Margiela Artisanal Collection 2024: Pubic Hair and Porcelain Faces

Maison Margiela Artisanal Collection 2024 [1]

 

 

I was pleased to see that John Galliano decided to experiment with an older ideal of female beauty in his latest collection for Maison Margiela; one with tiny waists, wide hips, and (at least the illusion of) hairy genitalia.

 

For I've long been interested in the question of female body hair and its removal; particularly from the pubic area due to a porno-aesthetic convention shaping our idea of what constitutes desirability. As I wrote in a post published back in January 2013:  

"I am slightly troubled by this trend. For whilst I understand the appeal of the hairless pussy on grounds that range from the practical to the perverse, still I can't help regretting the universal Brazilianization of women as I recall the words of Henry Miller: 'It doesn't look like a cunt anymore; it's like a dead clam or something. It's the hair that makes it mysterious.' [2]  

 

So, well done to Galliano for his use of couture merkins, fashioned from real human hair and visible beneath the sheer dresses worn by models. Perhaps this will start a new trend and maybe even encourage some women to go easy with the wax or refrain from relentlessly shaving every single hair [3].

 

 

II.

 

Of course, Galliano isn't really interested in reviving a more natural model of femininity. As he once admitted long ago, he hates female breasts for ruining the line of his designs.

 

And as the hyper-shiny complexion of his models indicates [4], his queer and slightly uncanny fantasy is to make a real woman resemble a porcelain doll; or perhaps bring the latter to life, fitting her out with all the secondary sexual characteristics of genuine womanhood, and then having her walk down the catwalk looking like a lurid Edwardian prostitute.  

To quote D. H. Lawrence: "It's just weird. And for its very weirdness women like living up to it." [5] But they might do well to remember, however, that the moment they take on that artificial china doll face, the fashion will change and the demand will be for something else.  

 

Having said that, Galliano does have a certain decadent genius and I can't help admiring his latest collection - just as my own perverse interest in the (related) topics of pygmalionism, agalmatophilia, and dollification make it hard for me not to adore the perfect porcelain features of the model pictured above. 

 

 

Notes

 

[1] The Maison Margiela Artisanal Collection 2024 by John Galliano was shown underneath the arches of what for many is most beautiful - certainly the most ornate - bridge in all Paris, the Pont Alexandre III. Click here to watch the show - inspired in part by Brassï’s dimly lit, over exposed nighttime photos taken in Montmarte in the 1920s and '30s - on YouTube.  

 

[2] See the post entitled 'Epilation' (8 Jan 2013) from where I quote this passage.

 

[3] Perhaps. But probably not. I suspect that all the body positive and natural beauty stuff will make little difference within a pornified culture. Some readers might recall that the visual merchandising team at American Apparel tried something similar to Galliano at their East Houston Street store in NYC ten years ago to little effect. See the post 'On Mannequins With Merkins' (21 Jan 2014).

 

[4] The astonishing glass skin make-up worn by the models was created by Pat McGrath; a long time collaborator of Galliano's - from his days at Dior until now at Maison Margiela, where he was appointed creative director in 2014. 

[5] D. H. Lawrence, 'Give Her a Pattern', in Late Essays and Articles, ed. James T. Boulton, (Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 163. 

On the Portrait of Ms Ruby May, Standing

Portrait of Ms Ruby May, Standing 
Oil on canvas (2012) 
Leena McCall

I.

There is something of a tradition within the world of fine art for portraits of women standing.

Dutch Golden Age painter Frans Hals, for example, completed his contribution to this genre sometime around 1610. Indeed, such a lover was he of upright women that he produced another portrait of a woman standing just a few years later (c.1618-20).   

Neither of these unidentified women, however, arouses my interest as much as the fabulous Ms Ruby May, pictured above, standing, hand-on-hip and pipe in mouth, by UK based visual artist Leena McCall.

The painting is obviously intended to be sexually provocative. There's that defiant look in the eye of the subject, returning and challenging the male gaze, for a start; clearly this is a woman who knows how to construct and express a playfully ambiguous model of sexual identity on her own terms.

And then there's the fact that her breeches are unbuttoned, exposing her lower body or loins such that her pubic hair is clearly visible ...


II.

I recently published a post reflecting on the issue of female pubic hair, referring to its representation within the world of art.* A woman kindly wrote to me afterwards to say that whilst she enjoyed the piece, she couldn't help thinking it was essentially a non-concern within what she insisted was a sexually liberated  - or, at any rate, sexually indifferent - age:

"Some women wax, some women shave and shape their bushes, and some just leave things to grow naturally; the point is no one really cares and it's not a big issue, even if it remains subject to changing fashion. Thankfully, the days when people freaked out at the sight of a pubic hair have long gone."

I wonder, then, how she explains the fact that McCall's painting was swiftly removed by the Mall Galleries from the Society of Women Artists' 153rd annual exhibition in 2014, following a number of complaints and the concern that perhaps children or vulnerable adults might view it ...?

According to McCall, the picture was branded as pornographic and disgusting precisely because it showed Ms May as an amorous subject proudly displaying her pubic hair as a sign of mature womanhood. Afforded the opportunity to provide a replacement work, McCall admirably refused on the grounds that to do so would be to concede there was something inherently offensive or obscene about the portrait (and/or the body) of her friend Ruby May.  

So, to my correspondent I say thank you very much for writing, but I beg to differ with your analysis of the times in which we live.

For if there's been a pornification of culture on the one hand, so too is this the age of safe spaces, trigger warnings, political correctness, censorship, and the new puritanism in which the greatest crime is to cause offence (either wilfully or inadvertently) to the easily offended, be they snowflake liberals, religious maniacs, or - apparently - London gallery owners worried about their trustees and sponsors, etc. ...


* See: Where the Turtle Doves Sing ... the post mentioned above that reflects on pubic hair.

Where the Turtle Doves Sing (Reflections on Pubic Hair with Reference to the Cases of D. H. Lawrence and Eric Gill)

Gustave Courbet: L'Origine du monde (1866)

Oil on canvas (55 × 46 cm)

Controversial D. H. Lawrence aficionado, David Brock, reminds us in his latest column for the Eastwood and Kimberley Advertiser that the young Lawrence was shocked and horrified to discover that women, like men, possess pubic hair on and around the genital area, as a secondary sexual characteristic.

When, after sketching a female nude that he believed to be full of life and the carefree promise of youth, Lawrence was told by a friend that he needed to add hair under the arms and to the lower body if he wished it to look like an actual woman, rather than an idealised figure, the future priest of love physically assaulted his friend whilst shouting 'You dirty devil! It's not true, I tell you!'   

This lack of knowledge regarding female anatomy was fairly widespread, of course, amongst young men in Lawrence's day, even though they were growing up long after Ruskin's marriage to Effie Gray was annulled for non-consummation - so repulsed was he by the sight of her pubic hair on their wedding night - and after Gustave Courbet painted his voyeuristic masterpiece, revealing the hirsute origin of the world.

Indeed, even Eric Gill was surprised to find out - having seen photographic evidence - that women had hairy cunts. But whereas this realisation shocked Lawrence and tragically disconcerted poor Ruskin, it was, for Gill, a source of erotic excitement and soon established itself as one of his fetishistic delights; filling all the nooks and crannies of his pornographic imagination, both day and night, for the rest of his life.

As his biographer, Fiona MacCarthy, notes:

"Gill's fascination with the hair of the female, hair of the head as well as the belly, its waviness and density, its soft but springy texture, its symbolic use in both attracting and concealing, recurs all through his work, from his very early sculptures to the last of his nude drawings in the year in which he died."      

Of course, as David Brock also points out, Lawrence eventually overcomes his horror of pubic hair becoming something of a champion of the au naturel look and an exponent of such in his painting. And, in his final novel, Lady Chatterley's Lover (1928), there's a famous scene in which Connie and Mellors examine and play with one another's pubes; he threading a few forget-me-not flowers in her soft-brown maidenhair.      

In sum, whilst I don't think Lawrence's pubephilia was ever as strong as Gill's, he was nevertheless partial to a bit of bush in his maturity, for sexual, aesthetic, and philosophical reasons and - somewhat ironically - one suspects he would react with reverse shock and horror at the thought of Brazilian waxing.


See: 

David Brock, 'Book revealed author's 'late development'', Eastwood and Kimberley Advertiser, (25 Aug 2017), p. 22. 

D. H. Lawrence, Lady Chatterley's Lover, ed. Michael Squires, (Cambridge University Press, 1983), Ch. 15.

Fiona MacCarthy, Eric Gill, (Faber and Faber, 1989), pp. 46-7. 

On Mannequins With Merkins

American Apparel (2014)

As regular readers of torpedo the ark will have gathered, I have a perverse critical interest in pygmalionism and female genitalia and in particular the manner in which culture determines the appearance of muffs and mannequins. And so, naturally, I feel obliged to say something about the latest window display from try-hard-to-be controversial retailer American Apparel. 

Sadly restricted (so far) to their store on East Houston Street, New York, the window features extremely beautiful mannequins wearing geeky glasses and revealing dark nipples beneath see-through bras and an unnatural natural abundance of dark pubic hair beneath see-through knickers. Indeed, so lavish is the bush on one model that it juts defiantly from the sides of her high-cut underwear.   

Some passers-by smile. Some look away in disgust. And some, of course, take photos. But the window has certainly aroused media attention and fed into a conversation about the need or non-need for women to obsessively remove all traces of body hair. One might even be tempted to speak of a growing backlash against the pornified ideal of a completely denuded cunt - an ideal which the fashion and cosmetic industries have long shared and eagerly promoted, so it's a wee bit disingenuous to say the least when a spokesperson for American Apparel tells us that they are a company that has always celebrated natural beauty and believed in keeping things real.    

Still, having said that, it's a qualified two cheers for the window display and for the visual merchandizing team of Sawyer Ballance, Julio Delgado and Molly Hatch - whatever the thinking or commercial consideration behind it. The campaign obviously continues to exploit female bodies, but perhaps it also opens up another option for young women who belong to a generation that has been obliged to wax and shave and deodorize relentlessly and who now have the ugly word labiaplasty in their vocabulary.