Lea and Carly, owners of the Rubber Rose, opened their “porn shop” in July of 2006. You wouldn’t guess this by the welcome you get when you walk through the door, the enlightened conversation and the multitude of artistic events, music, performance or otherwise they’ve produced in these past and very short six months in San Diego. At the time of this writing Lea and Carly were preparing for a performance that night, a National Tour by the Sex Workers Art Show, a “cabaret-style evening of performance art created by people who work in the sex industry, to dispel the myth that they are anything short of artists, innovators and geniuses.” Featuring live performances by Miss Dirty Martini, Julie Atlas Muz, Kirk Read, Jo Weldon, Amber Dawn, Stephen Elliott, Cono Snatch Zubobinskaya, Reginald Lamar, Bridget Irish, and Annie Oakley. www.sexworkersartshow.com And dispelling myths is just one of the ways Lea and Carly and the Rubber Rose are changing the attitudes and beliefs about (ours, yours, mine, his, hers) sexuality. It’s all good.

"Scorned" - David Russell Talbott

Asked about how they met up and got started in this business, I learned they both were social and political activists in their own right who kept bumping into each other at anti-war demonstrations and rallies, and feminist support groups or events. Both Lea and Carly quickly learned that they each had a desire to create a space, a safe space, a sexuality boutique that would provide a forum and a place to meet and talk, learn, educate and as Carly says, “plant seeds for a healthier sexuality” that would eventually grow and become part of everyone’s daily sexuality and maintenance thereof. They believe every couple, individual or group of individuals, gay, lesbian, heterosexual, transgender, queer, straight, has a right and freedom to express and practice their sexual preference, methods and interests within a safe and private consensual environment without prejudice or fear of repercussions. I got the impression that the Rubber Rose was less about marching on the steps of Congress to change what some would consider outdated and discriminatory laws against those who fall outside the “normalcy” of a male dominated and white heterosexual lifestyle, and that Lea and Carly were pro-active, pro-sex, pro-women and less militant if you will, but instead preferred to concentrate their efforts simply on the celebration of sex. Asked if a forum of this sort was still necessary in 2007 considering the apparent “freedoms” (my word) we enjoy in America, if it was still necessary to provide an area where people could freely come and enjoy, explore and even buy the required accessories to fulfil and enhance their sexuality, did this mean that there are still fears throughout our society that consider this type of expression abnormal? The response was a cautious yes but the perceptions were changing as the issues and sexuality of others has encompassed more diverse, educated and responsible communities. As Lea states, it’s about visibility, you have to define yourself before someone can recognize you. This led our conversation into Feminism.



A brief history of feminism or Porn can be safe, riding the third wave.

After a quick “apprentissage” by Lea on 1st wave, 2nd wave and 3rd wave feminism, I took it upon myself to do a little research myself and came upon a vast ocean of essays, doctrines, books, studies and the like, far too many to do the topic any real service in this article and instead stumbled on an essay on feminist anthropology that outlined briefly the three temporal categories (periods) written by Angela Bratton which I cite freely:

The first division is from 1850 to 1920 and is also referred to as the first wave or suffrage feminism. What first wave feminists sought to do was to include women’s voices in ethnography, giving a female perspective on experience and events. One of the women who was fundamental in this movement was Elsie Clews Parsons. In order to further promote social reform, she thought it was very important that anthropology be taught as part of all liberal education. She also fought to break the restrictions placed on men and women working together.

Second wave feminism stretched from approximately 1920 to 1980. These feminists separated sex and gender as descriptive categories; previously they had been used interchangeably. Sex is defined as determined by biology and in turn effecting biology. Gender is seen as culturally defined. The category “woman” could unite all females, as it was considered the most significant role and therefore the strongest categorical identification. There were many influential authors such as Margaret Mead, Simone de Beauvoir and Second Sex who argued that women have been defined by men and that if they attempt to break with this definition they risk alienating themselves, as well as Betty Friedan and The Feminine Mystique who looked at gender roles inside families and questioned whether fulfilment for modern woman was to be found in traditional roles.

Third wave feminism extends from roughly 1980 to the present. Third wave feminism was influenced by Said’s Orientalism, and by postmodern discourse in general, which encouraged an evaluation of the politics of representation. Being categorized as woman no longer supersedes other distinctions and roles. Class, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, religion, etc. are all recognized as important characteristics that diversify the category of women; in other words it is acknowledged that all women do not have the same universal needs and experiences. In the 1990’s women’s studies would be changed to gender studies, reflecting a more comprehensive perspective.

"Cheesecake Picinic Party" - detail, David Russell Talbott

It occurred to me that third wave feminism encompassed a much broader and malleable community of women that weren’t necessarily taking “back the streets” of the 1980’s but instead were encompassing a fuller definition of what “woman” was and their positions vis à vis the society given the experiences gained and insights learned from the previous two waves. Third wave feminists were and are pro-active and pro-women, gender and sex aside. In this light, perhaps every woman is a feminist and not necessarily a “sister.”

Do Lea and Carly consider themselves feminists? Yes. But it stops there. In other words, it is less about being “one of them” labelled and stereotyped and more about your own attitude(s) and your own sexuality and others you might involve in it. But how can run a porn shop and still be a feminist, when the whole porn industry (hugely and financially successful) objectifies, degrades and exploits women? I ask. Carly quickly reaffirms that the Rubber Rose is not a porn shop per say, but a sexuality boutique – which puts a more realistic and positive light on the realities and changes going on in the porn industry and their derives and doing away with the negative images of dirty old men in trench coats lining up to get into a video booth. It is important to note that the porn industry has, Carly says, taken a much more global approach to porn (inclusive as opposed to exclusive), and is as you might expect neither caters to nor markets to a primarily heterosexual clientele. There are now a significant amount of women porn film makers, authors, and actors these days (who consider themselves to be feminists) that have cleaned up the image of pornography so to speak, and have it appeal to a larger broader community whatever their pleasure, gender or sexual preference may be. I said it earlier, safe = sexy. These days both men and women, all sexual orientations, fetishes, fantasies, role players whatever, can enjoy porn and find it erotic and safe because they can recognize and sense that the people involved are not afraid, are neither taking risks with their health nor bodies, are not exploiting or abusing their partner(s) and are completely consensual in their desire to be active participants. This is a huge change from earlier “smut” films that graced porn shop shelves in the 70’s. Everyone today is taking care of themselves, respecting the sexuality of others and most importantly respecting themselves – this can lead to quite the heady and fulfilling experience.

So what is the meta-message in all of this? It is that the Rubber Rose is a necessary outlet, a community space/forum, an art gallery and retail sexual boutique that provides a safe environment for the discussion and implementation, discovery of, one’s own sexuality – it is an outlet that celebrates sex while providing the information and dialogue to exclude no one so that everyone can “prendre du plaisir.” Many thanks and gratitude to Lea and Carly for their time, my education and the inspiration to write about the positive message they’re providing. Please go visit them soon; you just might be surprised what you’ll learn.



PART II

F-O-U-R is the title of the exhibition of works by T-H-R-E-E San Diego artists – Kelly Hutchison, David Russell Talbott and May-Ling Martinez, and O-N-E LA artist Plasticgod currently on view at The Rubber Rose Gallery on Ray St. The gallery space is adjacent to the Rubber Rose Boutique which provides its own wide variety of adult toys, lingerie, books and DVD’s, plus an assortment of lubes, lotions and condoms. The gallery is large and sparse in decor with dark rough panelling and limited lighting, few windows and a sound stage right in the thick of it. The space is frequently used as a performance and music venue too. It could very well be better suited for live music, after viewing the works selected for the show but something doesn’t add up here – meaning it’s not the space but the reasoning behind the art selected and the installation that pose some problems. Why four? Four what? Four artists obviously but how does this take us beyond a simple congregation of stylistic and thematic work?

Kelly Hutchison whom I’ve reviewed several times on this blog (here and here) and long time San Diego artist, now runs his own gallery (Fish out of Water Weirdo Art Gallery) on Lincoln Ave. Hutchison showcases younger artists from across the nation, of similar underground, “weird” low-brow genre alongside his own paintings. Hutchison has been in numerous exhibits throughout San Diego and vicinity and shows us here that he seemingly has an endless supply of work to exhibit. Or not. Every single one of Hutchison’s paintings on view at The Rubber Rose I’ve seen at least twice, excluding in his own gallery, occupying other spaces within the last 6 months. The cultural scene in San Diego is neither big enough nor diverse enough to showcase multiple showings of an artists work within a very short period of time. It doesn’t make sense. And it’s unfortunate because I like Hutchison as an artist and a person, I enjoy his stamina and energy but frankly, he’s bleeding dry the visual impact his work once had. May-Ling Martinez can also be found guilty of succumbing to the temptation of over-exposure by submitting work that was not only old, older (not timeless) that unfortunately for her, has nothing to do with the other three artists. Blame it on the curator? Perhaps, but I think there are two ways you can go about it as an artist when exhibiting. First, you take the Lottery approach –“if you don’t play you can’t win” and hope that someone somewhere will see the work, buy the work, put you in another show or write about it. But isn’t there more to it than this? What about the pre-game/exhibit selection process? What about the work, is it too new? Has there been enough time for editing or reflection? How about the importance of the work? Its interest? Or have you altered your work to a point where even you begin to question the relevancy of entering a show entitled “A Three-headed Cow and a Tuna Boat”? Adaptation and exhibiting at all costs is not the goal here, poignancy is.

Or you can choose another way I believe, which is sensible and responsible. Just say no. Art is a very fragile and mutable entity, which like its Creator is subject to political changes, environmental, emotional and contextual influences and healthy doses of societal PC –ness and art world constraints – imagined or not, that can push any art to the brink of over abundance and simulacra. In these cases, less is indeed more. As an example, our friend KAI in Arizona integrates his art seamlessly into a constantly changing environment of blank canvas walls and fast moving railroad cars, pitch black nights and approaching sirens. He knows and accepts the fact his art of graffiti and tags will not last nor be protected nor even be seen the next day when he wakes up. KAI does not have the luxury of “extra” work or even “old” work to be shown over and over and over again. His art imposes and orchestrates, and masters the environment in which he chooses to operate in. KAI approaches his art each and every time as if it was going to be his last piece. I think we could all take a page from his notebook as you simply can’t deny the energy or passion, the freshness, brought to the forefront in his work. The “gallery” artist does not have this opportunity and suffers greatly from poor curatorial choices, inappropriate spaces, unspoken prejudices and a public unwilling to trust their own tastes, vision and instinct. However, the gallery artist does have a say in the matter, and that is to make art that is appropriate for the exhibit, know how and when to edit, respect the audience their showing it to, learn how to be patient and show work that is ripe for viewing. This is not to say that you can’t take chances or experiment; I’m much more interested in work that is going to push and shove me around, challenge my beliefs and intellect, piss me off or make me laugh, but I have no tolerance for work that is used as filler, one-liners or convenience. The only thing that suffers really is the art. I’ve seen both Hutchison’s and Martinez’s work in other spaces that have supported and even encouraged a better reading and enjoyment, so much better than their current effort.

David Russell Talbott you might believe has fallen into the same visual abundance; he also has been widely exhibited in San Diego. Talbott though is a soft-spoken artist that exudes a certain calmness and humility with an iron resolve and dedication to his art – you can tell this by just talking with him. So how does he escape the recycling and over use of his work? – by creating more out of it and not just more of it. You can also bet he has a rich and bountiful gold mine to dig from starting in the late 19th century with the advent of the “dime store novel” and sensational short fiction magazines. The Pulp genre was born as we know it today and was typically immortalized with cover art of half-dressed “damsels in distress” awaiting their hero. During the peak years of the 20’s and 30’s, they could easily sell up to a million copies per issue and spawned such literary successes as “Amazing Stories,” “Dime Detective,” “Horror Stories,” “Unknown” and “Weird Tales.”

Any given week you could find your favourite pulp hero or character fighting evil from the likes of Captain Future, Doc Savage, John Carter of Mars or the Phantom Detective. You might even be surprised to learn that several well-known authors got their start writing for pulps under a different pen-name such as Issac Asimov, Upton Sinclair, Jim Thompson and L. Ron Hubbard to name a few. But Talbott’s work is much more sophisticated and politically conscientious than a simple copy/paste of a pastime literary favourite which for all intensive purposes, was already sufficiently exploited, packaged and marketed in a hard-core sell of drugstore, newsstand and headline sensationalism of design and fictional verbiage to a cheap “Inquiring minds want to know” clientele. It is also difficult not to imagine that Talbott, certainly in his most current works, is not aware of the gay pulps that flourished during the same time alongside Fu Manchu competing for counter space in the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s which often dealt with controversial subjects as: prostitution, rape, interracial romances, lesbianism and male homosexuality. Michael Bronski, author of Pulp Fiction: Uncovering the Golden Age of Gay Male Pulps, states “lesbian pulp fiction was far more numerous and popular than those that dealt with male homosexuality; he attributes this difference to the fact that while both lesbian and heterosexual women read the lesbian pulps, a major part of the market for these novels was heterosexual men.” Which brings up an interesting question as to who is the artist’s market today in contemporary art?

"Cheesecake Picnic Party" - David Russell Talbott




"Les Hetrosexuals" - David Russell Talbott

In short, Talbott’s paintings remain fresh and inventive relying on a rich and diverse past but are able to comment on an increasingly changing and tenuous future both politically and socially. Talbott is sophisticated and clever enough to use with deft agility culturally loaded pop imagery, collage, classic compositions of dynamic lettering, pyramidal forms and sensational characters to blend them all into captivating tableaux that say a lot more about us as humans then we would care to admit. I might also add I enjoy the 3-D elements Talbott has introduced into the surfaces of his paintings lending them an abjectness that can be found in some of Jim Dine’s earlier works.

Plasticgod also relies on the past somewhat to create his art, but it is more about what that past gave him as inspiration then the history of trials and errors, fame and fortune and finally success. Plasticgod is a prime example of Art imitating Life or was it Life imitating Art? In any case, it is the story of one company that is to later specialize in plastics not only to give life (figuratively speaking) and make toys, and save its own life in the process. It is also the story of Art and artists giving new life (figuratively speaking) to an old art (lower case a) severely over analysed and well, imitated. This little German company with roots in the late 19th century, according to the company’s website, got its start with Andreas Brandstätter and his business of lock and metal fitting. The company hung on through the early 20th century up until the Hula Hoop craze of 1958 when Horst Brandstätter, the CEO at the time, invented a machine that could not only fabricate the much desired hoops but could also make other moulded plastic shapes just as rapidly and efficiently. To make a long story short, when the oil crisis of the 70’s hit the world and the rising costs for raw materials were bringing most industries to their knees, Brandstätter introduced “small movable figures with fitting accessories and a good price to value ratio” to help save his company from bankruptcy. And it worked. These figurines were called playmobil®. In 1974 playmobil® hit the shelves for the first time and has been a huge success ever since. End of story.

"Kim Jong Il" - Plasticgod

Plasticgod, L.A. artist and graduate of the Art Center College of Design, Pasadena has been proclaimed by others to be the 21st century Warhol. While this may not be entirely true, except perhaps for the part about mass marketing and mass production of Pop and Americana Hollywood culture, what in God’s name does it have to do with playmobil®? Well, almost everything and we love it! It’s as if Plasticgod took the innocence of playmobil® and combined it with the sick vicious humor of South Park and put it all down on canvas. In biting satirical bravado, Plasticgod has summed up the art world, foreign affairs, Hollywood and the MTV music industry in 61 little 5” x 5” SoundBits printed signed reproductions of your most favourite iconic persona. What is most unsettling is not only will you recognize each and every figurine’s portrait – blowing your chance of keeping your age a secret, but you’re able to do this by observing each character’s physical trait, style of clothing they’re wearing, or pose. It is frightening to realize at what point the media and publicity behemoth has shaped not only our culture and tastes but how it has trained our eyes only to see and recognize a certain product or Pop icon. The stars, actors, players and politicians of today have become what Brandstätter and playmobil® hoped to create, “small movable figures with fitting accessories and a good price to value ratio” We on the other hand are just the consumers that interchange them to fit our particular fantasy. It’s like in “Super Size Me” when Morgan Spurlock asks kids if they recognize any of the Presidential portraits he’s holding up and they reply no to Abraham Lincoln or George Washington but recognize immediately Ronald McDonald and the Burger King. We’ve been visually brainwashed, forced to watch far too many re-runs with our eyelids surgically removed.

It is indeed a sad day when I can recognize Billy Idol out of a line-up of playmobil® style prints on canvas simply by his trademark upper lip curl. Plasticgod like the God he is, has created a Purgatory of burnt-out now penniless celebrities – because their souls have been sold to the Devil (Warhol?) himself for the price of fame, and now find themselves trapped for all eternity into a parallel hubristic world of power, greed, and rehab. And oh how the guest list is long: Morrissey, Yoda, Kurt Cobain, Molly Ringwald, Tom Yorke, George Harrison, Frida, Flava Flav, Johnny Depp, Elephant Man ad naseum.

But being the proclaimed Warhol of the 21st century, Plasticgod is as “célèbre” as they come and uses his celebrity in a tour of “slight of hand” theatrics and Pop Star dishing buy giving his clients the very same simulacra they produce, version redux, with a “Portrait of Dorian Grey” narcissism added in for good measure. For all the inaneness and “foutage de geule” these portraits procure, the celebrities who purchase them or commission their portrait are apparently unaware they’ve been royally screwed and happy to pay for the service. And yes this list is very long too: Tim Curry, Madonna, Bruce Willis, Lindsay Lohan, Michael Stipe, Snoop Dog, Vanessa Mercil, Meg Ryan, Brad Pitt ad naseum. Now I’m sure Plasticgod is a fair and just deity and is just having some fun at the expense of mere mortals, but it makes me wonder if it isn’t a case of “Let them eat cake” or “Let them eat what they want” – themselves. All I know is that, this is one God I don’t mind getting down on my knees to. Thank you.

"Billy Idol" - Plasticgod

It is unfortunate that the exhibit F-O-U-R couldn’t have delved a little deeper into its meaning and cohesiveness. To have exploited further similarities and interests between the works, providing commentary on contemporary life that is often found in younger underground art circles, quietly chipping away at the moral and religious fabric of America that in effect insures their own economic survival, promotion and visibility in art or music or graphic design and that can be seen and felt, I believe in works by Hutchison and the others. While you could argue Martinez has her place within the content of the show it is not however, of the same epoch as her peers who use their art as a simple pastiche of the events and culture that surrounds them now. Carpe diem (quam minimum credula postero). Take no survivors. Take the risk instead.

Kevin Freitas

More info:
Plasticgod
The Rubber Rose or on MySpace
Kelly Hutchison or Fish Out of Water Weirdo Art Gallery
David Russell Talbott
May-Ling Martinez

"Black Fuzz" - May-Ling Martinez




"Fantome Rouge" - David Russell Talbott




Plasticgod