Art Wank

Painting penis

All you Gauguin enthusiasts will know that he often signed his works ‘P GO’. Sometime last year, when we were throwing around ideas about merchandising during the exhibition, someone came up with the lovely idea of commissioning a children’s book, featuring Gauguin’s animals, birds and etc, with the title ‘P GO’.

No doubt it conjured up images of cute little penguins or the like (‘Pingu’ anyone?) Until, that is, it was pointed out that the ‘name’ probably derived from nautical slang for penis.

• Christine Riding, ‘Everybody loves a sailor’, Tate Blog, 20 August 2010, <http://blog.tate.org.uk/?p=1360>

King Tut: Egyptian Ladyboy?

I smelled a conspiracy. Could ancient Egyptian embalmers have replaced the royal member to hide the fact that their king’s manhood was somewhat lacking? What’s more, the front of Tut’s chest is missing, so it’s impossible to check whether he did indeed have breasts.

• Jo Marchant, ‘On the trail of Tutankhamen’s penis’, New Scientist, 25 June 2010, < http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/06/on-the-trail-of-tutankhamens-penis.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news>.

AW: I smell a spurious attempt to find a historical scandal based on a few unanswered questions.

Sewellisms #18: Pseuds, panjandrums and penises

I fell to wondering what French critics have made of it, but long ago, translating for the Arts Council, I learned that French art criticism is what David Lee, editor of Jackdaw, might dub high octane artbollocks — the self-indulgent blethering of pseuds in the obscure jabberwocky that has developed among cod-philosophers who pretend an interest in art.

• Brian Sewell, ‘Ooh la la, Freud!’, The Evening Standard, 20 May 2010, <http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/arts/review-23836139-ooh-la-la-freud.do>

AW: Thanks, we like that Brian. Though the phrase ‘takes one to know one’ springs to mind. This was a great week for Sewellisms. As well as throwing a ‘panjandrums’ in there (one day I’m gonna count them up, I’m guessing he says it every other week), there is a classic Sewell dissertation on naughty bits:

Occasionally they stand for a moment, but only to pursue some genital enquiry, as with the almost life-size awkwardly recumbent Leigh Bowery (Nude with Leg Up) whose largely tumescent penis is pretty well dead centre in a canvas seven feet wide — for Freud is nothing if not thorough in his depiction of the penis, testicles and cunt.

Cataloguing Quiz: the answer

Man       Homo sapiens sapiens   a) Pending, cf. Letter of Donation.

The answer to our cataloguing quiz, what object is being described?, is… a human penis. I bet the Icelandic Phallologigal Museum can’t wait to get its hands on that specimen.

Sewellisms #13: More, More, Moore

‘Reclining Figure of 1931 […] could perhaps be interpreted as a female figure in thrusting ecstatic anticipation of entry by a penis.’

Brian Sewell, ‘Does Henry Moore deserve his monumental reputation?’, Evening Standard, 25 February 2010

Sewellisms #12: more willies

‘Two elements among these figures have defied explanation […]. One is a small penis, erect at 45 degrees, the other a much larger tumescent penis, horizontal, in an alien masturbating right hand, the thumb towards the root; neither is attached to a body and both are far larger in scale than the neighbouring figures. […] And what are we to think of Michelangelo, fumbling in his trousers as he drew these phalluses […]?’

Brian Sewell, ‘Michaelangelo and his boy’, The evening Standard, 18 February 2010

Read more: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/arts/article-23807304-michelangelo-and-his-boy.do