Art or exhibitionism?
An artist who tied a rooster to penis in Paris was charged with sexual exhibitionism. Steven Cohen was found guilty of sexual exhibitionism despite claiming he tied a live rooster to his penis near the Eiffel Tower for ‘performance art’.
Last September Steven Cohen danced on the French capital’s Trocadero Plaza dressed in a corset, high heels, long red gloves and an elaborate feathered headdress with a rooster attached to his penis by a ribbon.
He told the newspaper the Paris piece was a reaction to an increasingly homophobic, xenophobic and anti-Semitic world.
“In showing the most intimate part of me, I’m saying: I’m male, I’m Jewish, I’m queer, I’m white,” he said.
The good news is the rooster, named Franck, was not harmed during the performance.
Is this art? A form of free speech that should be protected? Or is this exhibitionism that Mr. Cohen should face judicial consequences for?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
18 Answers
Pics or it never happened.
Meh – doesn’t matter to me what someone ties to his dick.
How did the rooster feel about it?
@cookieman I’d like to hear from the nuns that were there visiting the Eiffel Tower when this happened.
Of course it’s art. But unfortunately it is also exhibitionism
and so this artist is going to pay a fine for his art.
@Dan_Lyons I liken this to those that base jump off of high rises. They know going into it they stand a good chance of arrest and fines, I am sure he is no stranger to having to ‘splain himself to the authorities.
All art is exhibitionism.
you can use that and tell people you said it first.
@Imadethisupwithnoforethought Awww no fun. Art is subjective and rarely universally liked and I am sure exhibitionism is subject to the same individual standards of approval and disapproval.
@Crazydawg I am still trying to get why people like anal, but it all screams performance artist to me. Seems the same.
To be fair, that is a false dichotomy.
If he had also tied ping pong or golf balls to the rooster and named the exhibit Cock n Balls then I would have completely backed his project.
@GloPro I know! It is such a shame he could have really made a statement there and if he used brass balls on strings that would go clackity clack as he walked around, he could have called it Cock n’ Brass Balls
One man’s art is another man’s martymachlia.
^^GA – once I looked up the word.
I consider anything performed or created for the purpose of being observed by one of the senses to be art. So I do think his production was art. Even the term exhibitionism strikes me as an odd opposition to art when used… art is exhibited (to be experienced via the senses, I would think). The exhibitionism in relation to sexual arousal I would not consider a performance with the observer’s observations in mind. It’s for the purpose of self gratification as far as I can tell.
I don’t think the artist was experiencing nor seeking sexual gratification (i.e. he wasn’t looking to get off by putting on the exhibit).
My answer is art. However, I would not argue that his exhibit may cross the boundaries of what is considered acceptable public display based on other considerations regardless of whether the performance was art or not. I do not agree with the idea that all that which qualifies as art is acceptable for public display simply because it is art.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
