america adrift

I promised Stuart this post much too long ago, and I’m sorry that it only emerges now. Over at Historiann, they had a discussion about a certain installation at Burning Man, called Barbie Death Camp, which is an interesting and strange installation of Barbie dolls all meandering toward an oven. You can find the pictures here.

The installation presents an interesting challenge for interpretation and analysis. The most noticeable fact, is the clear imagery drawn from the Holocaust and the Nazi death camps. This is immediately sensitive terrain and challenges the boundaries of artistic representation. The problem is, that the installation does not show pain, fear and misery. Since all Barbie dolls smile, there is a certain joy to the installation, a kind of eager desire for the oven, which flies in the face of the conventional representations of Holocaust. Some of the images remind me more of photos from music festivals with the crowd dancing and cheering their favorite bands.

We can see slogans such as “Arbeit Macht Plastique Frei”, which rephrases “Arbeit Macht Frei” but with a seemingly ironic distance. It can be argued that this pushes the installation into a consumerist critique, killing off Barbies as symbols of capitalism and the economic circuit. We could perhaps draw parallels between the capitalist system and the Nazi death camps.

This of course ignores the gendered view, that all the Barbies are women as well as naked. Slogans such as “Die Bitch” certainly also indicate a certain misogynist slant. There are images of torture and rape, making this a violent spectacle with the added cognitive dissonance that the Barbies remain happy and smiling.

Dr. Pyro comments on Historiann’s post, that he as one of the creators simply wanted to engage female attendants at Burning Man, and that practically all (American) women have a relationship to the Barbie dolls, hence would hopefully respond in some way. I see no particular reason to doubt his words, but I disagree that there is no symbolism in the installation. Arguing that no symbolism was intended, seems naive. Certainly people would recognize the situation and that holds symbolic meaning. It may be meant as an ironic statement, but that still depends on a recognition of the situation.

What strikes me the most about the installation, is the crucifixions of Barbie. It pushes the entire installation in a different direction, which reminds me more of sacrifice than slaughter. As such, I regard the installation more as a transgressive act which articulates a relationship to our icons and idols. Here, I’m obviously inspired by Bent’s point that icons have religious connotations, and it is precisely the crucifixions which make me point out that connection.

Georges Bataille points out, that what we regard as beautiful must be spoiled in the act of appreciation. “Humanity is transgressed, profaned and besmirched. The greater the beauty, the more it is befouled” (Eroticism). The point is significant, because it shows that an act of transgression, vandalism and debasing can act as a form of appreciation. Certainly, the context of the Holocaust must be considered one of the greatest acts of debasement conceivable, as must the crucifixion with its religious connotations.

With this in mind, we can see tye installation not necessarily as a negation of Barbie’s cultural significance or a criticism of it, but as much a reinforcement of its place and importance. This somewhat destabilizes, I think, the division Bent has of collaborative and oppositional iconwork, though I’m sure Bent will be quick to point out, that the work is as much done by those seeing the installation, thus choosing to read it in one way or the other: as confirming their attitudes toward Barbie, positive or negative.

This line of thinking leads me to consider the fact that this installation is in some ways an open text: it has many different connotations and denotations which will allow the audience to understand the text in very different ways. It serves, I think, as a form of blank parody, where the parts that are parodied are not subjected to any clear satire or revision. This is enhanced by the fact that the text, as an installation, does not have a clear climax and no real closure.

We are presented with a spectacle which touches on so many cultural and historical sore points, that we are forced to respond, but if there is a clear motivation behind the piece, I think it is to act more as a form of mirror. We see what we want to see – anti-consumerism, gender criticism, and many other things. The act of transgression, which is surely there, opens up for this need to interpret, this need to ascribe meaning and sense to the piece. It is too much to ignore, somehow, even if one’s reaction becomes one of ‘bonghead humor’.

The installation works, I think, to the extent that it provokes discussion and in that sense it does have the reflective thrust, or at least intent, of parody. We are supposed to laugh at the installation, as Dr. Pyro argues, but we must laugh at ourselves, and our own understanding of the installation.