It was an unexpected gesture and decision to go to Usina del Arte. I got one brazilian friend visiting this magistic city, so today we decided to go to la Boca for him to get know around. Enduring the difficulties of waking up in the morning for having drunk good whiskey the night before under the stars and white smoke flying toward them. La Boca, as usual, was crowded and ready to rip off foreigners’ wallet by pricing high or double. I was a Captain America’s shield for him, protecting all absurd price tags and revealing the true worth of the places and materials. Sun was high, which later I realized that I got tanned so hard when I saw myself in the screen on Facetime talking to one of my brothers in LA. People gathered attracted to the smell of argentine barbecue spreading to their empty stomach, and to their empty mind. La Boca invited us like that, as a meat grilling smell on the street, as a cheap street art exhibition, as a tango music for tips into the hats, as a colourfully decorated wall. Walking away from Caminito, some olds told us not to walk that direction, for it could be dangerous for us foreigners to walk alone this zone, so we made a huge detour to get in to Usina del Arte.
It was unexpectedly open, and there was David Lachapelle waiting us.
We walked to the halls, meeting up his photographies at every corner. His art interpretated old painting from Renaissance and Medieval era, substituting original characters to naked modern models. Original lessons of salvation, vanity, sexuality and touch of glorious God, have converted into mere challenge of all those. Even, the theme of sexuality emerged up on their surfaces. Changing roles of masculinity and femenity also makes those works controversy. I will not explain here commenting every workpiece and how it is perceived controversy. I am not such critics so that work remains to those whom it belongs. What I can argue here, if it can be an even argument, is that again to confirm, art is about bringing controversy so that people who see it are to be ashamed, realized and moved. To meet its purpose, Lachapelle incorporated with some celebrities on his time, Michael Jackson for example, to remove the acceptance distance between the art and its audience. Those models on his photography role God, Evil, Men and Women, mocking the opposite components.
Mocking the original lessons and breaking the orthodox way of thinking and its reproduction on human mind in modern era is the very purpose what museum should work on. There were some painting of flowers, fruits (normally opened up) and insects. The original lessons of these painting in medieval era were that everything will be rotten; things change and age to end. But here today, those insects, fruits and flowers were not natural but plastic, mocking the original lessons, saying; you know what? Yes we remain unchanged forever. Not everything goes aging and dying. Some live forever.
Most of his works related to role of sexuality, or sexual act itself. There was a house where all different sexual acts take place: heterosexual intercourse, masturbation watching a porn of anal intercourse, virginity praying to superior being, homosexual orgy which described as such carnival, and weirdly a guy at the garage releasing pigeons away. If those art were just to describe a reflection of current way of thought, it is also important to be an historical record of these remarks, these social constructions of mind.
Then I was walking around the halls to meet new controversies, impressed by people’s attention on those works. There was a video of a women running naked on a highway where a car was following her behind making its scene impressively observable. A young lad with red facial hair stood right in front of the screen watching her running. He was deeply into that running lady, maybe because of her skin all painted in pink, or because of her nudity with her breast standing peak like two volcanic mountains that were just about to burst. What would the guy in the car be thinking following her slowly right behind? Was she running from her predator? But she seemed quite enjoying it and joyful. Is this contradiction where the controversy comes from? Is that why the red hair guy was stood up, maybe risen up, watching the naked lady because of him wanting to be a predator but her wanting it?
I posted the title of this post as about an unorthodox sexuality. But what should be the disparity between orthodox and unorthodox sexuality? The ginger guy would be considered as an orthodox sexuality? The fact that he might be risen up by watching a naked lady running makes him more orthodox than other homosexuals? But his inner violence that her wanting him as a predator would be related to unorthodox sexual domination such as masochismo? Or sexual domination of masculinity is the orthodox one? Then masculine actor in homosexuality would be considered as an orthodox one? These debates may seem useless, yes as it is basically, but this society clings to generate those debates day by day. There might be no orthodox sexuality, and this may be the lesson of David Lachapelle. Such categorization is to be broken, as he tried from the beginning. It should remain in controversy without answers, as its own purpose of art declares to.
And media-officially, I was tagged as a cute guy at museum today. Making another controversy in front of reinterpreted the last supper, acting meditation of which practice comes from hinduism and Buddhism. Today was long but short, as these controversies are short actions but last long their memories and impacts.
At least to some people.