candle light also suggests a concerning the collection of animal remains and showed me how to
transitory space between skin a rabbit I found on the road on Easter day, eventually deciding
life and death. (Cooke L. it was too damaged to preserve. This experience led me from
& Wollen P., Visual working with bones to the use of latex as a metaphor for skin to
Display: Culture Beyond express my feelings and thoughts about skinning animals. (draft
Appearances, Dia Centre Report, 2001)
for the Arts, Bay Press
Seattle, 1995) (studio statement The psychological, social and political meanings implied by
for wax experiments, 1998, Fig. 61)
preservation techniques, especially as they are or might be
A number of themes applied in contemporary sculpture and installation, were of
emerged in my technical
experiments. Collecting intense interest to me. The psychologist, Julia Kristeva said in
animal remains and using an interview that: 'It seems insufficient to me to talk as Freud
techniques inspired by wax
embalming and talks of Leonardo and not take into consideration the
mummification become particular technique used: why this particular paint, why this
metaphors for the way we
both psychically movement, this colour, this canvas, etc.' (Francblin, C.
repress/preserve and 'Interview with Julia Kristeva'. Flash Art, no. 126, Feb-Mar
unearth childhood
memories. This parallels 1986, p. 44.) Kristeva believes these formal considerations,
the paradoxical rather than the content of the art, are the key to the message of
psychological process in
Kristeva's theory of the artist. I agree. They are the 'key' to the underlying
abjection, which describes message. It is not easy to explain this to ... (Journal)
how we are attracted and
seduced by the abject only
Lisa Wainwright 's article 'Taxidermy for a Reason' also
to feel disgusted and pinpointed my concerns, and Steve Baker, in The Postmodern
repulsed (Journal entry, 2000) Animal, wrote about how pseudo or 'botched' presentation
techniques were typically postmodern. Somehow this seemed to
validate my lack of technical expertise! In fact I've only just
discovered that postmodernism has debunked the notion of the
'expert' ... (Journal, 2000)
112
Frances Phoenix Studio/Artifact

Preservation
Techniques

Wax impregnation. A Skinning

process used in museums
to preserve frogs and ... there is the idea that (animal?) skin can represent the abject
turtles, etc. It involves
notion of inside/outside ... as in Trockel's bladder-head ... It
gradually replacing the
does seem to be an arbitrary concept that the skin is the line of
body fluids of the animal
demarcation ... Where is the skin between
with INC1X. (Note taken on a Museum
tour) objective/subjective, sanity/madness, reason/intuition, art/life?
(Journal entry for skinning experiments, 1998, Fig. 59)

Histology slides are glass

Have I tried to describe the material ghost I see in the rabbit
slides on which animal matter skinning ... materializing the ghost is a process] engage in,
is viewed through a like raising the dead (Journal)
microscope. instead of glass I
have used photographic
portrait negatives which are
Material
embalmed in wax as a
... the broom as a reference to Mary Douglas' ideas about
memorializing process. On dirt. The work is a reminder of the animal origins of Blood
the 'slides', embalmed in and Bone, which we have a cultural investment in forgetting.
Capitalism depends on the separation of process and product,
wax, are small animal
particularly unethical processes. The work suggests that life is
skeletons and other animal both created from dust and returns to dust. It also makes a
matter. They are best viewed connection between dirt and dead animals, which is a
connection made by Julia Kristeva in her theorizing of 'the
under the microscope. The abject' (Studio notes on Blood and Bone, 1999, Fig. 64)
work reminds me that I am
looking at the remains of a The way materials can speak to you in your work. It's as if
life once lived, with a
they can tell me about myself, by letting myself be directed by
them in a play relationship. Perhaps they know more about
personal history, not just me than I do? Perhaps they are me; I am them. Why is there a
objects of scientific interest. separation then? Is it thought that separates? Or culture and
language? (Journal)
The aim of the work is to
bring together subject and A strange unfinished, provisional object in itself, this maquette, ... has
been bandaged together in several places. The chest does not invite you to
object, to unsettle the open it. There are no handles on the drawers ... it seems as if it would
viewer's conditioned way of prefer it if you didn't. You would have to overcome a certain ambivalence
to do so. Your own and mine. You probably won't like what you find
viewing death with scientific inside any more than what you found outside ... like a museum collection
hidden away from the public. It is embarrassingly obsessive, ambiguous,
objectively. (Journal entry for abject, decaying, both dead and alive. Best left to itself. (Journal entry for
Histology Slides, 1998) Chest, 1999, Fig. 62)

113
Frances Phoenix Studio/Artifact

Abjection
Three male garden
Kristeva's theory of abjection had informed the term 'Abject Art'
figurines standing around which was applied to art using degraded materials and subject
matter, including art incorporating dead animals. Georges Bataille's
on the blood and bone with theories of base materialism and taboo and Zuigmunt Bauman's
their hands in their pockets thoughts on ambivalence also shed light on this topic. In my
artwork I began to use degraded and provisional materials in
and appearing to be conjunction with the animal corpse, in keeping with notions of
Abj_ect Art.
conversing without M-Yds- (draft Report, 2001)
... the Western mind-body
split ... The mind tunes out I have discovered that there is shame attached to taboo
to the horror of the animal activities around death ... Also, because I have found that it is

corpse, whether through preferable to be subtle about death in my art-work, I have not
fascinated delerium or exhibited Running Woman. To tell you the truth, I have not

taboo reactions, but the even done the piece yet ... It's still a figment of my

body betrays ... (Journal entry imagination ... abjected (Journal entry for Running Woman, 1999)

for Trinity, 2000)

It wasn't until a lecturer asked me 'Are you deliberately trying to

I became aware that while
horrify your audience?' that I came to realize that the response to
some people were fascinated
my art had little to do with my intentions. I realized that this was
by my work others ignored it
because of the power of the abject corpse, 'the powers of horror',
and I was often encouraged
according to Kristeva. (Julia Kristeva, Powers of Horror: An Essay
to leave the dead animal out
on Abjection, translated by Leon S. Roudiez. Colombia University
of the artwork altogether,
Press, New York, 1982.) I found from my research that 'Abject
which just proved to me that
Art' also failed to achieve the results its theorists or artists intended.
it was abject! I felt a neecl
According to Kristeva the abject is not only subversive in that it
either psychologically or
exposes and breaks societal taboos but it is also normative in that
socially conditioned, to get
societal taboos are often reinforced as a result of the horror
rid of it, clean it up, or abject
produced. This paradox of abjection means that artists who have a
it myself; in this case I
singular intention for their art, whether subversive or nonnative,
preserved it in wax, wrapped
can be thwarted. (Journal, 2001)
it in bandages or closeted it
in collection drawers (Journal,
1998, Figs 61, 62, 74).

114
Frances Phoenix Studio/Artifact

... for according to the author ofTransitory Gardens,

Uprooted Lives (p. I), we build all gardens `to give the

illusion of permanence. In this way too they resemble our

lives'. Simon Bush argues that the virtual, plastic, Jonesian,

Gardens
suburban gardens of the petty bourgeoisie are dead even
If I was to use the animal
corpse in my art I decided though alive; abject. He believes the gardener needs to be an
that I had to find ways
make the work less anarchist with a decadent gardening ethos to create a
fascinating for those who
could see nothing but the moment of beauty that then decays (Simon Bush, The Savage
corpse and more
accessible, to those who Garden, ABC Radio National, nd). For Kristeva, abjection
were horrified or
disgusted. I had to out-wit also has its moment of fascination and jouissance followed by
the fickle abject corpse. In
early 2000 I was horror, disgust and expulsion.
undergoing dialysis and
(Journal notes for The Abject Garden exhibition proposal)
spending a lot of time in
my garden. I decided that
if I ever couldn't be an Aesthetic Abjection
artist I would be a
gardener. The suburban
garden is a site of life and ... he suggested that I put things on the floor rather than on
death, each dependent on pedestals and this sparked an ongoing interest in using the floor as a
the other. I began to site for drawing with abject or garden materials. An article by L.
research traditional garden
design as a source for Tugendrajch ('Marec Cecula, 'Vision of Sensual Sterility'. Ceramics:
installation design and Art and Perception, no. 18, 1994, p. 41.), who claimed that the abject
layout. Installation was a
could be beautiful and not necessarily degraded, dirty or ugly,
new art-form for me. I
used a garden theme to inspired me to move from using animal materials in a shocking or
overlay the more difficult horrifying way to using the animal corpse in more subtle forms
themes of childhood and
death in the Preserve such as blood and bone, and to explore decorative, beautiful or even
exhibition. (Journal entry for The humorous ways to entice an audience. My intention was that the
Un-remembered Garden, Fig. 74).
immediate audience response should be fascination rather than
horror, but that once fascinated the audience would see what it was
that had fascinated them so, the horror or disgust might happen
later, almost imperceptibly. This approach has proved to be
successful in that my work finally seemed to be being seen, so was
able to make its point. (Journal entry for Blood and Bone, 1999, Fig. 64)

115
Frances Phoenix Studio/Artifact

Ethics

However, working Yet at the heart of the exhibition/work/me is a critical

aesthetically with animal ambiguity. On the one hand it is saying that killing
materials raised the issue
animals is a crime and on the other hand it is saying
of ethics in my relationship
that death is apart of the natural cycle and that life
with the animal. It seemed
as-if I-was saying-killing-
and death are dependent on each other and
animals was OK for meaningless without each other. (Journal entry for The Pavilion,
2001, Figs 68,75 & 76)
decorative/aesthetic
purposes. I had always felt
My constant ambivalence about ethical issues is perhaps
uncomfortable about other
caused by dichotomy, ... the oppressed category, the dead
artists who did this and
animal, is (always) the taboo. (Journal entry, 2001)
now I was doing it myself
It always seems in my life
that I eventually come
around to the experience I
abject! I had to remind
myself that the fickle Beyond Abjection and
corpse would undermine
Dichotomous Thought
my intentions anyway and In 2001 my written research focused more intensely on the
speak for itself, and this intentions of artists in their use of the animal corpse and the
has proved to be true. response to their work. I discovered that artists had a range of
Despite my more subtle, intentions despite the fact that 'Abject Artists' supposedly aimed to
theoretical or aesthetic be subversive. Their audience also had a broad range of responses,

intentions some viewers not just subversion or abjection. My research led me to conclude
that we need to replace exclusive, dichotomous thought processes
have been moved to tears
(which I see as tunnel vision) with inclusive circular (or even
and even to 'reconsider
spiral), holistic thought processes or philosophies. This idea
vegetarianism' simply by
informed the final phase of my artwork, and my installation in the
seeing the pile of horns in
Stud Sheep Pavilion at the Royal Adelaide Showground in June,
this installation. (Journal entry (Journal entry for The Pavilion, 2001, Figs 75 & 76).
for Heracles Journey, 2001, Fig. 68)

116
Frances Phoenix Studio/Artifact

Cycle
This installation proposes In 1999 I travelled around Australia for six months ... numing
woman ... running from the thought of ... on hindsight, running
that the abject is a part of from the very idea ... the fear of death ... but now, on second
hindsight, ... (Journal entry for Running Woman, 2001)
life, not to be ignored or
tabooed. Just as the ancient
The Stud Sheep Pavilion exudes an overwhelming
mariner must bless the evil
sense of absence. Yet I feel exhilarated here. It makes
water snakes to survive
and be forgiven for killing roomfor-apresence, (Journal, 6/01)

the albatross, we are

advised to love the abject It proposes a model that makes paradox, ambivalence, moral
in order to survive our own relativism and abjection redundant by making sense of them.
(Extract from draft artists' statement for The Pavilion, 2001, Figs 68-71, 75 &76)
impurity. It supports the
conclusion of the written
component of the thesis in To balance the weight of death and taboo in
proposing a non-
my art, an inevitable aspect of any art using
the corpse, I have attempted in this latest work
dichotomous thought
to express a philosophy that does not see death
process whereby life and as Death or 'the end', or 'oblivion'. I have
death are not competing chosen to use nature as a model for a non-
opposites and life is not dichotomous philosophy of life in which life
favoured. It takes its lead arises from death, decay and regeneration.
from the many artists who Because humans have chosen to separate
have used the animal themselves from nature, this life cycle is
corpse to help propose an
largely unacceptable ... In fact dichotomous
thought has enabled us to separate ourselves
alternative methodology
from animals and death. In this work I am
that is cyclic, inclusive and attempting to harness the power of the abject
wholistic; where the corpse or perhaps be rid of the abject
meaning of death is life altogether. (Journal entry for The Pavilion, 2001, Figs 75 & 76)
and the meaning of life is
death. (Journal, 2001)

117
Frances Phoenix Studio/Artifact

Section 3.
Experiments/Artifacts 1998-2001

1998
Bone
Experiments
Untitled (Bird Dolls).Dolls, bird_skeletons._(Fig-56)
Untitled (Bone Cage). Bones, copper wire. (Fig. 57)
Untitled (Bone Arm). Bones, metal.
Untitled (Bones/Barbie). Bones, Barbie doll arms and legs, stone paint, copper paint, gold leaf. (exhibited
in Barbie on Steak the Deconstruction of Barbie and Other Burning Issues, Port Community Arts Centre,
1999)
Untitled (Bone with handle). Bone, suitcase handle.
Installations
Untitled (Two Bones). Metal bone, real bone and casting remains (exhibited in FEAST/Shop Art as
Nature/Culture in 1999)
Pelvis. Pelvis, fishing wire, lead pencil drawing, mirror, screw eyes. (exhibited in FEAST/Shop Art as
Pelvis in 1999) (Fig. 58)

Skinning
Experiments
The Easter Rabbit. Rabbit (road-kill).
Peter Rabbit Box. Perspex box, engraved drawing.
Skin and Bones no. I. Bones, metal, latex, sand. (exhibited in FEAST/Shop Art as Skin and Bones in 1999)
Skin and Bones no.2. Bones, latex. (Fig. 59)
Untitled (Latex Sheets). Latex.
Untitled (Finger casts). Latex. (incorporated into Chest, 1999)
Untitled (Skinned dolls). Latex and hair. (incorporated into Chest, 1999)
Installations
Horns. Horns, latex. (Horns exhibited in FEAST/Shop Art, 1999)

Wax Embalming
Experiments
Hybridi0 ). Bird skeletons, dolls, bees-wax. (incorporated into Chest, 1999) (Hybridity exhibited in
Preserve, J111 Gallery, University of S.A., 2000) (Fig. 61)
Untitled (Histology slides). Photographic negatives, bones, fur, wax.
118
Frances Phoenix Studio/Artifact

1999

Photography
Experiments
Running Woman. Stick, bark, photographs.

CardboardEurniture
Experiments
Chest. Cardboard, tape, paper, white paint, newspaper, possum and other animal remains, wax, latex, wire,
dolls. (exhibited in 'FEAST/Shop Art' as part of You know childhood was where I learned to play dead,
1999) (Fig. 62)

Kneeling Chair. Cardboard, tape, white paint, bone. (Fig. 63)

Untitled (Wall Cabinet). Cardboard, tape, white paint, black spray paint, and found remains of a diorama
with stuffed birds.

Untitled (Fridge). Cardboard, tape, white paint.

Installations
Leonora. White cardboard furniture, overhead projection of Leonora Carrington and her painted animals.
(installed in City West Studio's kitchen, 1999).

You know childhood was where 1/earned to play dead. White cardboard furniture, stuffed rabbit, animal
remains, sticks, wax, latex, wire, dolls, etc. (exhibited in FEAST/Shop Art, 1999)

Wrapping
Experiments
Untitled (Passages). Cardboard, tape, cotton bandages, plaster and white paint.

Installations
Chamber. Wood, paper, rags, plaster, tape, bones, rat, snake, lizard and seahorses. (Installation in small
room, City West Studios)

119
Frances Phoenix Studio/Artifact

2000

Gardens
Installations

Blood and Bone. 'Blood and Bone', broom. (Fig. 64)

Trinity-Garden--figurines, =Blood and Bone'.

The Un-Remembered Garden, Installation, (exhibited in Preserve, a SALA Week exhibition in the Jill Gallery at
the University of SA, Underdale, 8/2000) (Fig. 74). Photographs by Stephen Gray. Works include:

Topiary. Ceramic pots, white paint, white gravel, dowel, bones, soft toy animals, plaster, cotton
sheet strips.

Parterre. Gravel drawing on floor, painting on wall. (Fig. 65)

Treehouse Balsa, cardboard, particle board, plaster, cotton sheet strips, white paint. (Fig. 66)
.

Silent Subject. Child's dress, chicken wire, plaster, cement, particle board, plinth, cotton sheet
strips, bones.

Donkey. Soft toy animal, cotton strips, plaster, particle board plinth, white paint. (Fig. 67)

Becoming Animal
Installations

Intelligence. Stuffed rabbit, wheel rim, dowel, screw eyes, metal stand. (exhibited in JAM'S exhibition, Edge,
Contemporary Arts Centre, August 2001) (Fig. 77)

120
Frances Phoenix Studio/Artifact

2001

Cycle
Installation
The Pavilion. Site specific installation in the Stud Sheep Pavilion at the Royal Adelaide Showground (exhibited as a
part of Winterbodies, seven installations at the Royal Adelaide Showground by finishing Masters students at the
South Australian School of Art, June 2001). Photographs by Mick Bradley. Works include:

'aver piu anni d'un serpente ' Straw, grass, Pavilion floorboards, coded text: 'Being older than
a serpent.. .1 will fear no evil. in the.. valley of the shadow of death.' (Fig. 75)

Shadow. Paint, canary seed, Pavilion furniture, Pavilion sheep stall with straw. (Fig. 76)

Heracles' Journey. Horns, Pavilion sheep stall rails. (Fig. 68)

Silence. Metal tracks, canary seed, fabric, Pavilion locker.

Neither Here Nor There. Straw bail, canary seed, mirrored plinth.

'IN ABSENTIA'. Mirror, letraset, straw.

Listen. Mirror, pig's ear, Pavilion sheep pens (Fig. 69)

Remains. Fur, sheep stall fence. (Fig. 70)

Rabbit. Taxidermied rabbit, straw, Pavilion water bowl. (Fig. 71)

The Critical Beast'

Installation

In memory of pilchards. Sand, photographs, pilchards. (Installed: City West Studios, July 2001)

121
 Figure 56 Untitled (Bird/Dolls),
Frances Phoenix, 1998. Small dolls, bird bones.

Figure 57 Untitled (Bone Cage),

Frances Phoenix, 1998.
Bones, copper wire, nails.

Figure 58 Pelvis, Francis Phoenix, 1998.

Animal pelvis bone, fishing wire, pencil drawing.
 Figure 60 Horns (plus detail).
Francis Phoenix, 1998.
Cow horns, latex.

Figure 59 Skin and Bones no. 2, Frances Phoenix,

1998. Latex, bones.

Figure 61 Hybridity, Frances Phoenix, 1998. Beeswax, doll, bird bones.

moo,'

L.....1111101101..
 _

Figure 62 Chest (with details). Frances Phoenix, 1999.

Cardboard, animal remains (possum, bones, skeletons, birds feet, etc.), wax, latex, dolls, wire.

Figure 63
Kneeling Chair,
Frances Phoenix,
1999.
Cardboard,
tape,
white paint.
Figure 64 Blood and Bone, Frances Phoenix, 2000. 'Blood and Bone', broom.

Figure 65 Parterre, Frances Phoenix, 2000. Gravel, paint, bones.

Figure 66
Treeho use,
Frances Phoenix,
2000. Balsa,
cardboard,
particle-board,
plaster,
cotton strip,
white paint,
bone.

Figure 67
Donkey,
Frances Phoenix,
2000.
Soft toy,
cotton strips,
plaster,
plinth,
white paint.
Figure 68 Heracles' Journey,
Francis Phoenix, 2001.
Cow horns, sheep stall rails.

Figure 69 Listen, Frances Phoenix, 2001.

Mirror, pig's ear, sheep stall fence rails.

Figure 70 Remains, Frances Phoenix, 2001. Fur, sheep stall fence rail.
Figure 71 Rabbit, Frances Phoenix, 2001. Taxidermied rabbit, straw, water bowl.
Frances Phoenix Studio/Artifact

Section 4
Group Exhibitions
1999-2001

Group exhibitions in which artifacts produced for the Masters of Visual Arts research were exhibited.

Exhibition: FEAST/Shop Art

Group: Lesbian and Gay artists.

Venue: Hindley St, Adelaide, S.A.
Occasion: FEAST Festival Lesbian and Gay Cultural Festival.
Dates: 25 October - 14 November, 1999.
Documentation: list of works.
Artform exhibited: Sculpture/installations.
Titles of Artworks Exhibited:
Two Bones, 1998. Bones, rubber latex moulds, plaster casts, cast metal and ladder.
Horns (from skinning experiments), 1998. Horns and rubber latex.
Skin and Bones no. 1, 1998. Bones, latex, steel and earth. (Fig. 72).
Pelvis, 1998. Pelvis bones, wire, lead pencil drawing and mirror.
Untitled, (You know childhood was where I learned to play dead) 1999. White cardboard
furniture installation with dolls, animal remains and taxidermied rabbit.

Exhibition: Barbie On Steak- the Deconstruction of Barbie and Other Burning Issues.

Group: Open invitation from the Port Community Arts Center

Gallery: Port Community Arts Center, Port Adelaide.
Dates: Sept-Oct. 1999
Documentation: List of works.
Artform: Sculpture.
Title of Artwork: Untitled (Bones/Barbie). (Fig. 73)

Exhibition: Preserve

Group: JAM
Gallery: J111 Gallery, South Australian School of Art, University of S.A.
Occasion: SALA Week
Dates: July 2000.
Documentation: Invitation, Catalogue.
Artform: Sculpture/installation.
Title of Artwork: The Un-Remembered Garden (Fig. 74).

122
Frances Phoenix Studio/Artifact

Exhibition: Winterbodies

Group: University of South Australia. Postgraduate students finishing in 2001.

Gallery: Stud Sheep Pavilion, Royal Adelaide Showground.
Occasion: Final and assessment year of Masters studies.
Dates: June 2001.
Documentation: Exhibition catalogue and invitation (not produced until June 2001).
Artform: Site specific installation.
Title of Artwork: The Pavilion (Figs 75 & 76)
Reviews: Maria Bilske, 'Faith in Relics', Broadsheet, vol. 30, no. 3, Sept-Nov 2001, p. 19.
John Neylon, `Winterbodies Showtime', The Adelaide Review, July 2001, p. 31.

Exhibition: Edge

Group: JAM
Gallery: The Project Space, Contemporary Arts Centre of South Australia, Adelaide.
Occasion: SALA Week
Dates: August 2001
Documentation: Invitation/Catalogue
Artform: Sculpture/installation
Title of Artwork: Mtelligence (Fig, 77)

123
 Figure 73 Untitled,(Bones/Barbie),
Francis Phoenix, 1998.
Barbie doll arm and legs, 3 bones,
stone paint, gold leaf,
copper paint.

Figure 72 Skin and Bones no. I,

Frances Phoenix, 1998.
Bones, latex, steel rod, red sand.

Figure 74 The Un-Remembered Garden, Frances Phoenix, 2000. Installation.

 Figure 75
'Aver Piu Anni Mtn Serpente
Frances Phoenix, 2001.
Straw, grass, floorboards,
coded text.

Figure 76 Shadow (plus detail), Frances Phoenix, 2001.

Canary seed, paint, pavilion furniture, sheep stall with straw.
Figure 77 Intelligence, Frances Phoenix, 2001. Taxidermied rabbit, bicycle wheel rim, dowel, metal stand.
Frances Phoenix Studio/Artifact

Section 5.
Assessment Exhibition 2002: Artist's Statement
An exhibition by Frances Phoenix in three parts, representing a process of engagement and understanding

Assessment exhibition part 1: Playing Dead

Playing Dead, installed in a tiny two-storey terrace house, explores and expresses childhood abjection through its
combination of the seductive and the sickening. Julia Kristeva has described abjection as what 'draws me towards
the place where meaning collapses". Soft animals, dolls, dolls houses, child size furniture and a babies dress draw
us into ... a world of wrapping things up, of collecting, of the provisional as well as of excess and overflow ... a
world of obsession and death ... where language and the social become meaningless, and the subject silent ...
playing dead.

Julia Kristeva elaborates on what it is exactly here, that brings about the `revolt(s) of being,2 that she calls abjection:

In the dark halls of the museum that is now what remains of Auschwitz, I see a heap of children's shoes, or
something like that, something I have already seen elsewhere, under a Christmas tree, for instance, dolls I
believe. The abjection of Nazi crime reaches its apex when death, which, in any case, kills me, interferes
with what, in my living universe, is supposed to save me from death: childhood, science, among other
things.'

Donald Kuspit described Joseph Beuys' political, educational and artistic works as 'an attempt to return to represent
the beginning in order to escape the deep hurt that brings one closer to death.'4 Like many artists working with the
abject, this work comes out of personal abjection (childhood was where I learned to play dead) and may leave its
viewers with a similar sense of unease and ambivalence. Hubert Besacier describes Annette Messager's work of
collecting, compounded as it is by social experiences, as having a similarly abject effect:

The whole trajectory that the artist invites us to re-experience from our formative years to adulthood
tends to confirm that our illusions and terrors never change, that every day of our life is but a perpetuation
of the disasters of infancy.5

Kuspit explains, however, that Beuys does not return to the past for 'self-serving' purposes, unlike myself in Playing
Dead, but to 'teach other sufferers the lesson of the wound and its cure by warmth', such as when he held the dead
hare close to his heart. This was what Kuspit calls 'a sacred social service'.6

ARTWORKS (220 Hindley St., Adelaide)

Tree-house. Balsa, cardboard, particle board, plaster, cotton sheet strips, white paint.
Untitled (Wall Cabinet). Cardboard, tape, white paint, black spray paint, and found remains of a
diorama with skeletal birds.
Chest. Cardboard, tape, paper, white paint, newspaper, possum and other animal remains, wax,
latex, wire, dolls.
Untitled (wrapped rabbit). Stuffed toy, cotton bandages, plaster.
Silent Subject. Child's dress, chicken wire, plaster, cement, particle-board, plinth, cotton sheet
strips, bone.
Donkey. Soft toy, cotton strips, plaster, particle board plinth, white paint.

'Julia Kristeva, Powers of Horror; An Essay on Abjection, translated by Leon S. Roudiez., Colombia University Press, New
York, 1982, p. 2.
2 Ibid, p. 1.
3lbid., p. 4.
4 Donald Kuspit, Signs of Psyche in Modern & Post-Modern Art, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993, p. 203.
5 Hubert Besacier, 'Sweet Sadism; Annette Messager's Collection', Artscribe, Summer 1990, p. 60.
6 Donald Kuspit, p. 203.
124
Frances Phoenix Studio/Artifact

Assessment exhibition part 2: Becoming Animal

Intelligence, 2001 (which can be seen in the N Building at Underdale), and Pelvis, 1998, invite viewers to engage
with the dead animal, or even to consider 'becoming-animal'.' Unspoken invitations are rarely noted however in
galleries where traditions of 'don't touch' are prohibitive. Nevertheless, embedded in Intelligence is the invitation to
sit down in the low chair with its creature-like legs and allow a communication to occur between the viewer and a
stuffed rabbit.

Caroline Tisdall, a friend of Beuys, describes the part animals play in his art as:

a demonstration of levels of communication other than written or spoken human semantics ... (they) reach
to areas of feeling beyond straightforward rational exploration.8

In Pelvis viewers are invited to bend low, like an animal, look through the tethered pelvis and become
metamorphosed in the mirror 'abject'. For, in the words of Kristeva, 'the abject confronts us ... with those fragile
states where man (sic) strays on the territories of animal.'9

Becoming Animal refocusses from using animal remains and carcases in my art as symbol for the child/self to the
animal being considered actually present. Taking its agenda from E. K. Huckaby and Steve Baker, this second
exhibition/installation attempts, in the words of Huckaby, to deny 'the beast as symbol, affirming presence as
evidence, not mere reference'.'° To deny the beast as symbol is to deny Western binarism, which requires human
privilege over the animal in order to use it as material and imaginative resource. Binarism also insists that the animal
remain forever humanity's opposite, in order that we may remain human; for humanity depends for its definition and
existence on the category: animal. To deny the animal as reference is therefore to become animal. 'There is nothing
metaphoric about becoming-animal. No symbolism, no allegory ... (no) resemblance, ... imitation, or ...
identification', according to Deleuze and Guatari.11

When the ethicist, Peter Singer, asks 'What do sentient beings want?'12 he does not separate animals from humans.
One aspect of recent theoretical interest in the process of undoing identity and subjectivity is what Steve Baker
describes as the `un-humaning of the human'.I3 In The Postmodern Animal Baker outlines Deleuze and Guatari's
efforts to explain their notion of 'becoming animal' .14 It involves more than trying to 'think the unthinkable' 15 but is
about 'becoming' (in the sense that subjects are never fixed and stable entities) in ways that are 'proposed by the
animal'. Baker describes their process as not only 'a full blown doing away with the subject and all of its associated
philosophical and psychoanalytical baggage',16 but as an 'unthinking or undoing of the conventional human' (my
emphasis)." Therefore it is a political act.

ARTWORKS: (City West Studios, Liverpool St., Adelaide and N Building, Underdale Campus.)
Pelvis. Pelvis, fishing wire, mirror, screw eyes.
Pelvis (detail: mirror), photograph by Stephen Gray.
Pelvis (deatail: shadow), photograph by Stephen Gray.
Intelligence. Stuffed rabbit, wheel rim, dowel, screw eyes, metal stand. (N Building, Underdale)

'Steve Baker, The Postmodern Aiiimal, Reaktion Books, London, 2000, p. 102.
8 Caroline Tisdall, Joseph Beuys, Thames and Hudson, Great Britain, 1979, p. 94.
9 Julia Kristeva, p. 12.
19 E. K.Huckaby, 'The Critical Beast', Art Papers, Atlanta, vol. 13, pt. 2, Mar-April 1989, p. 22.
I/ Steve Baker, p. 120.
17 Peter Singer, Interview, Late Night Live, ABC Radio National, 30 August 2001, lOpm.
13 Steve Baker, p. 102.
14 Deleuze and Guatari outline these ideas in Kafka and A Thousand Plateaus (Steve Baker, p. 102).
18 C1XOUS'S notion is part of the poststructuralist attempt to think at the limits or think differently (Steve Baker, p. 102).
16 Steve Baker, p. 103.
17 Ibid, p. 104.
125
Frances Phoenix Studio/Artifact

Assessment exhibition part 3: Momento Mori

Momento Mori references the garden at its lowest ebb ... the memorial garden, ... momento
mori.

Why gardens? Gardens are, 'a cyclic theatre of life and death',18 disintegration and rebirth. They
make sense of all that Western binarism 'Others'. Their traditional beauty can temporarily
disguise death and decay, subvert the viewer. Gardens have a cultural history from which to
source visual and literary forms and concepts. The Un-Remembered Garden, with its parterre
design, topiary edges, tree-house and pedestalled sculptures, Blood and Bone and Trinity where
the animal's corpse is reduced to decorative garden matter, and The Pavilion, where
reconciliation of binary constructs was the aim, all sought to make the taboo more accessible by
embedding it within layers of aesthetic, decorative and cultural references.

Yet Moment° Mori problematizes this notion of gardens. Its 'garden', In memory ofpilchards,
signals transience, death and loss rather than illusions of permanency and Nature. Its garden
balances precariously between dichotomous constructs of the garden as an End in itself19 and
wholistic evidence that death unleashes the seeds of new life. Moment° Mori teaches me that the
abject embodies no ethics: it's like saying I want it both ways. Moment() Mori 's garden thus
embodies the 'sublime yet sinister'.20 Rather than aestheticise death, In memory ofpikhards
aestheticises violence, thereby signalling the death of Nature, and the non-renewability of her
resources. Moment° Mori signals a 'crime',21 and implicates me ethically in its unfolding,
for/but, according to Susan Stewart:

'He who makes a garden, his own unmaking makes.'22

ARTWORKS (N Building, Underdale Campus.)

In memory ofpikhards. 2001. Sand, pilchards, paint, photographs.
Moment() Mori (Documents). 2002. Overhead transparencies.
(Inter)view, (inter)rupt, (into)rest. 2002. Video. produced by Frances Phoenix,
filmed and edited by Lisa Harmes.

(Inter)view, (inter)rupt, (into)rest documents the burial of the animal's corpse...

and birdsong

18 Lisa Harmes, Unpublished Anotated Bibliography Citing: Susan Stewart, Garden Agon (journal article printed in
Representations, University of California press, issue 1998), 2000.
19 A. K. Davidson, Zen Gardening, Rider & Co., London, Melbourne, Sydney, 1982, chpt. 1.
29 Susan Stewart quoted in Lisa Hannes, 2000.
21 Kristeva writes that 'the criminal with good conscience', any crime, because it draws attention to the fragility of the law, is
abject ... abjection ... is immoral, sinister, scheming ... a friend who stabs you ... ' (Julia Kristeva, p. 4).
22 Ibid.
126
"%.1"
Frances Phoenix Bibliography

Bibliography
Abdullah, S. Interview with Michael Thom, New Dimensions, ABC Radio National, 18t1 Sept, 2000, 3am.

Addis, S. Japanese Ghosts and Demons: Art of the Supernatural (exhibition catalogue). George Brazillier
Inc., New York, in association with the Spencer Museum of Art, University of Kansas, 1985.

AFP, 'And they called it art ....', The Straits Times, 16 February, 2000.

Agrest, D. 'The Return of the Repressed: Nature'. The Sex ofArchitecture. Agrest, Conway & Weiman
(eds.). Harry N. Abrams Inc. Publishers, New York, 1996, pp. 49-68.

AIR: Overview 1972-1977. An Exhibition in Two Parts. AIR Gallery, N.Y., 1978.

Allison, P. J. Let's Discuss Animal Rights (Let's Discuss Series). Wayland, 1986.

Andrews, C. Egyptian Mummies. British Museum Publications, London, 1984.

Andrews, L. & Nelkin, D. 'Whose Body Is It Anyway', (an edited extract from an article that appeared in
'The Lancet'). The Weekend Australian, Feb. 7-8, 1998, p. 25.

Angeles, P. A. The Dictionary of Philosophy. Barnes & Noble Books, New York, 1981.

Archer, M. & Hilty, G. (curator/eds.). Material Culture: The Object in British Art of the 1980s and '90s.
Hayward Gallery, London, 1997.

Artlaw. 'Private Views'. Art Monthly, April 1994, p. 175.

Art of the Country. Federal Publishing Co., Sydney, no date, p. 59.

Arts Today. ABC Radio National, Thurs. 7th Aug. 2001

Atkins, R. Artspeak: A Guide to Contemporary Ideas, Movements and Buzzwords. Abbeville Press
Publishers, New York, 1990.

Avedon, E. (ed.). Rauschenberg. Vintage Books, Random House, New York, 1987.

Away, ABC Radio National, Sat. 31"d March 2001, 6pm.

Bailey, A. M.(ed.). The Colorado Museum ofNatural History Denver (Popular Series No. 1). Colorado
Museum of Natural History, Denver, 1936.

Baker, S. The Postmodern Animal. Reaktion Books, London, 2000.

Bann, S. 'Shrines, Curiosities, and the Rhetoric of Display'. Visual Display: Culture Beyond
Appearances, Cooke and Wollen (eds). Dia Centre for the Arts, Bay Press, Seattle, 1995, pp. 14-29.

Barker, F. The Tremulous Private Body: Essays on Subjection. Methuen & Co. Ltd., London, 1984.

Barker, L. 'An Embalmer Is Always Required To Keep a Stiff Upper Lip'. The Australian Magazine,
June 6-7, 1998, pp. 9-10.

127
Frances Phoenix Bibliography

Barrett-Lennard, J. (curator/ed.). Peter Cripps: Projects for Two Museums. University of South Australia
Art Museum & Museum of Economic Botany, Adelaide Botanic Garden, Adelaide, 1993.

Bataille, G. Death and Sensuality: A Study of Eroticism and The Taboo. Ayer Company Publishers Inc,
Salem, New Hampshire, & Walker & Co., New York, (orig. ed. 1962) reprint 1984

Bataille, G. Visions of Excess: Selected Writings, 1927-1939 (vol. 14), Andrew Stoekl (ed.). Manchester
University Press, Manchester, 1985.

Bauman, Z. Modernity and Ambivalence. Polity Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1991.

Beardsley, J. Earthworks and Beyond: Contemporary Art in the Landscape. Abbeville Press Publishers,
New York, London & Paris, 1998.

Bentley, I. & J., & Breidahl, H. Pressed Pinned and Pickled. Gould League of Victoria, Victoria,
Australia, 1977.

Ben-Levi, Houser, Jones & Taylor (eds). Abject Art: Repulsion and Desire in American Art; Selections
from the Permanent Collection. Whitney Museum of American Art, N.Y., 1993.

Bertrand, L. & Daignault, L. 'Women, Body and Soul: Visitor Reaction'. Muse, vol. xv, no. 3, 1997, pp.
28-36.

Besacier, H. 'Sweet Sadism; Annette Messager's Collection'. Artscribe, Summer 1990, p. 60.

Bois, Y-A. 'Fontana's Base Materialism'. An in America, no. 77, April 1989, pp. 238-48.

Bottling & Wilson (eds). The Bataille Reader. Blackwell, Oxford, U.K., 1997.

Brawne, M. The New Museum: Architecture and Display. Frederick A. Praeger Publishers, New York &
Washington, 1965.

Breynard, S. 'Bird Notes', Broadsheet, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 14-15.

Briggs, M. 'Contemporary Art, Joseph Beuys & the Second Goetheanum: the Unity of the Arts'.
Transforming Art, vol. 4, no. 3, 1997, pp. 57-60.

Britton, S. Anne Newmarch: A Collection of Collections. University of S.A. Art Museum, Adelaide, 1997.

Brooks, R. 'Hot Rod Snake Charmer'. World Art, vol. 3, 1995, pp. 48-52.

Brown, S. 'The Wait: Barthes, Keinholz, Photography and Death'. Intimations ofMortality, Brown, &
Hobson (eds). Availablelight, Devon, England, 1995, pp. 14-26.

Brown, S. & Hobson, S. Intimations of Mortality. Availablelight, Devon, England, 1995.

Brown, V. How to Make a Home Nature Museum. Faber & Faber, London, 1958.

Budiansky, S. The Covenant of the Wild: Why Animals Chose Domestication. Weidenfield & Nicolson,
Great Britain, 1994.

Buikema, R. & Smelik, A. Women's Studies and Culture. A Feminist Introduction. Zed Books Ltd.,
London, 1995.

128
Frances Phoenix Bibliography

Burn, G. 'Is Mr. Death In?' Damien Hirst, Jay Jopling Gallery & ICA, London, 1991, pp.7-13.

Bush, S. The Savage Garden. ABC Radio National, 2001, nd.

Butler, R. Western Sculpture: Definitions of Man. New York Graphic Society, Boston,
1975.

Calle, S. 'Damien Hirst & Sophie Calle'. Damien Hirst, Jay Jopling Gallery & ICA, London, 1991, npn.
Cameron, D. 'Horn's Dilemma: The Art of Rebecca Horn'. Arts Magazine, vol. 62, no. 3, Nov. 1987, pp.
72-75.

Canberra National Sculpture Forum '95. Canberra National Sculpture Forum Inc., Canberra, A.C.T.,
1995, p. 49.

Cappel, L. J. A Guide to Model Making & Taxidermy (A Reedway Craftbook). A. H. & A. W. Reed Ltd.,
Wellington, N.Z., 1973.

Carrol, J. Ego and Soul: The Modern West in Search ofMeaning. Harper Collins Publishers, Sydney,
1998.

Carroll, N. 'Horror and Humour'. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 57, no. 2, Spring
1999, pp. 145-160.

Carter, P. 'Exhibiting the Museum'. Artlink, Autumn, vol. 12, no. 1, 1992, p. 48.

Causey, A. Nature As Material: An Exhibition of Sculpture and Photographs Purchased for the Arts
Council Collection by Andrew Causey. Arts Council of Great Britain, London, 1980.

Chadwick, W. (ed.). Mirror Images: Women, Surrealism, and Self-Representation. MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass., c1998.

Chadwick, W. Women Artists and the Surrealist Movement. Thames & Hudson, London, 1985.

Chandler, D. 'Body Matters'. Creative Camera (U.K.), no. 336, Oct-Nov 1995, pp. 16-32.

Child, J. Collecting Specimens (Periwinkle Colour Series). Lansdowne Press, Melbourne, 1969.

Clark, K. Animals and Men: Their Relationship as Reflected in Western Art from Prehistory to the
Present Day. Thames and Hudson, London, 1977.

Clifford, J. The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1988.

Coe, S. Dead Meat. Four Walls Eight Windows, New York & London, 1995.

Collingwood, R. G. The Idea ofNature. Oxford University Press, London, 1945.

Collins, M. S. 'The Insect in Art'. Black Art, vol. 3, no. 3, 1979, pp. 14-28.

The Concise Macquarie Dictionary. Doubleday, Australia, 1982.

Conkelton, S. 'Annette Messager's Carnival of Dread and Desire'. Annette Messager (exhibition catalogue). S.
Conkelton and C. S. Elie] (eds). The Museum of Modern Art, New York & Los Angeles County Museum of Art,
Los Angeles, 1995, pp. 9-49.
129
Frances Phoenix Bibliography

Conkelton, S. & Eliel, C. S. (eds.). Annette Messager. The Museum of Modem Art, New York, & Los
Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles, 1995.

Cook, M. 'Maureen Cook' (artist's statement). A Twist in the Tightrope: S. A. School of Art 1990
Graduation Exhibition, S.A. School of Art, Adelaide, 1990.

Cooke, L. & Wollen, P. (eds). Visual Display: Culture Beyond Appearances. Dia Centre for the Arts. Bay
Press, Seattle, 1995.

Corns, M. 'Damien Hirst: Pop Star Divided'. Art/Text, no. 58, Aug-Oct 1997, p. 64.

Cotter, H. 'Rebecca Horn: Delicacy and Danger'. Art in America, vol. 81, Dec. 1993, pp. 58-67.

Cotter, S. 'Annette Messager. Teaching Grandmother to Suck Eggs'. Contemporary Visual Arts, issue 20,
1998, p. 82.

Courtney, D. 'Studio: Hermann Nitsch'. Sculpture (Washington, D. C.), vol. 13, pt. 2, Mar-April 1994,
pp. 16-17.

Creed, B. 'Horror and The Monstrous Feminine: An Imaginary Abjection'. Screen, no. 27, Jan-Feb 1986,
pp. 44-71.

Curiger, B. Meret Oppenheim: Defiance in the Face of Freedom. Parkett Publishers, Zurich, Frankfurt &
New York, & ICA, London, 1989.

Dag Oistein Endsjo. 'To Lock up Eleusis: A Question of Liminal Space'. Nurnen, vol. XLVII, no. 4,
2000, p. 351-386.

Davidson, A. K. Zen Gardening. Rider & Co., London, Melbourne, Sydney, 1982, chpt. 1.

Davies, I. 'Isobel Davies'. LIP: Women in the Visual & Performing Arts, The LIP Collective, Melbourne,
1981/82, p. 12.

de Domizo Dumi, L. The Felt Hat, Joseph Beuys, A Life Told. Charta, Italy, 1997.

de Oliveira, Oxley & Petry, (eds) with texts by Michael Archer. Installation Art. Thames & Hudson,
London, 1994.

Derrida, J. Of Grammatology. Translated by Gayatri Chalcravorty Spivak. 1st American ed. Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore, 1976.

de Ville, N. 'Thomas Grunfeld: Misfit (COW) and Dinos and Jake Chapman: Six Feet Under'.
Contemporary Visual Arts, issue 17, 1997, pp. 72-73.

de Zegher, M. (curator & ed.), Inside the Visible: An Elliptical Traverse of Twentieth Century Art in, of
and from the Feminine, The Mit Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England & The Institute
of Contemporary Art, Boston, 1996, pp. 24-25.

Douglas, M. Purity and Danger: An analysis of the concepts of pollution and taboo. Routledge & Kegan
Paul, London & Henley, 1966.

Driscoll, B. (Assoc. curator). Uumajut: Animal Imagery in Inuit Art. The Winnipeg Art Gallery,
Winnipeg, 1985.

130
Frances Phoenix Bibliography

Drury, N. (ed.). New Art Six: Profiles in Contemporary Australian Art. Craftman House, Tortola, B.V.I.,
1992, pp. 60-62.

Dufresne, L. R. 'The "Danse Macabre" of Women', (book review). Women's Art Journal, vol. 18, no. 1,
Spring/Summer 1997, pp. 40-41.

Eastmond, E. & Penfold, M. Women and the Arts in New Zealand. Forty Works: 1936-86. Penguin
Books, Auckland & Australia, 1986.

Efland, A., Freedman, K. & Stuhr, P. Postmodern Art Education: An Approach to Curriculum. The
National Art Education Association, Reston, Va., 1996.

Elderfield, J. 'Private Objects: the Sculpture of Kurt Schwitters'. Artforum, vol. X11, no. 1, Sept. 1973,
p. 45.

Ellen & Fukui (eds). Redefining Nature: Ecology, Culture and Domestication. Berg, Oxford, Washington
D.C., 1996.

Elliot, R. Faking Nature: The Ethics of Environmental Restoration. Routledge, London, 1997.

Enzensberger, C. Smut: An Anatomy of Dirt, translated by Sandra Morris. Calder and Boyars Ltd., Great
Britain, 1972.

Ewington, J. 'This Body, That Place: Embodiment and Displacement in Jenny Holzer's Lustmord'.
Sacred & Profane: 1998 TELSTRA Adelaide Festival Visual Arts Program. Telstra & Faulding, Adelaide,
1998, pp. 10-17.

Fairbrother, T. `Vaisman Flips the Bird'. Parkett , no. 35, 1993, pp. 120-127.

Fernie, E. Art History and Its Methods: A Critical Anthology. Phaidon Press Ltd, London, 1995.

Fewster, C. 'Museums Urged to Get Professionally Stuffed'. Museums Journal (London), vol. 90,
Museums Association, London, March 1990, p. 11.

Field, R. Victoriana; A Buyers Guide to the Decorative Arts 1837-1901 (Collector's Style Manual),
Macdonald Orbis, London, 1988.

Figlio, K. 'Knowing, Loving and Hating Nature: A Psychoanalytic View'. Future Natural:
Nature/Science/Culture, Robertson, Nash, Tickner, Bird, Curtis & Putman (eds). Routledge, London &
New York, 1996.

Finch, M. 'Keeping the Dialect of the Tribe Alive: A Century of British Sculpture'. Contemporary Art,
issue 13, 1996, pp. 38-39.

Fisher, J. 'Jimmie Durham: Attending to Words and Bones'. Art & Design, vol. 10, July/Aug, 1995, pp.
46-55.

Fisher, J. 'In Search of the "Inauthentic", Art Journal (USA), vol. 51, pt. 3, Fall 1992, p. 47.

Fleischer, D. H. 'Dan Ostermiller. L'Animalier'. American Artist (U.S.A.), no. 621, vol. 58, April 1994,
pp. 22-27, 73-74.

Fleissig, P. `Leche-Vitrine (Window Shopping)'. Parkett, vol. 35, 1993, pp. 102-113.

131
Frances Phoenix Bibliography

Fletcher, J, & Benjamin, A. (eds). Abjection, Melancholia and Love: The Work of Julia Kristeva.
Routledge, London & New York, 1990.

Flynn, T. The Body in Sculpture. George Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd., The Orion Publishing Group,
London, 1988, pp. 136-163.

Foster, H. 'Obscene, Abject, Traumatic'. October, no. 78, Fall 1996, pp. 106-124.

Foster, H. 'Postmodernism in Parallax'. October, no. 63, Winter 1993, pp. 3-20.

Foster, H. The Return of the Real: The Avant-Garde at the End of the Ceniuty. MIT Press, Cambridge,
Mass, c1996.

Francblin, C. 'Interview with Julia Kristeva'. Flash Art, no. 126, Feb-Mar 1986, pp. 44-46.

Freedburg, D. The Power ofImages, Studies in The History and Theory of Response. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, 1989.

Gathercole, P. 'The Fetishism of Artefacts'. Museum Studies in Material Culture, Pearce, Susan M. (ed).
Leicester University Press, Leicester, 1989, Chpt. 7.

Geraint, J. J. 'The Collection of Material Objects and Their Interpretation'. Museum Studies in Material
Culture, Pearce, Susan M. (ed.). Leicester University Press, Leicester, 1989, chapter 11.

Getty, A. Goddess: Mother of Living Nature. Thames and Hudson Ltd., London, 1990.

Goldwater, R. What is Modern Sculpture? The Museum of Modern Art, N.Y., 1969.

Gombrich, E. H. Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation. 3. edition.
Princetown University Press, Washington.

Gombrich, E. H. Shadows: The Depiction of Cast Shadows in Western Art. National Gallery Publication,
London, 1995.

Gordon-Nesbitt, R. 'Urban Myths'. Contemporary Visual Arts, issue 17, 1997, cover & pp. 36-43.

Gourmelon, M. Annette Messager: Telling Tales. Arnolfini, Bristol & Cornerhouse, Manchester, 1992.

Granlund, C. Robert Rauschenberg: Man at Work (film). ABC TV, Sunday March 18th, 2001.

Grantz, G. J. Home Book of Taxidermy and Tanning: The Amateur's Primer on Mounting Fish, Birds,
Animals, Trophies. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, P.A., 1969.

Graham-Dixon, A. 'Damien Hirst'. Broken English: Annual Exhibition of Young British Artists,
exhibition catalogue, Graham-Dixon, A., & Serpentine Gallery (eds), Serpentine Gallery, London, 1
August-1 September 1991, p. 6.

Greenaway, P. Flying Over Water. Merrel Holberton Publishers, London, 1997.

Green, D. 'Bringing It All Back Home: the Legacies of Conceptualism in Recent British Art'.
Contemporary Visual Arts, issue 16, 1977, pp. 54-60.

Grof, S. Books of the Dead: Manuals for Living and Dying. Thames & Hudson, London, 1994.

132
Frances Phoenix Bibliography

Grosz, E. A. & De Lepervanche, M. 'Feminism and Science'. Crossing Boundaries: Feminisms and the
Critique ofKnow/edges, Grosz, De Lepervanche & Caine, (eds). Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1988, chpt. 1.

Grosz, E. A. Jacques Lacan. Routledge, London & New York, 1990.

Grosz, E. A. Sexual Subversions; Three French Feminists. Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1989.

Grosz, E. A. 'The Body of Signification'. Abjection, Melancholia and Love: the Work of Julia Kristeva, J.
Fletcher & A. Benjamin (eds), Routledge, London & N.Y., 1990, pp. 80-103.

Grosz E. A. 'The In(ter)vention of Feminist Knowledges'. Crossing Boundaries: Feminisms and the
Critique ofKnow/edges, Caine, Grosz & de Lepervanche (eds). Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1988, chpt. 7.

Grosz, E. A. Volatile Bodies: Towards a Corporeal Feminism. Indiana University Press, Bloomington,
Indiana, USA, 1994.

Guldbeck, P. E. Leather: Its Understanding and Care (technical leaflet 1, vol. 24, no. 4) American
Association for State and Local History, Nashville, Tennessee, 1969.

Gunew, S., (ed.). Feminist Knowledge: Critique and Construct. Routledge, London & New York, 1990.

Hadfield, P. 'If you Can't Save Them, Freeze Them; The Last Two Crested Ibises'. New Scientist, vol.
141, Jan 29th 1994, p. 10.

Hair-raising. Kelsey St. Press, Berkely, California, 1976.

Hall, C. 'A Sign of Life'. Damien Hirst: Exhibition Catalogue: Institute of Contemporary Arts 13111 Dec.
1991 to 2' Feb 1992. Jay Jopling Gallery & ICA, London, 1991, npn.

Hall, J. 'Jan Fabre: Entwistle'. Artforum, Summer 1997, p. 148.

Ham, J. & Senior, M., (eds). Animal Acts: Configuring the Human in Western History. Routledge, New
York & London, 1997.

Hames, E. Britannia's Glory A History of Twentieth-Century Lesbians. Cassell, London & New York,
1996.

Han, A. 'Cinema, Death and The Abject'. Art/ink, vol. 14, no. 4, 1994, pp. 60-61.

Hancocks, D. Animals and Architecture. Hugh Evelyn Ltd., London, 1971.

Handy, E. 'Installations & History'. Arts Magazine, Feb 1989, p. 62.

Handbook of Instructions for Collectors. British Museum (Natural History), London, 1906.

Hare, B. 'The Pain and Pleasure Principle: From Francis Bacon to Damien Hirst'. Contemporary Visual
Arts, issue 18, 1998, pp. 49-55.

Harmes, L. Unpublished Anotated Bibliography Citing: Susan Stewart, Garden Agon (journal article
printed in Representations, University of California press, issue 1998). 2000.

Harrison & Dahl. Instructions for Collectors; No. 2A; Birds. Trustees of the British Museum (Natural
History), London, 1970.

133
Frances Phoenix Bibliography

Harrison, J. M. Bird Taxidermy. David & Charles, London, 1976.

Hayward Gallery. Material Culture: the Abject in British Art of the 1980s and 90s. Hayward Gallery,
Southbank Centre, 1997.

Heartney, E. 'Postmodern Heretics'. Art in America, vol. 85, Feb. 1997, pp.33-39.

Higgins, J. 'Britain's 'New Generation". Artnews, Dec. 1987, pp. 118-122.

Hill, P. 'Putting In The Boot Nicely'. Art/ink, vol. 12, no. 3, 1992, p. 77.

Hilly, G. 'The Good and The Bad Ugly'. Young German Artists 2 at the Saatchi Gallery (exhibition
catalogue). The Saatchi Gallery, London, 1997.

Hirst, D. I want to spend the rest of my life everywhere, with everyone, one to one, always, forever, now /
Damien Hirst. Booth-Clibbom Editions, London, 1997.

Hoffie, P. 'Art's Ineffable Value', Art Monthly Australia, May 1996, p. 6.

Holland, M. & Von Borsch (eds). Surfacing (Exhibition Catalogue, 11 Feb-12 March 1994). Canberra
Contemporary Art Space Inc., Braddon, ACT, 1994.

Holmwood, J. 'Abject Theory'. ANZJS, vol. 32, no. 2, Aug. 1996, pp. 86-108.

Holtman, H. Joseph Beuys, (exhibition catalogue). Galerie Heinz Hohmann, Germany, 1989.

Horvitz, R. J. 'Nature as Artifact: Alan Sonfist'. Artforum, vol. 12, no. 3, Nov 1973, pp. 32-35.

Houser, C. 'I, Abject'. Abject Art: Repulsion and Desire in American Art: Selections from the Permanent
Collection (exhibition catalogue). Ben-Levi, Houser, Jones & Taylor (eds). Whitney Museum of
American Art, New York, 1993, pp. 6-15.

Huckaby, E. K. 'The Critical Beast'. Art Papers, Atlanta, vol. 13, pt. 2, Mar-April 1989, p. 22.

Hughes R. The Shock of The New; Art and The Century of Change. Thames & Hudson, London, (orig. ed.
1980) 1991

Humason, G. L. Animal Tissue Techniques. W. H. Freeman & Company, San Francisco, 1962.

Husband, T. The Wild Man: Medieval Myth and Symbolism. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
York, 1980.

Jackson, J. 'The A to Z of Art: D is for Damien'. The Modem Review, June-July 1994, p. 156.

Jackson, T & Lanyon, J. Even: Recent work by Dorothy Cross, Arnolfini, Bristol, 1996.

Jenkins, J. G. 'The Collection of Material Objects and Their Interpretation'. Museum Studies in Material
Culture, Susan M. Pearce (ed.), Leicester University Press, Leicester, 1989.

Johnson, K. 'Annette Messager at Gagosian'. Art in America, May 1997, p. 121.

Jones, G. 'Skulls, Fontanelles & the Spaces Between'. U7'S Review, vol. 1, no. 2, Nov 1995,
p. 170.

134
Frances Phoenix Bibliography

Jones, K. M. 'Annette Messager. Gagosian Gallery'. Artforum, May 1997, p. 107.

Jones, L. C. 'Transgressive Femininity Art and Gender in the Sixties and Seventies'. Abject Art:
Repulsion and Desire in American Art: Selections from the Permanent Collection (exhibition catalogue).
Ben-Levi, Houser, Jones & Taylor (eds). Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, 1993, pp. 32-57.

Kaplan, J. A. Unexpected Journeys: The Art & Life of Remedios Varo. Virago, London, 1988.

Keinholz, E. & Reddin-Keinholz, N. The Keinholz Women. Galerie Maeght, Paris.

Kelly, C. Wild Things: The Wisdom of Animals (Women Artists Monographs). Gallerie Publications,
Canada, 1991.

Kennedy, B. Arts Today (interview), 29th November, 1999.

Kimball, R. 'Oozing Out All Over'. Modern Painters, vol. 8, Spring 1995, pp. 52-53.

King, L. The Devil: A Mask Without a Face. Reaktion Books, London, 1995.

Kotte, W. 'The Function of The Hare for Beuys'. Joseph Beuys. Heinz Hohmann (ed.). Galerie Heinz
Holttnann, Germany, 1989, pp. 16-17.

Krauss, R. `Antivision'. October, no. 36, Spring 1986, pp. 147-54.

Krell, A. "Dirty Desires; Sexuality and the French Realist Body'. Nexus Forums Lecture Series, Beauty
and the Devil's Rope; Narratives of Modernity and Representation. Nexus Multicultural Arts Center,
Adelaide, Fri. Nov. 12th 1999.

Kristeva, J. Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection, translated by Leon S. Roudiez. Colombia

University Press, New York, 1982.

Kron, J. Home-Psych: The Social Psychology of Home and Decoration. Clarkson N. Potter Inc.
Publishers, New York, 1983.

Kulterman, U. The New Sculpture: Environments and Assemblages. Translated from the German by
Stanley Baron. Thames & Hudson, London, 1968,

Kuspit, D. 'Not Vital at Sperone Westwater Baron/Boisante'. ArtForum, vol. 36, no. 9, May 1997, p. 107.

Kuspit, D. Signs of Psyche in Modern & Post-Modern Art. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
1993.

LaBelle, C. 'Annette Messager'. World Art, quarterly, issue 4, 1995, p. 105.

Laguerre, M. S. Voodoo Heritage. SAGE Publications, Beverley Hills & London, 1980.

Landi, A. 'Annette Messager. Gagosian'. ARTnews, April 1997, p. 129.

Landi, A. 'Karl Mann at Ricco/Maresca Gallery'. ARTnews, April 1997, p. 131.

Lee, D. 'David Mach'. Arts Review, Sept. 1986, pp. 514-515.

Lehman, G. 'Containment Dreaming'. Siglio Journal for the Arts, issue 10: Collection/ Recollection,
Autumn/Winter 1998, p. 12.
135
Frances Phoenix Bibliography

Leitch, D. Preparing for Immortality in Ancient Egypt. South Australian Museum Information Centre,
Adelaide, 1987.

Levin, K. Lucas Samaris. Harry N. Abrams Inc. New York, 1975.

Leyenaar, Th. J. J. 'The Celebration of The Days of The Dead in Mexico'. From Field Case to
Show Case, Van Gulick, Der Straaten & Van Wongen (eds). J. C. Gilben, Amsterdam, 1980, pp. 71-84.

Lippard, L. (ed.). Six Years: The Dematerialization of the Art Object from 1966-72. Praeger Publishers,
New York, 1973, pp. 17-19.

Lippard, L. R. `Jimmie Durham: Postmodernist "Savage". Art in America, vol. 81, no. 2, Feb. 1993, pp.
62-70.

Liss, A. 'Our Messenger. Annette Messager'. Afterimage, Sept./Oct.1996, pp. 15-16.

Lloyd, C. & Sekuless. P. Australia's National Collections. Cassell Australia, Sydney & Melbourne, 1980.

Lucie-Smith, E. Art in the Seventies. Phaidon Press, Oxford, 1980.

Lucie-Smith, E. Sculpture Since 1945. Phaidon, London, 1987.

Lynch, B. P. The Representation of Death: Donald Kuspit, Colin McCahon and George Gittoes, Master
of Visual Arts Research Thesis. South Australian School of Art, University of South Australia, July 1996.

Lyons, L. & Levin, K. Wegman's World: 5 December 1982 to 16 January 1983. Walker Art Centre, The
Center, Minneapolis, 1982.

Macadam, B. A. `Girl Talk'. ARTnews, vol. 95, pt. 8, Sept 1996, p. 104-107.

Magon, J. `Sebastian di Mauro: Entrances, Exits and Immortality'. Eyeline, no. 22/23, Summer 1993, pp.
30-33.

Mahler, B. `Thomas Grunfeld'. Arts Magazine, vol. 66, March 1992, p. 94.

Malbert, R. & de Rooy, F. `Felix de Rooy'. in Fusion: New European Art, Jantes, Macgregor, & Malbert
(curators), The South Bank Centre and Ikon Gallery, 1993, pp. 42-44.

Mark, L. G. `Fast Forward: Contemporary Korean Art in Toronto'. Art Asia Pacific, issue 19, 1998, P. 28.

Martin, J. H. `The `Musee Sentimental' of Daniel Spoerri'. Visual Display: Culture Beyond Appearances,
Cooke, L. & Wollen, P. (eds). Dia Centre for the Arts, Bay Press, Seattle, 1995, chpt.3: pp. 54-67.

Martin, R. `Alexis Rocicman: An Art Between Taxonomy and Taxidermy'. Arts Magazine, vol. 62,
October 1987, pp. 22-24.

Martin, V. `A Natural Indulgence: `Animal Vegetable Mineral' at Artspace Gallery'. Artweek, vol. 23,
Jan. 1992, p. 10. T. Scheerer and K.D. Schonfeldt (eds).

Masters, G. `Joseph Beuys: Past the Affable'. T. Scheerer & K. D. Schonfeldt (eds). Athena, electronic
text, (http://athena.home.pages.de), Jan 1999.

136
Frances Phoenix Bibliography

Mateer, J. 'Animal Death and An Artists' Culture - Brian Bianchi:lower's `Tursiops' installation'. Art/ink,
vol. 14, no. 4, 1994, pp. 46-48.

Mayer, J. W. Practical Taxidermy: A Working Guide. The Ronald Press Co., N.Y., 1953.

McGregor, E. "After the Fall Constructing a Future' (Artists Week speech). Telstra Adelaide Festival,
2000.

McQuire, S. 'Signs of Ambivalence: Documentary Images'. Photofile, no. 43, 1994-5,

Pp. 6-13.

Messager, A. 'Telling Tales'. Arnolfini/Corner House, 1992.

Medicine Eagle, Brooke. 'Earth Widsom' New Dimensions. ABC Radio National, Sunday 21' October
2001, 4.30am.

Metcalf, J. C. Taxidermy: A Complete Manual. Duckworth, London, 1981.

Miller, W. 1. The Anatomy of Disgust. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts & London,
1997.

Millner, J. 'Between Art and Nature: Review of the Australian Perspecta, Aug-Sept 1997'. RealTime 21,
Oct.-Nov. 1997, P. 39.

Morley, S. 'Close Encounters'. Tate Summer 2000. Tate Gallery, London, 2000, pp 52-58.

Morris, P. & Wroot, S. The Preservation ofMammal Skins for Scientific, Educational and Display
Purposes. The Mammal Society, London, 1988.

Morrissey, S. 'Sensation: Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection'. Contemporary Visual Arts,
issue 17, 1997, pp. 70-71.

Mummy. Harper, Collins & Angus & Robertson, Australia, 1993.

Mulvey, L. Fetishism and Curiosity. British Film Institute, London, and Indiana University Press
Bloomington, Indiana, 1996.

Murkin, A. H. Joseph Beuys and Medicine. F. Coppenrath Verlag Munster, Munster, West Germany,
1979.

Nash, R. F. The Rights ofNature: A History of Environmental Ethics. The University of Wisconsin Press,
Wisconsin, 1989.

National Gallery of Australia. Surrealism: Revolution by Night. National Gallery of Australia, Canberra,
A.C.T., 1993.

Natural History Specimens: Their Collection and Preservation (Handbook No. 2.). Western Australian
Naturalists Club, Perth, 1967.

Nemser, C. 'Subject-Object: Body Art'. Arts Magazine, no. 45, Sept-Oct 1971, pp. 38-42.

The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 1993.

Newall, M. 'Gag Reflex'. Choking Hazard (exhibition catalogue for Leith Elder), Adelaide, Sept. 2001.
137
Frances Phoenix Bibliography

Newall, M. "Wilful Misunderstandings', Broadsheet, 28 Feb 1999, p. 23.

Newman, T. R. Plastics as Sculpture. Chilton Book Co., Radnor, Pennsylvania, 1974.

Newton, A. 'The Zygmunt Bauman Phenomenon'. Arena Magazine, no. 24, Aug-Sept 1996, pp. 42-45.

Neylon, J. 'Picking Up the Pieces'. Art/ink, vol. 2, no. 4, Sept.-Oct 1982, p. 13.

Nitsch, Hermann. Neapel 1974 Hermann Nitsch. 45 Aktion. Allerheiligenpresse, Neapal, 1974.

Nixon, M. 'You Thrive on Mistaken Identity'. October, no. 60, Spring 1992, pp. 59-81.

Norwood, V. & Monk, J. (eds). The Desert is No Lady: South Western Landscapes in Women's Writing
and Art. Yale University Press, New Haven & London, 1987.

Oguibe, 0. 'In the "Heart of Darkness" 1993', Art History and its Methods; A Critical Anthology, Eric
Fernie (ed.), first published 1995, Phaidon Press Ltd., London, Reprinted 1996.

Ostrow, S. 'David Mach'. Arts Magazine, vol. 64, no. 8, April 1990, p. 91.

Ottman, Klaus. 'Horn's Dilemma: The Art of Rebecca Horn'. Art Magazine, vol. 64, no. 2, Oct. 1989, pp.
44-46.

Patin, T. & McLerran, J. Artwords: A Glossary of Contemporary Art Theory. Fitzroy Dearborn
Publishers, London, U.S.A., 1997.

Paul, F. William Wegman: Photographic Works 1969-1976. L'Oeuvre Photographique, Limousin, France,
1991.

Pearce, S. M. Museums, Objects and Collections: A Cultural Study. Leicester University Press, Leicester
& London, 1992.

'Peggy Kane' (advertisement for exhibition). Art News, vol. 85, no. 3, March 1986, p. 38.

Pevsner, N. Studies in Art, Architecture, and Design.: Volume 2: Victorian and After, Thames and
Hudson, London, 1968.

Piggot, S. (ed.). The Dawn of Civilization: The First World Survey of Human Cultures in Early Times.
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1961.

Pincenthal, N. 'The Art of the Topical'. Art in America, vol. 79, Dec. 1991, pp. 78-83.

Plant, M. 'Compost: A Desultory Aesthetic'. Art and Australia, vol. 34, pt. 3, 1997, pp. 356-363.

Plant, S. 'Coming into Contact: Sadie Plant Explores Touch and Sight'. Women's Art Magazine, no. 63,
March-April 1995, p. 6-8.

Poseq, A. W. G. 'The Hanging Carcass Motif and Jewish Artists'. Jewish Art, vol. 16-17, 1990-91, pp.
139-156.

Pray, L. L. Taxidermy. Macmillan, New York, 1973.

138
Frances Phoenix Bibliography

Preston, R. P. The Dilemmas of Care: Social and Nursing Adaptations to the Deformed, the Disabled and
the Aged. Elsevier North Holland Inc., New York, 1979. .

Purcell, R. W. & Gould, S. J. Finders, Keepers: Eight Collectors. Pimlico, London, 1993.

Radok, S. Winterbodies (exhibition catalogue), Radok/Harmes, Adelaide, 2001, back page.

Ralphs, T. 'Reflections of a Taxidermist'. Art/ink (Adelaide), vol. 12, no. 2, Winter 1992, pp. 24-25.

Rasmussen, H. & Grant, A. Sculpture from Junk. Reinhold Book Corporation, New York, 1967.

Ravven, W. 'Biology on Ice'. Discover, vol. 15, Aug 1994, pp. 36-41.

Reich, W. T. (ed. in chief). 'Animal Welfare and Rights: Ethical Perspectives'. Encyclopedia of Bioethics
1. Simon & Schuster McMillan, New York & London, 1995, pp. 159-169.

Rembert, V. P. 'Annette Messager, Essays by Sheryl Conkelton and Carol S. Ebel'. Woman's Art
Journal, Fall 1996-Winter 1997, p. 53.

Reuters, 'Is it Art or Mootilation?', The Weekend Australian, July 21-22, 2001, p. 14.

'Reviews: Hans Sedlimayer, Art in Crisis: The Lost Centre, Henry Regney Company, Chicago, 1958'.
Transforming Art, vol. 4, no. 3, 1997, p. 76.

Riddell, J. 'The Abject Object: A Recent History of the Ephemeral Found Object in Contemporary Art'.
New Art Examiner, vol. 23, Oct 1995, pp. 26-53.

Ripley, D. 'The Collecting Instinct' (preview). The Sacred Grove: Essays on Museums. Smithsonian
Institution Press, City of Washington, 1969.

Robert Rauschenberg (exhibition catalogue). National Collection of Fine Arts, Smithsonian Institution
Press, City of Washington, 1976.

Robert Rauschenberg: Work from Four Series: A Sesquicentennial Exhibition (exhibition catalogue).
Contemporary Arts Publications Fund, Houston, 1986.

Robinson, J. Ann Newmarch: the Personal is Political. Art Gallery of South Australia, Adelaide, 1997.

Rochette, A. & Saunders, W. 'Savage Mercies'. Art in America (U.S.A.), vol. 82, pt. 3, March 1994, pp.
78-83.

'Roger Brown'. Arts Magazine, vol. 62, no. 3, Sept. 1987, p. 103.

Rogers L. J. 'Biology, The Popular Weapon: Sex Differences in Cognitive Function'. Crossing
Boundaries: Feminisms and The Critique of Know/edges, Caine, Grosz, de Lepervanche, (eds). Allen &
Unwin, Sydney, 1988, chpt. 3.

Rose, B. 'An Interview with Robert Rauschenberg by Barbara Rose'. Rauschenberg (Vintage
Contemporary Artists), Elizabeth Avedon (ed.). Vintage Books Random House, N.Y., 1987.

Roth, C. 'Skin and Bone'. Artweek, vol. 28, Feb. 1997, p. 22.

Roth, E. 'A Kind of Violence'. American Photographer, vol. 22, April 1989, P. 28.

139
Frances Phoenix Bibliography

Rowland, S, A. 'The Censor's Nightmare'. Broadsheet: Contemporary Visual Arts & Culture. vol. 28, no.
4, Summer 1999-2000, p. 4.

Ruby, J. Secure the Shadow: Death and Photography in America. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
1995.

Russo, M. 'Female Grotesques: Carnival and Theory'. Teresa de Lauretis (ed). Feminist Studies/Critical
Studies, MacMillan Press, Hampshire and London, 1986, pp. 213-229.

Rutledge, Noys, Smith, Taylor. 'An Encounter with Georges Bataille'. Encounter. ABC Radio National,
Sunday 22`th April 2001.

Salisbury, J. E. The Beast Within: Animals in the Middle Ages. Routiedge, New York & London, 1994.

Saunders, A. The Comfort Zone. ABC, Radio National, Sat. 8th Oct. 2000.

Schimel, P. (ed.). OBJECTives: The New Sculpture (exhibition catalogue). Co-published by Newport
Harbour Art Museum, Newport Beach, California, and Rizzoli, New York, 1990, pp. 162-163.

Schodek, D. L. Structure in Sculpture. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press, Cambridge,

Massachusetts & London, England, 1993.

Simon, E. E. Reflexive Rhizomes: Portraits of the Australian Artist Projectedfrom Selected Works of
Patrick White, David Malouf and Elizabeth Jolly (thesis for the degree of Masters by Letters, School of
English, Communications & Theatre Studies). University of New England, Oct. 1998.

Simon, J. 'No Ladders: Snakes: Jenny Holzer's Lustmord'. Parkett (Switzerland), no. 40-41, June 1994,
pp. 78-97.

Simpkins. Techniques of Biological Preparation. Biocide, Glasgow, 1974.

Simpson, H. 'Meat for Thought'. Modern Painters, vol. 10, Spring 1997, pp. 94-96.

Singer, P. Animal Liberation. Jonathan Cape, London, 1990.

Singer, P. Interview. Late Night Live. ABC Radio National, 30 August 2001, lOpm.

Smith, A. `Kristeva, Sherman, Butler and the Abject'. The Abject Female Body: The Photography of
Cindy Sherman,(http://english.cla.umn.eduNisiting/Mjanette/Installations/Angela/Sherm3.htm.),
paragraph 7.

Smith, K. 'Contagious Desire', Art Asia Pacific, issue 31, 2001, pp. 50-57

Society of Animal Artists. 'Animal Aesthetics and Ethics'. Southwest Art, vol. 22, no. 12, May 1993, pp.
99-107.

Sokoloff A. 'Maria Fernando Cardoso: In Search of Nature'. Art Nexus, vol. 20, April-Jun 1996,
pp. 68-71.

Soldner, P. 'Tom'. Studio Potter, vol. 22, June 1994, p. 93.

Stachelhaus, H. Joseph Beuys. Translated by David Britt. Abbeville Press Publishers, New York, London,
Paris, 1987.

140
Frances Phoenix Bibliography

Stanford, R. 'Reconstructing Death'. Art/ink (issue: Art & Medicine), vol. 17, no. 2, June 1997, pp. 16-19.

Stewart, S. 'Death and Life, In That Order, in the Works of Charles Wilson Peale'. Visual Display:
Culture Beyond Appearances, Lynne Cooke & Peter Wollen (eds). Dia Centre for the Arts, Bay Press,
Seattle, 1995, pp. 30-53.

Stich, S. (ed.) & Sussman, E. Rosemarie TrockeL Prestel-Verlag, Germany, 1991.

Stoate, C. Taxidermy: The Revival of a Natural Art. The Sportsman's Press, Wiltshire, 1987.

Stone, J. 'The Horrors of Power: A Critique of "Kristeva", in Francis Barker et al., eds., The Politics of
Theory. Colchester University of Essex, 1983, pp. 38-48.

Stone, L. 'Eugene Von Bruenchenhein'. Raw Vision, Winter 1994/5, pp. 32-38.

Strahan, R. Rare and Curious Specimens: An Illustrated History of the Australian Museum 1827-1979.
The Australian Museum, Sydney, 1979.

Stoichita, V. I. A Short History of the Shadow. Realction Books Ltd., London, 1997.

Subrahmanyam, M. 'Storage of Skin Grafts in Honey'. Lancet (North American ed.), vol. 341, Jan 1993,
pp. 63-64.

Surfacing (catalogue). Canberra Contemporary Art Space Inc., Canberra, 1994.

'Susan Hiller'. E.A.F. Newsletter, Jan-March 1998, pp. 1-3.

Susan Norrie Projects 1990-1995, (exhibition catalogue). Museum of Modern Art at Heide, Victoria,
Australia, 1995.

Surrealism; Revolution By Night (exhibition catalogue). National Gallery of Australia, Canberra, ACT,
1993.

Szekeres, V. 'Exhibiting Conflict - Who Dares?' Art/ink, vol. 12, no. 1, 1992, pp. 18-21.

Tager, A. 'Art On The Strip'. Art in America, vol. 85, no. 2, Feb. 1997, pp. 45-46.

Tait, S. Palaces of Discovery: The Changing World of Britain's Museums. Quiller Press, London, 1989.

Tamblyn, C. 'The River of Swill: Feminist Art, Sexual Codes, and Censorship'. Afterimage, no. 18, Oct
1990, pp.10-13.

Taylor, S. 'The Phobic Object: Abjection in Contemporary Art'. Abject Art: Repulsion and Desire in
American Art: Selections from the Permanent Collection (exhibition catalogue). Whitney Museum of
American Art, New York, 1993, pp. 59-84.

Thom, G. B. The Human Nature of Social Discontent: Alienation, Anomie, Ambivalence. Rowman &
Allanheld Publishers, New Jersey, USA, 1984.

Tisdall, C. Bits and Pieces. The Richard Demarco Gallery in assoc. with Red Lion House & the Arnolfini
Gallery, Bristol, 1987.

Tisdall, C. Joseph Beuys. Thames and Hudson, Great Britain, 1979.

141
Frances Phoenix Bibliography

Tisdall, C. Joseph Beuys. We Go This Way. Voilette Editions, London, 1998.

Titterington, C. 'The Unpainted Landscape'. Apollo, Aug. 1988, pp. 129-130.

Treister, S. 'Bad Girls'. Art/ink, vol. 14, no. 1, Autumn 1994, pp. 57-8.

Tugendrajch, L. `Marec Cecula's Vision of Sensual Sterility'. Ceramics: Art and Perception, no. 18,
1994, p. 41.

Tulip, L. 'A Fairy Tale'. Refractory Girl (Petersham, N.S.W.), issue 37, Dec. 1990, p. 11.

Turner, C. 'Shock Treatment'. Tate Summer 2000, Tate Gallery, 2000, pp. 45-51

Tyler, M. J. Encyclopedia ofAustralian Animals Frogs. Angus & Robertson, Pymble, 1992.

Upton, M. S. & Norvis, K. R. The Collection & Preservation of Insects & Other Terrestrial Arthropods
(Miscellaneous Publications, no. 3). The Australian Entomological Society, Brisbane, 1980.

Vance, C. S. 'Misunderstanding Obscenity'. Art in America, no.78, May 1990, pp. 49-55.

Van Proyen, M. 'The Heiroglyphs of Ambivalence'. Artweek, vol. 17, Oct. 4th 1986, pp. 1 & 4.

Vivian, J. Home Tanner's Handbook. A. H. & A. W. Read, Sydney, 1976.

Voiland-Hobi, H. E. Jean Tinguely Life and Work. Prestel, Munich & New York, 1995, p. 120-121.
Voiland, H. E. 'Jean Tinguely's Cenodoxus Isenheim Altarpiece'. Arts Magazine, vol. 62, no. 2, Oct.
1987, pp. 80-85.

Wainwright, L. 'Stifle Life. From Norman Bates to Annette Messager: Taxidermy for a Reason'. The New
Art Examiner, May 1996, pp. 18-37.

Wagstaff, R. & Fidler, J. H. (eds). The Preservation of Natural History Specimens, (vol. 2.). Witherby,
London, 1968.

Waldby, C. 'The Visible Human Project: Life and Death in Cyberspace'. Art/ink, vol. 17, no. 2, June
1997, pp. 24-27.

Waldman, D. Joseph Cornell. George Braziller, New York, 1977.

Walker, B. G. The Women's Encyclopedia ofMyths and Secrets. Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1983.

Walker, J. A. Art and Outrage: Provocation, Controversy and The Visual Arts. Pluto Press, Sterling, V.
A., 1999.

Walker, L. M. & the Experimental Art Foundation (eds). 1,799 of 600,000 Hours (Mortality).
Experimental Art Foundation, Adelaide, 1995.

Ward, F. 'Abject Lessons'. Art & Text, no. 48, May 1994, pp. 46-51.

Watt, D. (curator). Backward Glance: A Survey of Western Australian Sculpture from the Mid 1960s to
the 1990s, (exhibition catalogue). Perth Institute of Contemporary Arts, PICA Press Publications, Perth,
1991.

Welderbourn, F. B. Atoms and Ancestors. Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd., Bristol, 1968.
142
Frances Phoenix Bibliography

Welsh, P. C. Exhibit Planning: Ordering Your Artifacts Interpretively, (technical pamphlet, no.73.). New
York State Historical Association, American Association for State and Local History, N. Y., nd.

'Where the Wild Things Are; the Animal in Contemporary West Coast Art' (series of five articles).
Artweek, vol. 24, June 3rd 1993, pp.4-5 & 14-17.

White Bones. Walter Phillips Gallery & Banff Centre of the Arts, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 1991.

Whitehead, P. & Keates, C. The British Museum Natural History. Philip Wilson and the British Museum
(Natural History), London, 1981.

Why Have Scientific Names? (brochure). SA Museum Information Centre, Adelaide, South Australia,
1998.

Williams, P. M. Museums of Natural History and The People Who Work in Them. St. Martin's Press,
New York, 1973.

Wilson, A. 'The Art Experience: Art That Strives For Effect But Fails To Affect'. Art Monthly, no. 190,
Oct. 1995, pp. 3-6.

Women's Art Movement. 'Pins + Tree = Art'. The Women's Show. Women's Art Movement, Adelaide,
1977, p. 40.

Women's Art Movement Women's Art Movement: 1978-1979 Adelaide, South Australia. Experimental
Art Foundation, Adelaide, South Australia, 1980, pp. 18-19.

Wonders, K. 'Exhibiting Fauna - From Spectacle to Habitat Group'. Curator, American Museum of
Natural History, New York, vol. 32, June 1989, pp. 131-156.

Wolfe, R. 'Painting In The Background: Artists Working in The Museums of New Zealand'. Art New
Zealand, no. 87, Winter 1998, pp. 60-79.

Wright, W. & Bond, A. (eds). The British Show. Art Gallery of NSW, Sydney, 1985,
p. 139-142.

Zahm, 0. 'Alan Belcher: Face the World', Flash Art, vol. xxv, no. 166, Oct 1992, pp. 80-82.

Zimmerman, M. E. Contesting Earth's Future: Radical Ecology and Postmodernity. University of

California Press, Berkely, L. A. & London, 1994.

143
 APPENDIX I

HUMAN ETHICS PROTOCOL

Frances Phoenix Appendix I: Human Ethics Protocol

INFORMAL INTERVIEWS, DISCUSSIONS AND CORRESPONDENCES

All tapes and transcriptions are for the purposes of the author,
Frances Phoenix, and this thesis only.

Adelaide Artists
Gishka Van Ree.
Edited transcript of informal taped interview, 3 November 1998.
Two tape recordings (the second is poor quality).

Ann Newmarch.
Compiled from notes taken in discussion, 23 October 1998, and Dec. 2001.

James Dodd.
Email communication, 14 January 2002

Rob Johnston, Country Arts Trust.

Notes from telephone conversation, 1 January 2002.

Community members
Julie Roszko
Direct quotes noted from conversation, 10 January 2002.

Scientists at Museum of South Australia

Mark Hutchinson, Curator of Reptiles and Amphibians
Edited transcript of informal interview, 15 December 1998
One tape recording.

Maya Penck, Collection Manager of Birds.

Edited transcript of informal interview and tour, 5 November 1998.
One tape recording.

Terry Sim, Curator of Fish.

Edited transcript of taped informal interview and tour, 4 November 1998.
One tape recording.

Joe Bain, Taxidermist.

'Taxidermy' - Talk for the Friends of the Museum
Informal tour of lab, 1998.

Adrienne Edwards, Collection Manager of Herpetology (Reptiles).

Informal interview and tour, 1998. No transcript.
One tape recording, side A.

Janice Forest, Collection Manager of Insects.

Edited transcript of informal interview and tour, 9 December 1998.
One tape recording, side B.

1
Frances Phoenix Appendix Human Ethics Protocol

1998 RECRUITMENT MATERIAL: PROFORMA LETTER TO ARTISTS

(Address)

(Date)

Dear (Artist),

I am an artist currently doing my masters as a research student in visual arts at the University of
S.A. I am very keen to talk with you about the subject of my project.

My research project explores the use of dead animals and animal matter in the artwork and
practice of twentieth century visual artists, and in my own sculptural work. Materials such as fur,
feathers, leather and bones are commonly found in artwork. Many artists have also collected
dead animals and used techniques of collection, bone reconstruction, taxidermy, animal casting,
tanning, resin embedding, bottling and pinning, etc. in their work.

My research has led me to believe that, as an artist, you also use animal materials or some of the
techniques listed above in your artwork. I would be very interested in interviewing you about this
practice for the purposes of my research.

The information gathered will be used in the first instance to contribute to my research project in
the form of a minor thesis and seminars. If there is any subsequent publication of interview
material permission will be sought from you.

Ethical requirements of the University of SA involve:-

Providing you with information about my research project (enclosed)
Negotiating the interview and/or photographic process (see enclosed list of possible issues to
negotiate)
Providing you with a research consent form (enclosed) to be completed by you and returned to
me.

If you would like to participate in this research project I would like to meet with you, or talk to
you over the phone, to discuss the interview process beforehand. You might like to sign the
consent form after this discussion.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Frances Phoenix

2
Frances Phoenix Appendix]: Human Ethics Protocol

1998 RECRUITMENT MATERIAL: PROFORMA LETTER TO MUSEUM

South Australian Museum

North Terrace
Adelaide. SA 5000

20 October 1998

Dear Madarn/Sir,

I am an artist currently studying for a masters degree by research in Visual Arts at the University
of South Australia. I am seeking to do some of my research within the South Australian
Museum.

My research project explores the use of dead animals and animal matter in the artwork of
twentieth century visual artists and in my own sculptural work, to express ideas about death.
Materials such as fur, feathers, leather and bones are commonly found in artwork. Many artists
have also collected dead animals and used techniques of bone reconstruction, taxidermy, animal
casting, resin embedding, bottling and pinning in their work.

These 'animal practices' are mostly practiced and seen in museums. I am interested in
interviewing personnel within the various departments of the museum with the aim of furthering
my knowledge of the 'animal practices' listed above, and some of the less well known and newer
techniques, as a touchstone for my work as an artist and to inform my understanding of other
artist's work.

I am also interested in taking photographs of some of the processes used and of the collections
held in the museum as a visual resource for my art practice and possible use within my thesis and
sculptural work. I have already availed myself of the museum library and recently enjoyed a
fascinating open day at the Museum.

The information gathered will be used in the first instance to contribute to my research project. If
there is any subsequent publication of interview material permission will be sought from the
interviewee/s.

Ethical requirements of the University of South Australia involve:-

providing you with information about my research project (enclosed)
negotiating the interview and photographic process ( see enclosed list of possible issues to
discuss)
providing you with a research consent form (enclosed) to be completed by you and returned to
me.

I would like to meet with you to discuss the details of doing research in the museum as soon as
possible, if you are agreeable to the project. You might like to sign the consent form after this
discussion.

I look forward to meeting you to discuss this application,

Yours sincerely,
Frances Phoenix
3
Frances Phoenix Appendix 1: Human Ethics Protocol

1998 INFORMATION BROCHURE

University of South Australia

Faculty of Art, Architecture and Design
South Australian School of Art

MASTER OF VISUAL ARTS: CREATIVE PROJECT AND THESIS

STUDENT DETAILS
Frances Phoenix

UNIVERSITY CONTACTS
Chair of the Human Research Ethics Committee:
Dr. Brian Cheers
Principal Supervisor : John Barbour
Associate Supervisor : Pam Zeplin

RESEARCH TOPIC
The provisional title of this project is - Raising the Dead: 'Animal Practices' in Twentieth
Century Visual Art
I am a visual artist who has often incorporated dead animals and animal materials in my
sculptural work. This includes bones, skulls, horns, feathers, dried out carcasses, snake skin, etc.
Much of my work seems to be about life and death issues. I am exploring the hypothesis that
artists use dead animals to represent themselves in the exploration of life and death issues. Being
an animal lover and vegetarian I am interested in the broader social and ethical implications of
this kind of work. I am also interested in the technical problems and safety issues associated with
using animal materials.

Apart from producing my own sculptural work, in this Masters project I am also researching the
use of dead animals, animal body matter and museum practices in the sculptural work of other
twentieth century artists exploring death related issues. To date, little has been written about the
collection and use of dead animals in twentieth century visual art, either theoretically or from a
technical point of view, and consequently artists have been inadequately informed. This project
aims to redress this gap by providing some insight into the theories and techniques of collection,
preservation, classification and display of dead animals within museums, the visual arts and
other cultural practices. My own artwork will also explore some of these practices.

OUTCOMES OF THE RESEARCH

This Masters research project will produce
a minor written thesis, and
a series of original artworks
that are theoretically and technically informed by the work of people who work with dead
animals and animal materials and twentieth century artists using dead animals in their sculpture
to explore death related issues.

4
Frances Phoenix Appendix 1: Human Ethics Protocol

1998 RESEARCH CONSENT FORM

University of South Australia

Faculty of Art, Architecture and Design
South Australian School of Art

THE INTERVIEW PROCESS

INTERVIEW SELECTION CRITERIA

Artists and personnel in organizations or businesses who work with dead animals or animal
matter.

GENERAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Why do you collect and work with dead animals? (This question will lead to discussion of the
important practical, intellectual, political, social and/or psychological reasons behind the work of
artists, museum practitioners or business people.)
What techniques do you use to work with dead animals and why do you work this way? ( This
question will lead to a broad discussion of the technical practices and theories behind them.)
Optional question:
What does the use of dead animals in your work tell you, or your audience/clients, about animals
or life and death issues? ( I am assuming that death is an issue and am inviting a broad discussion
or denial of the issues, including ethical issues.).
Optional question for artists:
Do you use dead animals or animal materials to represent yourself in your work?

USE OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Subject to negotiation and consent, photographic images taken could be used for a number of
purposes:
to serve as a visual record of technical practices eg. display, labelling, etc.
to be used in appendices to the written thesis
to be used in public seminars on the research
to inspire artistic creation eg. drawings, sculpture, etc.
In all cases the images will be acknowledged.

ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION AND NEGOTIATION

At a preliminary meeting the interview subjects will be invited to consider the following rights
related to their well-being:-
their right to withdraw from the interview at any stage will be assured
to negotiate a suitable interview place and time
- to negotiate the use of tape recorder or pen & paper
- to negotiate the use of a camera
to negotiate what is photographed
- to check edited material to be used in the final written work
- to check photographs to be used in the written work or appendices
- to make some or all information given anonymous
- to refuse the interviewer the use of the interview material once complete
- to refuse the interviewer the use of the photographic material once complete
- to obtain a copy of the interview
- to obtain copies of the photographs with negotiation about who covers the cost
5
Frances Phoenix Appendix 1: Human Ethics Protocol

- to decide what happens to the tapes and photos after the interviewer's death
- to negotiate the copyright of the interview and photographic data ( whether it will be jointly
owned by the interviewer and the interviewee, or just owned by the interviewer)
- and other issues that may arise.

RESEARCH CONSENT FORM

(name of artist, director, proprietor, etc.)

on behalf of (name of organization, business)

(address)

permit Frances Phoenix, of 11 Oceanview Ave, Maslin Beach. SA 5170 , to..

Conduct research interviews YES NO (please tick)

Take photos YES NO (please tick)

...within this organization / business / practice (circle the applicable word), for her Masters of
Visual Arts at the University of SA., subject to the following conditions, as negotiated (add
separate sheet if necessary):-

Signature Date

6
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

RESEARCH SERVICES Warrendi Road

...helping research happen... The Levels
Telephone: (08) 8302 3956 South Australia
Facsimile: (08) 8302 3997 5095

Ms Frances Phoenix
11 Oceanview Road
Maslin Beach SA 5170

22 September 1998

Dear Frances

The Human Research Ethics Committee considered your protocol P353/98 Raising the Dead: Animal practices in
Twentieth Century Visual Arts at its meeting on 21 September.

It was agreed that the protocol be approved subject to you clarifying whether approval is needed for
photographs to be taken and the information sheet and consent forms being amended to provide more detail
about the study.

Please note that a copy of your protocol has been provided to the Acting Chair of the Biosafety Committee to
ensure that issues relating to your safety are being handled appropriately. This will not however delay the
interview component of your project.

Could you please submit a single copy of the amendments requested to:
Ruth Sims
Ethics Officer
Research Office
Levels Campus phone 8302 3956 fax 8302 3997

You should not begin your research before receiving final approval.

Please note that following the submission of the necessary amendments, Human Research Ethics approval will be
finalised on the following conditions.
Approval is for a period of twelve months only. Requests for extension of approval must be made annually.
However, Masters by Research and PhD students will be granted extensions, if necessary, through the annual
review of progress process.
The Human Research Ethics Committee must approve the content and placement of advertisements for the
recruitment of volunteers.
The committee must be notified of and approve any changes to the original protocol (eg additional procedures,
changes to inclusion or withdrawal criteria, changes in mode and content of advertising, modification of drug
dosages).
A project completion report must be made to the Human Research Ethics Committee within three months of the
project's completion.
In Australia there is a legal obligation for raw data arising from human research to be held securely. The
University requires that research data be retained for a period of seven years. If your data are not stored by your
school, the school must be aware of their location.
The safe and ethical conduct of the study is the responsibility of the investigators.

Consent forms and information sheets should have a header which includes the University of South Australia
and the name of your school. In addition, the information sheets should include the name of the chair of the
Human Research Ethics Committee as a person who is able to discuss the research with participants. These
details should read Dr Brian Cheers, telephone (08) 8302 4811, fax (08) 8302 4377.

Please contact me or Ruth Sims if you have any questions.

Yours sincerely

7
Dr Brian Cheers
Chair, Human Research Ethics Committee

cc J Barbour
Educating Professionals - Applying Knowledge - Serving the Community
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

RESEARCH SERVICES Warrendi Road

...helping research happen ... The Levels
Telephone: (08) 8302 3956 South Australia
Facsimile: (08) 8302 3997 5095

Ms Frances Phoenix
11 Oceanview Avenue
Maslin Beach SA 5170

6 October 1998

Dear Frances

Thank you for submitting the amendments relating to your protocol P353/98 Raising the
dead... at sleep onset as requested by the Human Research Ethics Committee.

I am pleased to be able to tell you that the ethics protocol for your project is now approved. As
you know, HREC approval is made on the basis of a number of conditions detailed in Brian
Cheers' 22 September letter to you.

I hope that your research goes well.

Yours sincerely

Ruth Sims
Executive Officer, HREC

cc J Barbour

Educating Professionals - Applying Knowledge - Serving the Community

 APPENDIX II

ANIMAL ETHICS PROTOCOL

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

RESEARCH OFFICE Warrendi Road

...helping research happen ... The Levels
Telephone: (08) 8302 3956 South Australia
Facsimile: (08) 8302 3997 5095

Ms Frances Phoenix
11 Oceanview Avenue
Maslin Beach SA 5170

16 October 1998

Dear Frances

Brian Cheers mentioned in his letter of 22 September that your ethics protocol had been passed on to
the acting chair of the Biosafety committee to ensure that issues relating to your safety are handled
appropriately.

At the request of the acting chair of the Biosafety committee, Mary Barton of the School of Pharmacy
and Medical Sciences reviewed your protocol and did raise a couple of issues. The first of these is that
you might need a permit from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to collect animals
or animal parts for your work. The other related to your safety, and that of friends and colleagues, in
ensuring that the materials you work with are appropriately handled and disposed of.

Mary suggested that you might wish to contact her to discuss these issues in more detail. Her contact
details are phone (08) 830 22933, fax (08) 830 22389 or email: [email protected].

Yours sincerely

Ruth Sims
Ethics Officer

Cc M Barton
J Barbour

Educating Professionals - Applying Knowledge - Serving the Community

Subject: RE: Animal ethics
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 09:37:29 +1030
From: Mary Barton <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected] <[email protected]>

Dear Francis
Thank you very much for your persistence - I was going to ring Ruth Sims today
to get your address and write to you - I didn't think of e-mail!

I think it would be useful to talk - I am at work but as you have found in and
our of my office. Maybe you could ring me at home - 8271 2874 (after 6.30 pm
or before 7.30 am) - I won't be home tonight or Friday night but will be in
tomorrow night and generally over the weekend.

>From what you say there may be some minor clearances to get - theoretically
you should have a permit to use road kill material.

Perhaps when we make direct contact we could arrange to meet for coffee or
something.

Regards
Mary Barton
School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences
University of South Australia
GPO Box 2471
Adelaide SA 5001
Telephone +61 8 8302 2933
Facsimile +61 8 8302 2389
email <[email protected]>

From: Frances Phoenix[SMTP:[email protected]]

Reply To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 28 October 1998 5:46
To: [email protected]
Subject: Animal ethics

Dear Mary,

As I am still unable to get you on the phone this week, I though I would
email you instead.

Ruth Sims mentioned that I should contact you about issues related to
safety in regards to the handling and disposal of animal materials in my
art work. Perhaps you could give me a few pointers and I could get back
to you about them if I have any questions.

The things I have collected include bones, feathers, mummified animal

bodies, skulls, etc. I also have some road kill and pilchards in the
freezer! Sometimes I collect road kill and bury them, then dig up the
bones later. I am also macerating some bones a friend retrieved from her
dogs!

Believe it or not a lot of artists do this kind of thing. I'm not sure
why its more acceptable for scientists!

Anyway, I look forward to corresponding with you.

Yours sincerely,

Frances Phoenix
From: Frances Phoenix[SMTP:[email protected]]
Reply To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 26 November 1998 18:51
To: Mary Barton
Subject: Dead animals!

Dear Mary,

It was lovely to meet and talk to you recently. I have been sick for a
few weeks, and have finally come back to my email. As I havn't heard
from you since our meeting I thought I had better check whether an email
from you might have got lost, or whether you just havn't had a minute,
due to end of year marking, etc., to find those contact names for me.
One was someone at the Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
I think, and someone in your school who might show me around.

I was also wondering if you would be interested in being interviewed for

my thesis ? I am getting clearer on the essence of my thesis now. I am
looking at notions of abjection and ambivalence in the use of dead
animals... .with particular reference to aspects such as the connection
between art and science, the space between life and death (immortality),
human relationships with animals and dead animals, collecting practices,
etc. If you would like to be, please let me know and I'll send you some
information about it.

Yours sincerely,

Frances Phoenix
Subject: RE: Dead animals!
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 11:14:55 +1030
From: Mary Barton <Mary.Bartongounisa.edu.au>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>

Dear Francis

Sorry to hear that you haven't been well - I hope you're OK now. I did send
you a message - but it must have disappeared somewhere into the ether! It
answers one of your queries - in terms of contacting someone here to show you
around I suggest Lynda Kutek the senior technical officer in my area - her
phone number is 8302 2387.
I would be happy to be interviewed for your project.

Regards

Mary

Previous message:
Dear Frances

It was very interesting meeting with you the other day - I hope I can see some
of your work sometime.

Its probably worth confirming that we agreed that you should do any work
involving dissection of carcasses or disposal of larger bodies at the Reid
Building as we have the appropriate facilities there for dissection, cleaning
up afterwards and disposing of fresh tissues and bodies.

I have contacted the Fauna permit group in the Department of Environment,

Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs.

I'm afraid they got quite snooty and said that you must apply for a permit.
I suggest you write a letter describing what you are doing - point out that its
very small numbers etc. You should address your letter to:
Duty Officer
Fauna Permit Unit
GPO Box 1782
Adelaide SA 5001

I'm sorry about the permit - there shouldn't be any problems - but its more for
you to do!

Regards

Mary Barton
Mary Barton
School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences
University of South Australia
GPO Box 2471
Adelaide SA 5001
Telephone +61 8 8302 2933
Facsimile +61 8 8302 2389
email <[email protected]>

Mary Barton
School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences
University of South Australia
GPO Box 2471
Adelaide SA 5001
Telephone +61 8 8302 2933
Facsimile +61 8 8302 2389
email <[email protected]> 4
Duty Officer
Fauna Permit Unit
GPO Box 1782
Adelaide SA 5001

3 December 1998

Dear Sir/Madam

I am an artist, currently doing my Master of Visual Arts at the University of South

Australia. On the recommendation of the Animal Ethics Committee of the University I am
writing to seek some information, clarification and a permit.

I have always used found natural materials in my sculptural work. I have used feathers,
bones, horns, bird wings, nests, small skeletons, animal skulls, a dried mummified bird,
echidna spines from the disintegrated remains on the side of the road, etc. Some of the
remains are of introduced species and some are not, and others are unknown.

I have only recently been made aware that I may need a permit to collect some of these
materials.

I have found these remains in the bush, on the beach, by the side of the road, and on
private property and around my garden. I am respectful of national parks and of
protected reef areas. I love animals and some of my work refers to the mistreatment of
animals. I would never kill one. I regularly rescue injured animals. My work comes out of
my love for animals.

I would like some information and clarification about what is and is not acceptable to
pick up. I would also like to apply for a permit to collect occasional animal remains from
the side of the road or the bush or beach. I must add that this would involve only a very
small number of items.

Your Sincerely

Frances Phoenix
11 Oceanview Ave
Maslin Beach SA 5170
Department for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs
Heritage and Biodiversity

1 High Street
Kensington SA 5068

GPO Box 1047 Adelaide

Date: 9 December 1998 South Australia 5001
Australia

Telephone (08) 8204 8706

Ms Frances Phoenix Facsimile (08) 82048717

11 Oceanview Avenue http://vmv.denr.sa.gov.au

[email protected]
MASLIN BEACH SA 5170

Dear Ms Frances Phoenix

Thank you for your letter dated 3 December 1998 asking for
information and clarification regarding a permit for your work.

I have enclosed 2 types of permits that you may need. A Rescue

Permit which is required when you rescue injured animals. There is
no charge for this, but you will need to fill out the form and return it to
this office for processing. The other form is an Application to
Undertake Scientific Research which may be required if you collect
any road kills within a Reserve. If you have any enquiries regarding a
Scientific Permit, you can contact Peter Canty on 8204 8776.

You should also be aware that you must obtain the landowners'
permission if you are collecting on private land and you are not able to
sell any items collected without a permit.

For further information on this matter please contact Jennie Rodrigues

on 8204 8706.

Yours sincerely

Jennie Rodrigues
Fauna Licencing Officer

P:JrodriguesVaunapennitslphoenix

6
Government
of South Australia
PlAdminURODRIGUTauna Permits \phoenixdoc 9112/1998 11:14
 .e 5A17o.v.AA-n1
CONDITIONS FOR BOTH ON AND OFF RESERVE PERMITS
DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT. HERITAGE AND ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS PERMIT NO
The permit is issued subject to the following con foris---
Heritage and Biodiversity Division, Biodiversily Branch
Biological Survey and Research Section. Telephone 8204 8688
284 Portrush Road, Kensington, SA 5068
1. The permit does not authorise the collection of specimens from private property without the Tian.
consent of the landowner granted not more than six months beforehand.

4/14 2.
APPLICATION TO UNDERTAKE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH' .

The Ranger-in-Charge of parks listed in the permit shall be notified beforehand of the exact dates
on which research will be undertaken within approved reserves. I. for some reason, dates are (Please print)
changed, the Ranger-in-Charge must be advised accordingly. "P.94 4444.;v, i"e..r v
Surname: 771-to
3. Upon arrival in a reserve manned by a resident Ranger, the permit shall be shown to the Ranger
before research is undertaken.
Indicate Title. Mr 0, Mrs 0, Ms 11( miss 0, Dr 0 Prof 0
4 No animals shall be collected within five kilometres of any reserve, unless the nearest residential
Ranger is advised prior to collection. , A-0-. -4-1,-;-, ,---.4.e.,if 4.---.-. p- 74-441/42,4 ?. Other Names'

No animals shall be collected on Kangaroo Island unless the Ranger stationed at Kingscote is Institution or Organisation (if applicable): l/hilito;714/ ;co:* Ats
advised prior to collection. v'' 7,,,,, ,././....4,..,,,,,,,,, ..4.,A .4,;,,,,,a.r. 291, /
le
Department/Section: _ceA,"/
Sarres collected shall be limited in size and taken where they will cause the least disfigurement
or disturbance. Postal Address (Herne) 1/ e ovie 4ve
The number of specimens of any one species which may be taken is limited to the number _s c%
specified in the permit, or where the number is not stated to the minimum required for the approved
scientific research. F 97
You as the permit holder are responsible for the actions of other persons who may undertake this Telephone: Business: Home: 673 8=2055"
research or collect specimens on your behalf. Fax: Email: { tioehix. e 41141e/elide -

Specimens collected shall not be exported from this State without the consent of the Director, Please identify any scientific research permits you have held in the past 12 months in any other
National Parks and Wildlife. AV A ofif _t e 4.44 trsSe.4-04s itri"'Vr ? Australian State or Territory. Slate type of Permit, Permit No(s).

Specimens or the progeny and carcasses of animals taken under the permit ,may_not be sold or
transferred without the written consent of the Director, National Parks and Wildlife and all such

permit or a time specified by the Director. r

specimens shall be disposed of in the manner specified in this permit at the termination of the

?
c-.11 e44.4
Supervisor's name and signature: (for permit applicants who are students)

R- de,. 27/1/1
/14 11. Upon completion of the research, all equipment shall be removed from the reserve, unless specific
approval to the contrary has been obtained.
Telephone: Business- 3°2 3 9 Home:

Within 14 days of the expiration of the permit, the Director, National Parks and Wildlife must be Far Email:
given a full report (marked 'Attention: Peter Canty'), including all collection data, on the research
carried out under the permit. Numbers and locations of all specimens collected must be supplied,
together with a progress report if the project is not complete. 4v.4,,je I declare that the information on this and attached forms to be true and that I have read and
accept the Conditions of Permit.
If an account of the research is published, or information circulated, a copy of the account or
information shall be lodged with Mr Peter Canty, Biological Survey Research Section,
Biodiversity Branch, within 28 days of its publication or circulation. ?..7-A4

Any permits involving research on vertebrates will require the approval of an official Animal
Experimentation Ethics Committee as a condition of this permit. %/' Signature of Applicant Date

17,s t
 DETAILS OF RESEARCH

Title of Project: ni Ow
<,--7 Aye ,ts "S") t. 1)
/III
1417.1).

Detailed Description of Project (attach extra sheet if necessary):

......... .
4-4471-A4 . ......
.

/0-7--..-r-IK`cz- 4-r-p,
,,,11.,"e_ X .71_ 4;«-&-71,7--C fr7175.2-e-1;1`eve .... 4"4-4-- V --4--,g-vr(
... j'a-1'.2`4-1X
e ......... s
.......
4-240/

If the research is being carried out in a reserve, please juxtity ZT a. not Coilectiffe-idani,n4/ fn.:tee-7;4 /(5* .74D/7, feS.0..71(e'5 ct/7-17110.''d 4"7"117. C)&171- 6'/

Please give aspects of your research which justify this application, having regard to:

the benefit which will accrue from your research:

the publications which will result from your research: 1-77,01-19.-ArArI fly '1,417 11/71-0-2,"" 47/01144'..44.9.°A-r. Adi "/"4",, 4141' 6..'-'77741t-47/744-?re' -
other ways in which you will disseminate information obtained: Slide. ..GA anis' e 701 'an ktitieS;
Please list the names and addresses below of any others who will be collaborating in this project (particularly anyone likely to be carrying out fieldwork independently)
- or attach list:

Please list below details of specimens you wish to collect (or attach list)

Specimen .
Number Size lilleelvetLocation of Property
Al r-q-i.,44 f b ,-rof 1 i ,',141 4-.
.....reAll, erl-
5/4.-/,,,,?5 /
Akv..., 45?..,..-..- v-4-rvayg ke.,7 44 es-
ri(
.......7)r,('1'a vf A'11rtt6,0-r"' --, 4.7-ro b vih ote.ce e t
5."--,// 64 re-ei i C 5. 1, ...... /at .............. $ 4.14;SA
a e ei f ,SC't 1 "4
(**-r,t4 /-re-fir r- A el' ,?-rr ;,r. 44- 174 1-,7 )0 ocl 4 . h c/(7/7'07, rip in 3e,c) ...e.a.hel.'r ei-, Kr "Pra/nee-hef
'
.

C.i?«4.,s /07,4, Ill LI 1.-.47. ..ti,

rW-Ii IA YL113.1V:175
Disposition ie. the ultimate fate of the specimen eg. released, state museum, etc. 7-6,- st141-~. osda{ty itamaio in 47 e0/4.4)11,70, (-v-' gre 1;,7 ,kt," el-,4541v.",* 2-
. -Aee, .7" h-91,t bag -rite.rn /%7 .4.1,0-rC 74ovro( itA0/4 grAm-rk
When do you wish to collect the specimens or carry out the research?. MAyleis V3 /4 .4,6 Lr'/1/0.e ce-74-64-al 00
kerrir ..-017/ a7,ve 7 iZe 4;4-
What is the total anticipated duration of your 41444 00 r1"17-0-Fri
74, f/).
research?:

do Adt 4.7,15-v-prvf 7,4r.e."-vr.4 74 .102a e/'

rs
4.1

(Note that permits are valid for a maximum of 12 months, renewals being granted on receipt of an interim report)

1271 1-A4-7Ae f
Jennie Rodrigues
Fauna Licencing Officer
Department for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs
Heritage and Biodiversity
GPO Box 1047
Adelaide SA 5001

6 Jan 1999

Dear Jennie

Thank you for your letter of Dec 9 which included 2 permits I might need for my work.

With regard to the 'Application for a Protected Animals Rescue Permit', I am wondering if
it is necessary to complete one of these forms if I don't actually look after the animal I
rescue myself? I always take them immediately to my local native animal care people,
whom, I would presume, complete the permit themselves.

Your Sincerely

Frances Phoenix
11 Oceanview Ave
Maslin Beach SA 5170
Department for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs
National Parks and Wildlife SA

Pastoral Board
270 The Parade
Kensington
South Australia 5068
11 January 1999
4. GPO Box 1047 Adelaide
South Australia 5001
Australia
Ms Frances Phoenix
11 Oceanview Avenue Freecall 1800 678 447
Telephone (08) 8204 8888
MASLIN BEACH SA 5270 Facsimile (08) 8204 8859
http://www.dehaa.sa.gov.au

Dear Ms Phoenix

Thank you for your letter dated 6 January 1999 regarding Rescue
Permits.

It is not necessary for you to have a Rescue Permit if you are not
actually looking after or keeping the animal, but handing it on to your
local native animal care people.

Yours sincerely

Jennie Rodrigues
Fauna Licensing Officer

10
Government
of South Australia
PAAdminURODRIGUhvorthphoenix.doe 11/01/1999 15:02
Department for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs
Biodiversity
14 Jan, 99

Ms Frances Phoenix
11 Oceanview Ave
MASLIN BEACH SA 5170 284 Portrush Road
Kensington
South Australia 5068
Dear Frances,
GPO Box 1047 Adelaide

Thank you for your application to collect skeletal and other animal material South Australia 5001
Australia
for artistic purposes.
Contact: Peter Canty
Having read your requirements I do not feel that a scientific permit is Telephone: (08) 8204 8776
Facsimile: (08) 8204 8889
appropriate for you (from all your annotations on the permit form, you Email: pcanty©dehaa.sa.gov.au
obviously felt the same way).

I have spoken to our law enforcement staff about your requirements and was
provided with an information sheet on the legalities of collecting animal remains
(copy enclosed). In summary, you will not need a permit to collect material but will
need to provide feedback on what you have collected.

If you wish to sell an artwork incorporating parts of a protected species however,

then a permit will be required. If the artwork is to go overseas, then an export
approval will also be required from Environment Australia, a federal government
department in Canberra (contact details also provided on enclosed leaflet).

If you have any queries or problems, please contact the Senior Wildlife Officer,
Fauna Permit Unit as per the address on the information leaflet.

Yours sincerely

Peter Canty
Scientific Permit Officer
Biological Survey and Research

11
Government
of South Australia
 COLLECTION OF DEAD NATIVE ANIMALS

A permit is not required to collect the carcass of a dead protected animal (mammal,
bird, or reptile) or the parts of a dead animal.

The parts of an animal include the flesh or internal organs of an animal, the feathers,
wool, hair, skin or hide or an animal, or the bones, horns or hooves of an animal.
This does not include the eggs of a protected animal.

Collection of dead animals on private land requires the permission of the landowner.

Permission to collect dead animals from NP&W (SA) reserves is not normally given.

If an animal's death appears to be suspicious (e.g. if there is any evidence to

suggest that the animal has been shot) the carcass should be left alone and the
matter reported to the Resource Protection Section, National Parks and Wildlife (SA)
on telephone (08) 8204 8777.

National Parks and Wildlife (SA) must be notified in writing when a carcass or parts
of an animal have been collected. Please include:

Your full name and usual place of residence

The species of animal collected
The exact location of the specimen
The date that the specimen was collected
The reason why you have collected the carcass or parts of the carcass.

Write to the following address -

Senior Wildlife Officer

Fauna Permit Unit
National Parks and Wildlife (SA)
GPO Box 1047
ADELAIDE SA 5001
or fax to (08) 8204 8717

The Senior Wildlife Officer of the Fauna Permit Unit will issue a letter to the applicant
authorising possession.

The sale of a carcass (or parts of a protected animal) requires a permit under
Section 58(3) of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972. This includes specimens
that have been taxidermed or mounted.

12
The carcasses or parts of dead kangaroos which have been collected can not be
placed into the commercial kangaroo management program, and meat or product
gained from Kangaroos found dead may not be sold

The holder of a Keep and Sell Permit must record the death of any animal held on
permit in their Protected Animal Record Book. If the carcass of the animal is to be
retained then this should be noted in the remarks column of the record book.

Overseas export of carcass or parts of a native animal requires the approval of

Environment Australia. Enquiries can be directed to:

Wildlife Protection.
Environment Australia
GPO Box 636
CANBERRA ACT 2601
Phone (02) 6250 0300 Fax (02) 6250 0303

Disclaimer
This guideline is intended as a guide only and cannot be regarded as a precise statement of law. For
more detailed information, contact the relevant office of the Department for Environment, Heritage and
Aboriginal Affairs. Copies of the legislation, in which the full legal requirements for protected animals
are given, may be obtained from the State Information Centre. No responsibility is accepted by the
Department for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs for the accuracy of information contained
in this document.

13
 THE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL AND VETERINARY SCLENCE

ANIMAL ETHICS COMMITTEE

GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF ANIMALS IN RESEARCH

Dec '94

General
The use of animals for teaching research or experimentation is regulated by the South Australian
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1985 (hereafter referred to as the Act). The IMVS is the holder
of a Licence to undertake these activities pursuant to the Act. It is a condition of the Licence that all
such activities be carried out in conformity with the provisions of the "Australian Code of Practice for
the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes" (hereafter referred to as the Code of Practice)
issued by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation and Australian Agriculture Council, the most recent edition of
which was released in 1990.

Copies of the Code of Practice are held in all Divisions involved in the use of animals for scientific
purposes, and are available from the Basement Animal House or from the Secretary of the AEC

Animal Ethics Committee

2.1 It is a requirement of the Council of the Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science, the Act,
and the Code of Practice, that the Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science have an
Animal Ethics Committee (hereafter referred to as AEC). Membership of the Committee is
recommended by the Council and members of the Committee are formally appointed by the
Minister of Environment and Land Management.

2.2 The AEC is required to ensure that all use of animals in the Institute is in conformity with
the Act and Code of Practice. This includes

monitoring th acquisition ansport, production, housing, care, use a

animals.

(ii) recommending to Council any measures needed to ensure that the Act and the Code
of Practice are complied with.

Page 1 of 6
14 I MVS 700/A
 (in) examining and approving, approving subject to modification, or rejecting written
proposals relevant to the use of animals in experiments and approving only those
experiments for which animals are essential and which conform to the requirements
of the Act and the Code of Practice, taking into consideration ethical and welfare
aspects as well as scientific or educational value.

withdrawal of approval for any project or authorisation of treatment or humane

killing of any animal;

examining and commenting on all Institute plans and policies which may affect
animal welfare;

maintaining a register of approved proposals; and

performing all other duties required of it by the Act and the Code of Practice

3. Applications for Approval of Use of Animals for Teaching. Research or Experimentation

3.1 All experimentation on or holding of animals by Institute personnel must be approved by the
AEC before any experimental work is done using animals whether for teaching or for
experimentation purposes. In this context, experimentation and holding includes:

the use of involvement of animals in research projects or experiments, irrespective

of the source of funding;

the use of animals in undergraduate laboratory classes;

holding, breeding or any other keeping of animals for Institute purposes;

fieldwork, including capture and release after marking.

3.2 Applications for approval of research projects must be made on the prescribed form,
following closely the instructions attached to the form and answering all questions fully.
Applications for teaching must be made on that form and a memorandum clearly setting out
the educational objectives should be attached. Application forms are available from I.M.V.S.
Animal Research Facilities or from the Secretary of the Animal Ethics Committee.

Page 2 of 6
15 I MVS 700/A
 3.3 The completed application form should be lodged with:

Ms Carol Hewitt, Secretary, Animal Ethics Committee, Gilles Plains Field Station, Institute
of Medical and Veterinary Science (Ph: 261 1033, Fax: 261 2280)

To allow sufficient time for AEC members to have applications sent to them prior to
meetings it is important that applications be lodged two full weeks before the dates of
AEC meetings. Failure to do this will result in the application being held over until a
later meeting.

3.4 The AEC meets at about two monthly intervals. As projects may only be approved at
meetings of the AEC it is important for applicants to plan their activities well ahead. The
AEC may invite applicants to attend meetings to discuss aspects of their proposals

3.5 In cases where staff of the Institute wish to undertake activities involving animals on the
premises of another organisation, ethical approval will be required from the IMVS AEC and
the AEC of the host organisation.

Similarly, people from other organisations wishing to use animals for scientific purposes on
premises of the IMVS will require ethical approval from their parent organisation and also
from the IMVS. In these cases application should be made on the application form of the
host organisation to the AEC of that organisation. A copy of the application should be sent
to the AEC of the parent organisation at the same time to avoid delays in approval.

3.6 Applicants will be advised of the outcome of their applications in writing.

Work may not commence until approval is received.

3.7 Investigators are required to furnish annual reports on the progress of approved projects
The AEC Secretariat will forward Report Forms to Investigators 6 weeks before Reports are
due.

Variation to Approved Projects

If after approval has been given there is any change in the protocol of the project, the approval of the
Animal Ethics Committee is required. If this is not obtained the previous approval is invalidated.

Page 3 of 6
16 IMVS 700/A
 General Principles for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes

The following has been adapted from Section 1 of the Code of Practice.

5.1 Experiments on animals may be performed only when they are essential to obtain and
establish significant information relevant to the understanding of humans or animals, to the
maintenance and improvement of human or animal health and welfare, to the improvement
of animal management or production, or to the achievement of educational objectives

5.2 People who use animals for scientific purposes have an obligation to treat the animals with
respect and to consider their welfare as an essential factor when planning and conducting
experiments.

5.3 Investigators have,direct and ultimate responsibility for all matters relating to the welfare of
the animals they use in experiments.

5.4 Techniques which replace or complement animal experiments must be used wherever
possible.

5.5 Experiments using animals may be performed only after a decision has been made that they
are justified, weighing the scientific or educational value of the experiment against the
potential effects on the welfare of the animals.

5.6 Animals chosen must be of an appropriate species with suitable biological characteristics,
including behavioural characteristics, genetic constitution and nutritional, microbiological
and general health status.

5.7 Animals must not be taken from their natural habitats if animals bred in captivity are
available and suitable.

5.8 Experiments must be scientifically valid, and must use no more that the minimum number of
animals needed.

5.9 Experiments must use the best available scientific techniques and must be carried out only by
persons competent in the procedures they perform.

5.10 Experiments must not be repeated unnecessarily.

5.11 Experiments must be as brief as possible.

5.12 Experiments must be designed to avoid pain or distress to animals. If this is not possible,
pain or distress must be minimised.

5.13 Pain and distress cannot be evaluated easily in animals and therefore investigators must
assume that animals experience pain in a manner similar to humans. Decisions regarding
the animals' welfare must be based on this assumption unless there is evidence to the
contrary.

5.14 Experiments which may cause pain or distress of a kind and degree for which anaesthesia
would normally be used in medical or veterinary practice must be. carried out using
anaesthesia appropriate to the species and the procedure. When it is not possible to use
anaesthesia, such as in certain toxicological or animal production experiments or in animal
models of disease, the end-point of the experiments must be as early as possible to avoid or
minimise pain or distress to the animals.

Page 4 of 6
17 IMVS 700/A
5.15 Investigators must avoid using death as an experimental end-point whenever possible.

5.16 Analgesic and tranquilliser usage must be appropriate for the species and should at least
parallel usage in medical or veterinary practice.

5.17 An animal which develops signs of pain or distress of a kind and degree not predicted in the
proposal, must have the pain or distress alleviated promptly. If severe pain cannot be
alleviated without delay, the animal must be killed humanely forthwith Alleviation of such
pain or distress must take precedence over finishing an experiment.

5.18 Neuromuscular blocking agents must not be used without appropriate general anaesthesia,
except in animals where sensory awareness has been eliminated. If such agents are used,
continuous or frequent intermittent monitoring of paralysed animals is essential to ensure
that the depth of anaesthesia is adequate to prevent pain or distress.

5.19 Animals must be transported, housed, fed, watered, handled and used under conditions
which are appropriate to the species and which ensure a high standard of care.

5.20 The care and use of animals for all scientific purpose in Australia must be in accord with
these principles and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1985.

5.21 Violations of these principles must be reported immediately to the Head of Department and
referred to the Chairperson AEC.

5.22 The Chairperson AEC may at any time at his own discretion inspect any laboratory used for
animal experimentation or teaching and any area used for holding animals to be used for
research and/or teaching.

5.23 A copy of the General Principles for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes set
out in Section 1of the Code of Practice is to be prominently displayed in appropriate
Divisions and 1MVS/RAH animal facilities.

Responsibilities of Teachers

The following are the rules set down in Section 5 of the Code of Practice.

6.1 When animals are being used to achieve educational objectives the person in charge of the
class must:

(I) accept ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the care and use of the animals is in
accord with all relevant provision of the Code of Practice and the Act;

have relevant training and qualifications:

consider whether alternative teaching methods can be used;

obtain prior AEC approval for use of all animals for the entire course:

instruct students appropriately in the care and use of animals before those students
participate in experiments with live animals;

ensure that there is close, competent supervision of all students;

Page 5 of 6
18 I MVS 700/A
 allow students to anaesthetise animals or carry out surgery only if it is essential for
their training; and

be responsible for the humanc killing of the animals, if required.

6.2 Persons supervising students who are training in research must ensure that the students arc
appropriately instructed prior to using animals, and must be responsible for the welfare of
animals used by students.

6.3 Copies of these. rules are to be prominently displayed in appropriate Divisions.

Communication with the Public

Any communications from members of the public on animal ethics or welfare matters must be
referred in the first instance to the Chairperson of the AEC who is the Institute's authorised
spokesperson on such issues.

Further Information and Reading

8.1 The Animal Ethics Committee encourages all staff involved in the use of animals for
research and teaching to broaden their appreciation of the issues involved.

8.2 The bibliography of the Code of Practice lists almost 300 sources of further information and
reading relevant to the use of animals in experiments and related issues. Publications listed
include recommended introductory reading, and textbooks, and periodicals dealing with
areas such as ethics and animal experimentation, animal ethics committees, alternatives to
use of animals, planning of experiments, conduct of experiments, recognition prevention and
relief of pain and distress, humane killing of animals, care and maintenance of animals,
laboratory safety and training in various aspects of animal handling and use.

Page 6 of 6
I MVS 700/A
19
 APPENDIX III

JANE ALEXANDER
 The horrific thing about being a part of placing The Butcher Boys and other
JANE a sick society is that there is no escape pieces in settings taken from postcards
ALEXANDER from the disease. Everyone is affected. and images in the media. Atmospheric
Coming into the eerie presence of grainy, in black and white, the disturb-
Jane Alexander's compelling life-size ing montages evoke memories of news
sculptures, this truth becomes immedi- photos taken subversively and in diffi-
ately apparent. The experience is not so cult circumstances; conversely, since
much one of looking at art, as of being we know these images have been ma-
suddenly confronted with ghoulish as- nipulated, they raise questions about
pects of one's own life. the validity of photographed documen-
These powerful figures seem more tation.
real than people on the street outside, Through her work, Alexander seeks
in spite of the fact that in some places to identify the manner in which
the flesh is repulsively crawling away violence, aggression, cruelty and suf-
from the bone, the skin is strangely fering are conveyed through and con-
blemished and horns are growing from tained by the human figure. The alter
the head. ego of aggression is vulnerability. Those

UNTITLED 1985-6
PLASTER. BONE.
OIL PAINT,
WOODEN CHAIR,
RUBBER STRAP
LIFE SIZE

Part of the reason I make things real- who are secure and unthreatened do
istic is I don't really want to have to ex- not need to bully, but when an entire
plain my work,' says Alexander. 'What society is insecure, all its members be-
I wish to communicate is done so most come both aggressors and victims.
readily, I think, through this type of Alexander is still a very young artist,
realism. People can make their own in- the work shown here being part of the
terpretation, and if it's different to my submission for her Master of Arts de-
idea it doesn't matter.' gree. The subject of her dissertation is
The figures seemed to gain a docu- 'Aspects of Violence and Disquietude in
mented reality through a series of Twentieth Century Three-Dimensional
photo-montages Alexander made, Human Figuration', in which Alexan-

1
 not been that sort of subject? Violence for instance.'
der comments on the work of sculptors
imposes itself easily. The public is Domestic Angel, a small, bound
like Mark Prent and Edward Kienholz, winged figure suspended by its heels,
artists who have had some influence on drawn to violence. It intensifies reality,
disrupts mundane daily existence and was made in 1984. 'It was really just a
her own work. maquette. I had been working on some
In 1982, an untitled piece of two perhaps creates a sense of worth.
Peopleare fascinated by car accidents, large winged figures, and I suppose the
skeletal figures hanging from a wooden

THE BUTCHER BOYS 1965-6

BY THE END OF THE DAY YOU'RE
PLASTER, PAINT. BONE. HORNS,
GOING TO NEED US 1985
WOODEN BENCH LIFE SIZE
PHOTO COLLAGE
29 x 20 CM title of this one refers to domestic work-
ers, or something one might have in
frame, carcasses with animal skulls and 41/
the home.. . . '
human bodies elongated as if emaci-
At this time, Alexander also did a
ated by famine or stretched by the tor-
series of gross crawling figures, some-
ture rack, won first prize on the Nation-
times with missing limbs. One of them
al Fine Arts Student Exhibition. 'I
was Dog. 'I discovered that the more
wondered, would I have won it if it had
horrific my work, the more readily Alexander works with building Leaving university in 1987, Alex-
people looked at it. I began to wonder if plaster, which has the great ander could not find a job in Johan-
people would respond to more re- advantage of being able to be nesburg, or support herself from hei
strained images. For me, the work that moulded. 'I can smash a part work, so she took a post teaching
followed was far more difficult The I don't like and rework it. English in a school in remote Reho-
Butcher Boys were a radical departure 'If I'm going to do a piece, I both, Namibia. Rehoboth is the home
from those earlier pieces these new choose people of physical ap- of the so-called Easters people who
ones were living figures. Despite the propriateness, then I cast are a mixture of Khoi and the early
exposed bones and so on, I was at- them, cut up the casts and Dutch and English settlers. 'The people
tempting to reveal aspects of violence rework those. I make the were tremendously kind and polite.
through passive forms.' basic structure of wire The highlight of the year is the Reho-
A 1985 (untitled) figure of a man and bandage, and build both Show. The level of creativity did
seated with his head between the knees up the plaster over that. I not seem to extend beyond crocheted
on a slab, the flesh at the back of his have a basic skull shape tea-cups, springbok skin handbags and
head split to the bone, was seen by that I cast. Hands, feet, clothes-peg houses.'
many to be a comment on death in de- faces and heads are not With no facilities available, the only
tention, but in fact was based on the cast but modelled.' Work- work Alexander was able to make
rather strange death of a man who ing fairly consistently.
Ariks:eL
worked in the building where Alexan- Alexander takes about
der lived at the time His body was said three months to make
- -
to have been found in the furnace of two life-size 4505-, `'`
41-
the boiler of the building, although as a figures. 4.
--;Tf.21
cnpple it would have been impossible
fV".
foi him to climb up there 4-r

'I have not compromised my work

Much as I might like to make a power-
ful statement about detention, I don't
know any detainees I don't want to try
to pretend a suffenng I haven't had
some contact with, or undergone my-
self My work is from my own expen-
ence.'
DOG 1984-5
PLASTER HAIR BONE CREOSOTE, OIL PAINT
HT 62 CM

A DOMESTIC ANGEL 1984

SYNTHETIC CLAY WINGS OIL PAIN.]
HT 34 CM
during this period were some small
maquettes in clay one of a hoofed
human figure, head draped, ankles
bound together, balancing on two
sticks
Commenting on socio-political art
she says, 'What is the point of doing
burning tyres? Isn't that just the artist
saying, "I am aware of this" Why are
we not rather looking at the whole
environment?'
 ....
, r :7,.

1) i
? 1

If4

tr,
;

4'-
44

UNTITLED 1982 WAX, PAINT, BONE, PLASTER OF PARIS, WOOD, STEEL

HT: 225 CM UNIVERSITY OF THE WITWATERSRAND
4
 APPENDIX IV

'LIFE VERSUS DEATH, TUNNEL VISION AND THE LIFE CYCLE

yr Clio 're m t/S mop 6" 4 1-0/4//V EL. ve/op/ W got/5 ''0éL

41/4

iig I
_____ Via vs ____
r
p f,11-1 I
.1
7"-
e.--
-1,
3 pf
-sr c ,.---
0
-,Viv

13//t7-14

11°

6
-66 t2'.G
v
fr 4cs
ov6,- 05 ris

SQ

IS\