New Polish artist, Katarzyna Kozyra, and her controversial bathhouse installations that raised the hackles of the Polish media and politico’s alike on their debut.
In fact in much the same way as some comparisons could be drawn between Holzer and Kruger, a relationship can be seen to be shared with Kruger and Kozyra.
Whilst Kruger’s work could be perceived as a critical Post-Modern statement, as with her work "Molest From Afar" in which the subject was thrust into the unwanted gaze of the media, to be seen by spectators, opening the newspaper, tuning into the nightly news. In comparison Kozyra’s statement looked like a romantic gesture, but then you find yourself in a genuinely voyeuristic situation.
Kozyra’s "Bathhouse" installations consisted of the covert filming of bathers, in both men’s and women’s bathhouses of Budapest towards the end of the 90’s, and received some what of a backlash in Poland from those deemed to be the moral majority.
Yet the work can be seen to belong to a movement initially instigated by the collapse of communism in 1989. The socio–political manipulation by the communist regime towards women was replaced with the power of Conservative political forces and the Catholic Church.
Both stated a return to traditional values; whilst the church continued to propagate the image of the "mother–Pole" fulfilling her existence solely through husband and family, and with all of this emerged consumer culture and the commodity of female beauty.
This being antithetical to Conservative restraint yet equally a masculine doctrine, was the final affront and Feminism began a more self-conscious series of (counter) actions.
But could it be stated that infringing upon peoples (women’s) rights to privacy is contradictory to a statement opposing the social manipulation of Polish women?
"I think that I was doing good things for women in the creation of the work, showing how we really are as opposed to how we are currently represented in the media. I felt myself in the position to do the right thing regarding an imbalance".
The action of both works ("Men’s Bathhouse’ and ‘woman’s Bathhouse") shown as two separate installations, are unchoreorgraphed, moving at the natural rate of her unaware subject matter. These "unfashionable" bodies are shown in their plain naked state going about their routines of cleansing and grooming, with the artist present for the filming of both.
"At times I forgot that I was filming the women’s bathhouse because it was so interesting, but I could not do this in the men’s".
This is perhaps not surprising; as Kozyra became a man to enter this masculine enclave, with the aid of facial hair and prosthetic genitals, and despite this disguise her behaviour indicates her feeling of unease and anxiety.
"Although there was an equal fear of discovery when I did the filming in the bathhouses, and an equal amount of stress, there was the added worry of being found out not to be a male".
(You need only imagine this work issuing from the Y.B.A stables to guess at a British tabloid reaction).
But by covertly presenting the figure in this unabashed form, Kozyra raises not only the issue of our position as voyeur but that of her own in its creation; highlighted by her subterfuge and sexual transposition in the men’s bathhouse, whilst drawing attention to the fact that nudity is commonplace in our society in comparison to unprejudiced uncorrected nakedness.
The human body placed in this context has nothing to do with pornography or media sexual site–bite. As you view the installation the initial sensations of guilt and unease formed by your awareness of its morally questionable methods of creation.
This is replaced with an awareness of the naturalness of the images; and the commercial productions of commodified nudity begin to seem in themselves controversial; presenting a fiction as a model for reality.
Although it seems ironic that to ensure the veracity of her statement; Kozyra undertook this interesting paradox in relation to women’s rights, it must be said that the work succeeded as a denouement to media contrivance solely "because" of the decision to film without knowledge or consent.
There is no acting to camera for the sake of body aesthetics in this work lest the women should become more attractive, lest the mediums sensuality should deform their image into the costume of the nude.
As Kozyra stated, as we concluded our meeting surrounded by the intimate moments of real people not often seen, "I think it’s definitely a modern threat to the body; asking that we be eternally perfect; there’s no such thing as a defective body".
