** Trigger Warning
This is exactly what it sounds like. No kidding.
The artist has constructed a long tunnel that gets narrower and narrower toward the end designed to make the person entering get into a "submissive position." Once they reach the space at the end of the tunnel, he's explained, he says he will "try to the best of my ability to overpower and rape the person."
We are all familiar with controversy of when it's art and when it's just done for shock. In most cases, we can can conceive of both sides, even if one seems radically more likely or reasonable. In this instance, though, I have to ask -- how is this art?
The idea of the act of rape as art is in itself incredibly upsetting. I believe that rape can be the subject of art, but this can't be the way to do it.
Thoughts? I live in Columbus, by the way, and the local reaction so far seems to be mostly confusion.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Columbus Artist Makes "Rape Tunnel".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16271
Looks like he's operating on the "no publicity is bad publicity" principle.
I'm confused....how did this comment get under my name?
Sorry, my name is Marjorie too. I didn't realize someone was already using this handle :)
My name is a bit different, but yeah, it was a bit confusing. It's not a spelling I see often. So...you're cool with me :)
How is that even possible? Doesn't the website prohibit you signing up with a name once its taken? That's really bad if they don't, anyone could impersonate anyone else.
Everybody has two names: their user name and their display name. The user name goes on community posts and has to be unique. The display name goes on comments and can be anything. I have two different accounts that both display as Sabriel.
It always did strike me as a weak spot in terms of security, but nobody seems to be abusing it. One thing that helps is that if you click on the name and go to the profile page that lists recent comments and posts, it will show you pretty quickly whether or not somebody is who they say they are. You can fake a display name, but not a commenting history.
Of course, I've had mixed results getting to people's comment histories. Moveable Type is strange...
Marjes (Marjories? Marjs? what's the plural?), thank you. I live in Columbus and was disgusted to see that this crap is in my city, but that humorous exchange made my evening.
Oh please, let's hope it's all a hoax.
I'm pretty sure this is a hoax.
http://gawker.com/5369615/enter-the-rape-tunnel-for-art
UPDATE: A tipster notes that Googling "Richard Whitehurst artist" turns up virtually no background on the guy. Likewise, the interviewer "Sheila Zareno" seems to be absent from Google. So this could all be hoax! Be warned, before you get all enthusiastic for the Rape Tunnel.
Yep: http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2009/09/artlurker_explains_rape_tunnel.php
Now that this is settled, can we get an update on this post indicating that it is a hoax perpetrated by stupid hipsters?
This is why I hate "art."
Someone creates a "rape tunnel." It's art!
Except it's not really the art, all of our reactions to the idea of the rape tunnel is the real art!
Except that it's not really a tunnel, the whole story was a hoax. The hoax was the art!
Except that it wasn't the hoax that was the art, it was our reactions to the fact that it was a hoax that was the art!
For each turn of public reaction, some smug NYU undergrad is nodding sagely about how people don't understand the "real" purpose of the art, and how the real purpose of the art is whatever happens to be the public reaction at the moment to give the artist some smug sense of superiority over the silly masses.
I'd say Andre Serrano could bite my ass, but I've met the guy and would really prefer he didn't.
i can't help wondering; if someone'd decided to crawl through that tunnel carrying a great frackin' big combat knife, and eviscerated anyone who'd tried to assault them at the end, would the blood and gore have been "art" as well?
lets all commit to not using his name and therefore not giving him free publicity from this "controversy".
There was a "rape tunnel", created in the 80's in Mich. by an artist who was raped 2 days before her opening. Her installation was dark, cold and wet (it was late fall outside when she was raped) had hidden obstacles, the sound track was of her screaming, "no" and trying to get away. It was haunting.
She had people sign a waiver that warned of triggers before entering.
That was pretty progressive for the 80's.
This guy sounds like an ass.
This is my problem with being a feminist: how much credibility should I give to crazies like this? Is my reaction merely fueling the fire for misogynists and other anti-feminists to say, "look at that man-hater overreact to an obvious joke" etc etc. I never really know how seriously to take anything anymore because EVERY DAY something pisses me off.
Today, I was told that I was "over-reacting" to someone on a forum who made some tasteless joke about prostitutes. Something like "if you rape a prostitute, is it considered shoplifting." I told the commenter how not clever his stupid joke was and explained why, and another commenter told me I shouldn't throw a fit about a bad joke.
It's just the risk you run for standing up for things that other people would rather just let slide.
Thing is that the guy behind this hoax isn't a "crazy". Even if it hadn't been a hoax he wouldn't have been a "crazy". Either way, he's acting out of mainstream rape culture.
Fact is "crazies" are actually more likely to be raped, not to rape and not to make light of rape.
I have such a hard time believing this.
But this "interview"
(http://www.artlurker.com/2009/09/the-rape-tunnel-by-sheila-zareno/) proves one of two things: either this guy is completely insane or someone has way too much time on their hands. I mean, "punch you in the face tunnel?" Give me a break.
sidenote: @mighty_ponygirl "the hoax was the art!" LOL. as hipster as that is, let's hope so.
This is a hoax. I know someone has already linked to that fact above, but it just seems like this should be moved off the front page since it is only likely to fuel the impression that we are easily taken in by obvious hoaxes on the interweb.
Feministing walks a pretty fine line. It has to be extremely quick to report on current events that agree with its narrative, in order to be timely. Unfortunately, this sometimes comes at the expense of background research and thoughtful analysis. It's more common on the community pages, but you sometimes see shallow reporting on the front pages too.
I understand completely, I'm not faulting anybody for posting it. I just think that since it has been outed as a fake article, it might be time to move it off the front page.
From Hara's comment it seems like if this is art, it's also plagiarism and a perversion of the original project, which sounds much more powerful.
But I really don't get this. So anyone who walks into the tunnel is consenting to rape play? Is that supposed to make a point about actual rape? Maybe that rape victims are asking for it when they walk down a certain road at night? What happens if someone changes their mind after entering the tunnel? I can just imagine the twisted defense argument in that trial.
But I guess if this is a hoax those questions are irrelevant.
Maybe not. Why make the hoax a rape tunnel? Couldnt they have thpught of something else? Something less misogynistic. I have a hard time thinking that they'd say it was a KKK tunnel where black people were going to be beaten, ect. I think they'd have an easier time picking on women (even if it is a hoax) than picking race as the topic of choice. Maybe that says something?
is this not perhaps (hoax or not) supposed to be a commentary on how no one chooses to be raped? as in no one will go into his "rape tunnel" thus proving the point that no one would choose to be raped, regardless of what they wear, where they go or who they associate with.
Moxie, I think this is a very interesting interpretation. It actually makes a lot of sense.
If this is a real work of art, I'd want to see if there is an artist's statement accompanying it.
from:
http://www.artlurker.com/2009/09/the-rape-tunnel-by-sheila-zareno/
after explicitly saying he is against rape...
"It would seem that what you are proposing to do will not technically constitute rape for the obvious reason that whoever enters into the tunnel is acting of their own free will, therefore making the act consensual. If you aren’t really raping anyone, doesn’t that undermine the credibility of the project?
First of all, I want to make it clear that I plan to make the experience as unpleasant as I possibly can to anyone who dares to crawl through the tunnel. I will try to the best of my ability to make them regret their decision.
Secondly, rape is not always a black and white issue. The definition is argued almost everyday in courtrooms around the country. The woman who gets too drunk one night and regrets having sex the next morning, was she raped or not? There is no easy answer. I hope some of that ambiguity will manifest itself in this project."
I can also see his "first of all" part of the comment and other parts of the interview as an embodiment of hetero male as antagonist within rape culture. As in, if this "piece" is nothing more than a sketch of sorts, than he is taking on the persona of the perception of the anonymous male figure walking up the street at night.
Rape issue aside, these 'social experiments'/'the hoax is the art' are getting mighty boring. It's one thing if they are clever or thought provoking, this shit is just stupid.
God, so true. The performance art justification of hoaxes like these are just really grating on my nerves anymore.
I know this is probably a hoax but, just... what.
If I beat the living hell out of this rapist in his tunnel with a blunt object, can I call it my "art"? Or pretend it was somehow a clever ironic "hoax"?
Look, there is no rapist, there is no tunnel, there is no Richard Whitehurst or even anyone by the name of the interviewer. There is no faux-clever 'hoax' work of art. There's just a fake story on the internet.
Can I bludgeon whoever made the fake story to laugh at rape and call it my "art"?
That I'd PAY to see. You could best him at art any day!
... Is that even rape, if someone willingly goes in the tunnel?
I still consider this art, as not all artists need to be good people, and the product of art does not have to be morally right, (e.g., bernini's sculpture glorifying the attempted rape of daphne by Apollo). Doesn't mean I like it any.
Just because it seems "morally wrong," does not negate its "art". If that were the case, mapplethorp, hirst, and picasso would not be artists, as their views and images portrayed in their art disagree completely with the morals of others.
This is not to say, however, that it negates his legal responsibility for what he is doing, or that his actions being labeled as art makes them above the law. I'm just asking you to look at this fairly, from an artists perspective as well as an observers.
... Is that even rape, if someone willingly goes in the tunnel?
UH....YES.
CRIMES ARE STILL CRIMES even when they are committed inside of "art."
I think the point was that it might be seen as some kind of weird consensual stranger/bondage play if the person knowingly and voluntarily went in the tunnel.
(I realize that this whole thing is fake anyway.)
If someone willingly goes into the tunnel, then they're of full knowledge of their consequences. People have the full option of going into the tunnel or not, it is not a forced issue, and people are told of the situation before entering. Since there is full knowledge, and physical consent, isn't it more rape-play then rape? Rough sex is not a crime, madam.
The idea that the act of going into the tunnel makes it consensual assumes that consent is like some sort of contract, which once 'signed' cannot be gone back on. I don't agree with this; I think consent has to be a continuous thing. If somebody engaging in sex then changes their mind, makes this clear to the person they are having sex with, and then the other person does not stop, then the sex act becomes rape, regardless of whether it was initially consensual. I think this is relevant in this case because the artist expressedly said he would INTEND to make the person who chose to enter the tunnel regret their decision, thereby changing their mind and making it rape:
"First of all, I want to make it clear that I plan to make the experience as unpleasant as I possibly can to anyone who dares to crawl through the tunnel. I will try to the best of my ability to make them regret their decision."
He may not in all cases succeed in making the person who chose to enter the tunnel regret their decision, as, yes, a lot of people do like 'unpleasant', rough sex. However, the fact that the artist intends to make them change their mind does make rape in this situation a possibility.
I think this is interesting as art; if it is a hoax, then it at least does raise these important discussions about the nature of consent. But if there actually will be a 'rape tunnel', with a man in it who intends to rape, then that is just so fucked up as to completely cancel out any artistic merit.
"If someone willingly goes into the tunnel, then they're of full knowledge of their consequences. People have the full option of going into the tunnel or not, it is not a forced issue, and people are told of the situation before entering."
Consent can be revoked at any time after it has been given. If one participant says; "Stop" at any time during sex, THEIR PARTNER(S) MUST STOP. Even if they initiated the encounter. Even if they appeared to be enjoying it two seconds before. There is no such thing as a "point of no return" for anyone who is having a sexual encounter. Consent is a continuous state of mind, it's not a prize that can be handed back and forth from one person to another like a relay baton. I don't claim to have all the answers in life, but I think that if more people understood consent in this way, rape culture would be dealt a huge blow.
"as their views and images portrayed in their art disagree completely with the morals of others. "
Picasso painted rape scenes?
No, but people claimed he perverted and destroyed the human body, citing his works as acts against nature, and morally wrong.
people HATED picasso's cubism. modern society still does not understand "modern art" though it is nearly a century old.
Even if classical artists have PAINTED rape scenes (usually depicted in Greek myths), they didn't claim they were actually going into a tunnel to COMMIT rape.
For the record, I have no problem with the artistic depictions of crimes such as rape or murder in various media, which can even be used to open a dialogue. I do have a problem with someone actually raping another person.
Rape isn't "morally" wrong. It's ethically wrong. And legally wrong. In other words, a crime.
At one point in history, women using nude models in their art was considered ethically wrong, and against the law. Calling something "wrong" is simply not enough of an argument.
Look, I'm not defending the idea, or the man. It just makes me angry that people are constantly going back to the bulbous, archaic idea that if you dislike, or disagree with something and artist has made, then it isn't art; in order to avoid the task of evaluating and criticizing the art in question. Just look at the comments above, they're so anti-art and anti-artist, it's shocking.
..p.s., I know this is likely a hoax, but it still brings a lot of interesting points to the forefront.
I understand where you are coming from when you say that people can be anti-art because they thing it represents something they consider "wrong". But I thought the focus in the comment above wasn't on the "wrong" so much as the "moral" part of it. I think it is morality that makes some people feel shocked and disgusted at the more confrontational arts.
But morals are fluid and relative. I don't think ethics are. I would like more information on your example of women using nude models being illegal because it sure sounds like something that is based on moral values and not ethic. Ethics are what I consider more basic. Like the important of consent in any relationship.
I understand where you are coming from when you say that people can be anti-art because they thing it represents something they consider "wrong". But I thought the focus in the comment above wasn't on the "wrong" so much as the "moral" part of it. I think it is morality that makes some people feel shocked and disgusted at the more confrontational arts.
But morals are fluid and relative. I don't think ethics are. I would like more information on your example of women using nude models being illegal because it sure sounds like something that is based on moral values and not ethic. Ethics are what I consider more basic. Like the important of consent in any relationship.
But rape isnt one of those social customs thats going to change, and if it does, its for the worse. Its not just being avante garde its being misogynistic. Its not 'just taboo.'
Someone once starved a dog to death as "performanc art."
Putting art in the title doesn't make a deplorable act OK.
No, nobody ever did that. An artist put a street dog which was already starving into his gallery exhibit. Please, protest the art all you want (or maybe the lack of spay-neuter programs if you want to effect change), but get your facts straight.
Isn't it true that he wouldn't allow any to feed the dog? If so then, that is starving a animal. Regardless of weather the dog was already famished when he toke it it, if you deny a animal food, then thats starving it.
But did he feed it? If he didnt how is that any different?
Yeah, I mean, did he actually let it die? I guess you could maaaaaybe justify it a little bit if he took an already starving street dog, put it in his gallery for a couple hours, and then fed it and took care of it. But if he actually kept it there, didn't let anyone feed it, and didn't let it get out and look for food, that's starving it even if it was already starving.
I sort of always thought that was an urban legend, though, or faked in some way.
Yeah, I mean, did he actually let it die? I guess you could maaaaaybe justify it a little bit if he took an already starving street dog, put it in his gallery for a couple hours, and then fed it and took care of it. But if he actually kept it there, didn't let anyone feed it, and didn't let it get out and look for food, that's starving it even if it was already starving.
I sort of always thought that was an urban legend, though, or faked in some way.
The Guillermo Vargas exhibition was also a mild hoax. While I don't exactly support what he did, I believe he was trying to show that no one gives a half shit about a dog starving in the streets until you put him in a gallery. The dog was feed and given water, but the gallery materials say he would be returned to the streets (and this is where I fault Vargas as being a contradictory jerk) when the show was over. I think the hoaxers of the 'rape tunnel' are not making levity of rape but rather calling into question just how far galleries are willing to go to be 'cutting-edge' or (blech) avante-garde. I think the hoax is a shame-on-you to the art world not a ha-ha rape is funny. As a rape survivor and an artist, I get there point even if it's a bit hackneyed at this point.
Also, I still think its inhumane to put a dog in an exhibit to be gawked at by people passing by, as some statement or as art. Thats still caging an animal in their suffering rather than tending to them.
I was under the impression that the artist was actually feeding the dog, and that he only told the audience that he wasn't. And that the point of the exhibit was that nobody, even if they were disgusted, did anything to take the dog away from him. Maybe I'm wrong.
Also I agree with the person who said that even if he was feeding the dog, he was still forcing an animal that couldn't speak for itself to participate in his project. And I'm generally against that. Even if it seems harmless, it's the same mentality of those people who take wild animals out of their environment and parade them around on talk shows.
"Also I agree with the person who said that even if he was feeding the dog, he was still forcing an animal that couldn't speak for itself to participate in his project. And I'm generally against that. "
So I take it that you are also against spaying and neutering animals when they can not say whether or not they wish to reproduce or better yet wish to be mutilated for the convenience of "owners" who have no right to mutilate them to begin with?
Save the population control argument for when the entire world adopts or is ok with some authority figure deciding who gets sterilized and when and how without regard to that person's wish or will to reproduce or simply maintain their reproductive organs and not be mutilated.
Animals do quite well on their own without humans taking care of them. Animals are only homeless when their natural habitats have been taken away from them.
"Also I agree with the person who said that even if he was feeding the dog, he was still forcing an animal that couldn't speak for itself to participate in his project. And I'm generally against that. "
So I take it that you are also against spaying and neutering animals when they can not say whether or not they wish to reproduce or better yet wish to be mutilated for the convenience of "owners" who have no right to mutilate them to begin with?
Save the population control argument for when the entire world adopts or is ok with some authority figure deciding who gets sterilized and when and how without regard to that person's wish or will to reproduce or simply maintain their reproductive organs and not be mutilated.
Animals do quite well on their own without humans taking care of them. Animals are only homeless when their natural habitats have been taken away from them.
i really don't think this guy is actually being a misogynist. i think he's actually on our side, people.
wow. um...explain that left field idea, please.
She did up above, scroll up to her previous comment.
I'd LIKE to think moxie's interpretation is what the artist's point is; using art to critique how the onus is placed on the woman to avoid rape could be a powerful statement. Although given that it's apparently all a hoax, it's hard to tell if there's even a point at all.
Frankly, it doesn't matter if it exists in real life, if it got more people talking about it on the internet than would have actually seen it in real life then I don't see why it would be necessary to actually build the thing. It also got some good conversation going, so it was thought provoking.
I must admit that I liked the concept although rather than bringing any moral judgment I was busy judging the installation to be totally impossible even if you did have it legally condoned. The whole thing could only exist as a concept, since I don't think anyone can feasibly attempt to rape all comers. Maybe some of you are more imaginative than me, but I don't think that one person could even keep up with the people who were turned on by the whole thing, much less the guys who would dare each other to go down the tunnel.
I never did think that it was supposed to be a joke, to be funny, to be light hearted, or in any way be dismissive of rape. The idea of a tunnel that slowly closes in leaving the entrant in a vulnerable position at the end does seem like it could be a reasonable analogy where a victim ends in a powerless vulnerable position that they never quite made the choice to be in, but simply started down a path to.
I did see that it could be poking fun at artists after the artlurker article, but I don't think that it pokes any fun at rape.
Is anyone going to update this post and include the fact that it's a hoax? There is still room to discuss this as a social experiment but it's pretty misleading to claim it as a real installation on the front page of this website. I know this is originally a community post and it appeared to be real at first, but this isn't the first time feministing has left up posts that were revealed to be false or satirical.
THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN DELETED
It seems to me you are all missing the point. This hoax was an attempt to push the boundaries of what art is and make people think about it. It is a modern day equivelant of Duchamp's urinal installation. It was constructed as a rape tunnel BECAUSE rape is a sensitive issue that people shouldn't joke about. It was supposed to make you angry and question what you know about art. It was a hoax so that people could experience the idea- think about the concept- without actually having to make such a terrible installation.
that is just so tired.
hey, i'm not saying his idea was a good one, in fact its pretty lame. but that seems to be what he was doing.
You probably didn't mean anything by it, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't call things "lame" as an insult. I'm not physically disabled, myself, but I imagine it's not very pleasant to be the go-to comparison for things we don't like.
I agree, it's a tired excuse, moving on.
Is there any idea at all that this argument couldn't be applied to?
That's what bugs me about modern art.
I think the time for Dadaist art passed after the first time it happened. It isn't art anymore if it's just rhetoric and redundant. In fact, it becomes a mockery of the artist, imho.
hey, i'm not saying his idea was a good one, in fact its pretty lame. but that seems to be what he was doing.
I don't really have sympathy for anyone who falls for hoaxes like this. I'm in a field that values breaking news, and even then -- just do the damn research or take the seconds it will take to Google it. Journalists have done it for centuries.
hey, if this was in fact real, it would be art. and to answer your question about if there is any limit to this idea, i don't think so. the whole point of the anti-art movement begun by duchamp is that anything can be art by "creating a new thought". pretty amorphous to me.
however, just 'cause it's art doesn't mean it's any good.
and, not to be picky, we're in the postmodern period, rather than the modern.
Uhm... no.
It would be a crime.
Who plays in big wooden tunnels with "rape" written on signs near them? Children.
The structure itself could be considered art. The actual act is simply violence.