The Pink Lady

I would like to introduce you to an incident that took place in Los Angeles, which will be 'celebrating' its fiftieth anniversary this October. I stumbled on it a couple of years ago while browsing Snopes, a website dedicated to discovering the truth behind urban legends (this one is marked 'true').

I am talking about the 'Pink Lady', a huge image of a naked woman made of housepaint that suddenly appeared overnight on a rock wall overlooking a highway in the Santa Monica mountains in 1966. It caused quite a stir, with officials foreseeing potential traffic jams and accidents because of distracted drivers, causing them to scramble trying to remove the image.

Image from www.snopes.com

I find this interesting because the reactions to it from both the artist and the general public reveal a lot about views on art, the female body, and public decency, among others. There's no point in me reciting the entire article, you can read it yourself here: 

http://www.snopes.com/autos/hazards/pinklady.asp

What I would like to point out are a couple of aspects that could be interesting for discussion.

First of all, the artist, Lynne Seemayer Westmore, who revealed her identity when officials began efforts to remove the Pink Lady. Her claim was that she painted the Pink Lady as a protest against the graffiti that was endemic to the area around the highway. She simply wanted to paint a nice piece of art to brighten up the road a bit.

Second, the reactions to the art that she experienced. According to the article, she apparently got some positive reactions, but also a lot of pictures of men masturbating, accusations from women that she was responsible for rape by sparking male lust, and even death threats, among other sometimes bizarre and disturbing requests and comments. In light of these, the haste with which officials acted to censor the image is probably the least surprising reaction.

I have a strong suspicion that the comments would not have been quite so outlandish if she had painted a still-life or a clothed model instead. The many sexual reactions to the Pink Lady show an equation of the bare female body with sexuality and fetishism, while the above rape comment shows a variety of the kind of argument that has been used to justify rape: it's not the rapist's fault, it's the woman's (body's) fault for seducing him, or rather, being seductive. Comments like these, given by not only men but also women, shows how deeply misogyny can become ingrained in a shared consciousness.

But it's not just the public's response that conjures up questions about the way sexuality is constructed. The intent and expectations of the artist also make one think about so called 'images of women'. Was the artist perhaps naive to believe that her painting would work as she intended? To what extent is it really possible to depict a naked woman in public without her becoming sexualised? While the artist apparently did not intend to make any kind of political statement, there is no doubt that she attempted to claim a certain (let's call it non-sexual) interpretation of the female body. However, looking at the results, there is also no doubt that many people did not grant her this interpretation. All of this corroborates a point that Pollock touches on in her article, which is that women are signified (in western society at least) as body and sexual. In this case, it shows the difficulty inherent in attempts to reappropriate the female body in art. I believe the 'death of the author' is relevant here, in the sense that ultimately, the recipient of art plays a key role in deciding its meaning.

I would like you to consider the questions I have raised here. What causes a work of art to be interpreted in certain ways? To what extent do artists need to consider the message that others might see in their work? Last, but not least: to what extent is it possible to present an unsexualised female body, in a context steeped in associations of the female body with sexuality, seduction, and rape? I do not mean to debate the rights and wrongs of this artist's work, or works of art aimed at stirring up controversy. However, although this artist clearly did not intend to make a statement on sexuality, she ended up doing so anyway, biting off more than she could chew in the long run.