Stern has photos from deep inside Vanessa Beecroft's recent art installation at the opening of the new Louis Vuitton store in Paris where half-naked ladies were exhibited side-by-side with suitcases, purses, and golf club bags. From a March interview with Beecroft in the Guardian, "Dare to Be Bare":

After 54 performances, many remain unsure what to make of Beecroft's work. Some see the fashion element as superficial, some see the naked Helmut Newton-esque images of these women as little more than 'hooters for intellectuals' (as one review famously dubbed her work). Some say she's demeaning women, parading them like hunks of meat, in the process creating a male wet dream, while others say she's reclaiming sexualised images of women from the pages of Penthouse and recontextualising them as symbols of feminist empowerment.

Laura Piccinini, a journalist for Italian women's monthly Amica, told me that Beecroft's eating disorders, her obsession with fashion, her deliberately provocative use of nudity, make her a perfect tabloid-friendly artist for our confessional, celebrity-gossip and reality-TV-obsessed times. Beecroft's art is one of exposure.

'I had a difficult childhood,' says Beecroft, still shivering from the photo shoot, as she warms her hands on a mug of Yogi Tea. We're sitting at the dining table, a whole shelf of Helmut Newton books behind her (when Newton photographed her wearing a leather bikini for Vogue, he screamed at her: 'I am the father of your performances!').

via Geisha Asobi

catatac

San Diego, CA

June 2005

NOV 06, 2005 11:06 AM

I don't see much intrinsically wrong with it. But I belong to a nudie website so my views of nudity may be a little skewed. But I don't see much creativity in it either. It looks like any old ad you might see in a high fashion magazine, but with more nipples. How hard is it to know that sex sells, ar at the very least ALWAYS creates a buzz. You could sell Tide or Instant Potatos or lamps using naked women too. Less ingenious and inspired and more attention whore-y to me.

Quirky

Birmingham, AL

October 2005

NOV 06, 2005 12:42 PM

This is the perfect postmodernist satire. I love it!

Roethke

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

NOV 06, 2005 01:02 PM

Bah. Beecroft is self-obsessed and that's about it. She's incapable of articulating her own work, so I don't expect anyone else to. Dressing up pretty girls in pricey shoes and paying them to stand around while your friends gape at them shouldn't count for much beyond mere spectacle. Yet another rockstar artist. Yuck.

BurningKrome

San Jose, CA

April 2005

NOV 06, 2005 01:18 PM

The point of art...any art...is to instill an emotion in the viewer which leaves them speculating what the emotion meant, and leaves them continuing the contemplate the piece after they have left the gallery.

By that definition, these pieces appear to be exceptionally successful.

Quirky

Birmingham, AL

October 2005

NOV 06, 2005 01:21 PM

Roethke said:
Bah. Beecroft is self-obsessed and that's about it. She's incapable of articulating her own work, so I don't expect anyone else to. Dressing up pretty girls in pricey shoes and paying them to stand around while your friends gape at them shouldn't count for much beyond mere spectacle. Yet another rockstar artist. Yuck.

That is the second time I have read that today. What does it mean, Roethke?

Roethke

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

NOV 06, 2005 02:11 PM

Taureolt said:

Roethke said:
Yet another rockstar artist. Yuck.

That is the second time I have read that today. What does it mean, Roethke?

In my opinion, it means an artist who has become famous for some reason or another, and so they are paid inordinate amounts of money to attach their name to some stupid stunt, often a stunt which is a sad re-hash of their previously fresh work.