Artist: Vanessa Beecroft

1. Does the article state defendable reasons for the blatant use of strong sexual content?
2. Does the artist intend the pieces to be seen more as sculpture or performances?
3. Is site specificity important at all?

1.No. The only true reasoning is that she can create the works because she can. There is no grand idea that the artist states in the article. Therefore, there is no way or need for defense, unless on ethical or moral grounds. The act of objectification can only judged as seen from an ethical standpoint. Beecroft's work may or may not directly address this aspect of ethics, but it is somehow unavoidable. She states that her works must be seen by the upper class museum goer or the space and tension of distance could be erased.
2. It is difficult to tell. They operate on both levels, but it is precisely this that creates some of the interest in the work. By definition they are performances. Yet, they are performances that strive to be sculptures. This ultimately undeniable sense of failure creates a tension; they will always fail in becoming a perfect inanimate object of beauty.
3. Site is very important but only as a means to control the way the work is viewed. As stated earlier the restriction of audience is important to how the work is perceived and conducted. The psychological space that her selected, reserved gallery goers create is extremely important and can only survive in this niche.

THREE MORE:
1. How does her other work such as painting and drawing relate to the performances?
2. Is there a way to translate the experience to broader audiences?
3. Is the only reason that her is able to create interest because of it's vague symbolism?