Sarah Lucas: Au Naturel is an exhibit that features the artist Sarah Lucas, a British feminist artist. Sarah is known for creating her art through found objects and everyday materials such as food, cigarettes, stockings, and more. Using these items, Sarah often displays human bodies or a form that is similar to human bodies that are often displayed as erotic, humorous, fragmented, or reconfigured.
Sarah Lucas’s goal is alluded in her exhibit’s name, “Au Naturel”, which is normally referring to “paintings of female nude figures”, or when translated into French means “in a natural state” or “in the nude”. This reference to natural usually means not man-made, and considering Sarah’s typical type of art style, the exhibit is meant to showcase how humans are as it is, naturally, full-fleshed, no clothes, exposed, and most importantly without the man-made social structures. By showcasing humans of either gender so bare and upfront, she addresses the tension between the familiar and the absurd (perhaps the reason why so many people felt uncomfortable), sexual ambiguity, debates about gender, power, and legacy of surrealism, and much more.
Throughout the museum you can see that there are a lot of pieces that look quite similar to each other and seem to be sectioned off by a huge wall as if to give multiple examples to support her point in an argument. To specify, there would be many pictures of the Sarah Lucas, herself, taken by the significant other in time. This is unique as most times, art is usually made or taken by the artist themselves, rather than the artist being in the portrait. In these pictures, what makes it more unique is that there seems to be a specific theme, Sarah is usually sitting with her legs wide open, with cigarettes nearby if not in hands, wearing jeans and a jacket, and seeming to just not give a ____ and confident. Normally, femininity is achieved by doing the complete opposite of what Sarah is doing, so by purposely doing the opposite, she throws that type of standards that are put on and used against women who are not conforming to society’s desires out the window. She boldly puts out what the intention of her art is about.
Another innovative idea was a room full of different colored stuffed leg stockings on top of chairs doing all sorts of motions. In the room, there was a total of 8, one on a billiard table, similar-looking deformed figures that resembled legs. These figures were to resemble bunnies slouching on their chairs, with stockings that were stretched thin on the chairs backs and as well as limbs limply straddling the seat cushions. The names of these bunny artworks are called, “Bunny Gets Snookered #1/#2/#3…” The names and placement of these pieces is crucial as in billiards the phrase “to be snookered” depicts a show that blocks the opponent’s subsequent shot; as well as a slang term for sexual intercourse, inebriation, or being fooled. I would also like to mention how the playboy magazine is of what animal? A bunny, yes. And what did the playboy magazine usually display? Women. In a sense, Sarah could be alluding to the sexualization of women and how they are viewed, simply as people that get f___.
This room in particular is super important as it plays a big role in understanding a lot of sections in the rest of the exhibit. For example, it emphasizes the importance of the enlarged prints of real newspaper covers which display naked woman like normal. The newspaper clippings give an example of how natural it is for women to be openly exposed and viewed as sexual objects. The bunny section also alludes to how men should be faced with same exposure, as shown with the plentiful figures and statues of the male genital.
Overall, the museum experience was quite conflicting. To elaborate, I didn’t really feel uncomfortable seeing all the figures (except for this one thing which bothered me more for another reason than typical, I will include below and you may scroll down if you wish to see) she openly displays, instead during the entire visit, I felt thoroughly confused. The objects didn’t allude anything sexual about it despite implying something sexual, rather it felt like the exhibit was telling too much at once and just seeing the same style in too many different ways. However, after a week of just letting what I saw sink it, I’m starting to understand Sarah Lucas’s message a lot more than when I visited. This makes me wish I had taken more pictures rather than the text explaining, as well as perhaps going back for another visit, and maybe a guided tour to clarify my understanding even more. I highly recommend this museum, and I will be honest it might suck in the beginning, but once you start to understand it more and more, it will be quite an eye-opening experience.
I had a similar experience when I first saw the exhibit, I was shocked, confused, and mostly disturbed by some of the artwork. But after considering Lucas’s work over the week, I began to appreciate it better. For example, I began to see some of the connections the exhibit was making in the specific way they arranged the artwork. I also began to see the artwork as not just bluntly sexual but clever and thought provoking.