Faustina as Hitler
(All images: ninakleivan.dk)
Danish-Norwegian artist Nina Maria Kleivan has chosen a graphic way of exploring the subject of evil. Kleivan, who herself was raised by a Norwegian father who had spent time in a German prison camp, dressed her baby daughter Faustina up as some of the most evil figures in the twentieth century and photographed her for an art project.
Faustina as Stalin
The idea came to her when Faustina's difficult delivery confined her to bed for months with a pelvic infection. Out of sheer boredom she started sewing together bits of cloth and created tiny costumes. She started with Napoleon, then moved on to Catherine the Great and Julius Caesar. But somehow these figures seemed too distant, too theatrical. Then on a whim she sewed a Hitler uniform, and turned a new page in photographic history.
Faustina as Mussolini
Explaining her exhibit “Potency” to Haaretz recently, Kleivan said: “We all have evil within us. Even small children are evil towards each other.” She went on to say that “You need to be conscious that your actions have consequences that impact on your fellow human beings. The people I let my daughter portray didn't give a damn about the human cost, the casualties, their thoughts caused.”
Faustina as Mao
Due to her father’s experiences as a resistance fighter, Kleivan, who was born in Oslo in 1960, grew up with a hatred of Germany. For years she carried the German prison guard’s name on a slip of paper in her pocket so that she could murder him on sight. “Even though my father stressed that you shouldn't hate anyone, not least the Germans. Hatred is a dead end."
Kleivan first exhibited the photos back in 2000 and is publishing them in a new collection of her work entitled Enigma, which covers her work from 1988 to the present. Faustina herself is now a thoroughly peaceful eleven year-old girl with a talent for the violin.
Faustina as Pinochet
The images have shocked many viewers, who have complained to Kleivan that dressing her daughter up as bloodthirsty dictators has crossed a line. “I've pondered that a lot myself,” the artist said. “Could I really do this? I agree it’s on the verge, especially Hitler, whom I and most others view as the incarnation of evil. He and Stalin were the hardest to do… It almost caused me physical pain to pull the Nazi armband over her little arm.”
Faustina as Saddam Hussein
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
sandra wyllie
Michael Luick-Thrams
Arizona Viking
Oryoki Bowl
Jacqueline Allain
Jennifer Prestholdt
Salon.com
Comments
Great post.
But why no military cap on Hitler?
R
Seriously, it's provocative, but I'm not sure if it really goes beyond that.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/34766
Thank you, Judy, for the post.
Rated.
I agree with Robin - I don't think we universally possess evilness within us. I do think there are chemically and biologically based illnesses which factor in some people becoming essentially "evil."
In the mental health field such folks may be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder (aka sociopathic personality disorder. Per DSM criteria, a minor does not qualify for a personality disorder (though alot of clinicians ignore this and diagnose them anyway). Then there's the whole debate about mental illness vs responsibility, and the LEVELS or TYPES of mental illness, etc....
I do find the images associated with the such personifications of evil and cruelty splashed on a small child to be profoundly disturbing, and possibly exploitive. Perhaps there is some credence to the message of the artist, but it seems hollow and superficial.
~r!
I think the message should be that even Hitler was a baby once. Everyone has the potential to do good things and bad things. Calling someone "the incarnation of evil" trivializes the complex reality behind the person.
Nazi Germany was not some bizarre and improbable confluence of evil people, it was a society with a diversity of personalities just like any other. They just happened to go down the wrong road. Understanding what that road was and why it took them where it did is essential if we want to avoid such tragedies in the future. Blaming the whole thing on one "evil" person just papers over the important questions.
When I can't see any good in a person I often picture them as an innocent child and try to imagine what led them to where they are. These images embody that kind of mental exercise nicely.
My concern with this so called art is how it literally wraps a small child with the symbolism of evil.
My first thought, from your headline alone, was that it was inappropriate on so many levels, and an unimaginably exploitative use of one's child.
A little time with it and my considered opinion is very different from that snap judgment.
Powerful stuff!
I think it was unimaginably brave of the artist to use her child in that way - I think I would be much more troubled by a parent who would lend their child to the artist for the session. But it makes the statement that much more powerful.
I guess I think all humans possess the potential for evil. I'm currently reading a book called The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil by Philip Zimbardo, the administrator of the famous Stanford Prison Experiment. He used that experiment's results--that almost anybody from any background can become sadistic--to testify on behalf of the defense for the low-rung perpetrators of the Abu Graib abuse. His contention is that systems that are methodically created by groups of humans and by policy create the context for good people to turn evil, and he was outraged that higher ups like Cheney and Rumsfeld bore no accountability for the torture while their underlings spend years in jail.
All this is to say, I get what this art exhibit is about. The juxtaposition between innocence and evil is provocative, indeed, and that's what art is for. Her title, Potency, is pitch perfect.
Two more things occur to me:
1. Cultural context is enormously powerful. There would be an entirely different reaction to this admittedly already disturbing exhibit if the artist herself or her background were deemed to be anti-Semitic or racist. It goes to show that everything is relative. I'm talking about the exact same exhibit. Context matters.
2. Couldn't she have used a realistic looking doll? Joan H's comment about permission from the baby haunts me.
Stephanie
i don't know why, but i just don't get much of anything out of these pictures.
I'm not sure it would be the same - a "real" versus "imitation" thing.
Real people have real potential to do real evil.
There is no imitation evil as best as I can tell.
(Evil, however, has been known to pose as imitation good.)
A question it raises is what, where, is the 'birth' of evil in a person, in a society?
After a person descends into evil is it possible to turn away and regain innocence? To be 're-born' without evil?
Or is once evil 'born' in a person there no recovery, no restoration?
A helpless infant is dressed as evil persons: were those persons likewise helpless against the evil which consumed them?
The infant was dressed by another larger being she could not control, could in no way successfully resist: were the persons represented made to be evil by larger forces they could neither control nor resist?
This immature infant was able to be taken and costumed by another.
Were those represented persons who were consumed by evil able to become so via some immaturity on their part?
A few of the facial expressions appear almost bewildered or fearful: were the people represented ever at some level of their being bewildered by what they had become; fearful of who they had become?
Did they visit unspeakable horrors upon their fellow man while finding within themselves genuine love and affection for their own children, if any?
Human beings are complex, contradictory, mixes, mashes, and muddyings of cause, effect, motive, mind, heart, and who can ever know for certain how much of what else.
To the people who are claiming this is "child abuse" - REALLY NOW. Dressing a baby up in costumes and taking pictures of it is child abuse now? Guess you're going to jail for all those cutesy pics of your little rugrat in the hotdog costume from last Halloween. Get a grip. The kid doesn't know what the costumes are; she just knows Mom put some clothes on her and took a picture. Maybe you should do some volunteering and spend some time with some ACTUAL abused children so you can stop throwing that term around as hyperbole any time you see something like this that makes you uncomfortable.
P.S. If looking at these pictures made you uncomfortable, maybe you should sit down and think about that and examine why.
You are right on.
As I stated earlier: this woman is mentally ill. That kid should go live with a nice relative and change her name. Faustina. jesus h christ.
btw...this one definitely hit a nerve.
"I cannot reconcile the juxtaposition of the concept evil on a baby who is, to me, a symbol of innocence."
Well, here's some breaking news. Babies aren't symbols of anything. They're people larvae. Symbolism is in your own head.
That's why this is an interesting work. The juxtaposition is exactly what the artist intended, and clearly you're more vulnerable to these meme than others. You might want to go think about that for a while.
My mother-in-law still carries the decayed clipping of the sentencing of the nazi soldier who shot her mother dead on the street.
=)
I see parents all around me creating newly disaffected children by the cruelty.. they see it as dominant parenting.
It is powerful symbolism.. but not in the same way that others see it.. or even the author.
People are missing the obvious (long held issues for the guard).. So sor her.. I think it was an exorcism of the murderous intent when she became a parent and realized that murder would probably not be on her schedule.. so instead she had to express her indignation in another way.
As for the kid.. I think she's be proud of her participation in her mother's obviously brave stance of communicating personal responsibility.
Sorry, but that's all the further I've been able to get my head around these pictures. Many good points made in these comments both in favor of and opposed to the pictures. I can't decide which way I lean. The baby sure is cute though.
How about going back to school...??
Correction.... going to a real school..!!
without religious indoctrination....
From the GripeVine.... & Donah..//
For me one of the most powerful artworks about the holocaust is Maus, by Art Spiegelman, a cartoon, where the Nazis are drawn as cats and Jews as mice. Spiegelman's choice of archetypal picture book adversaries makes his story all the more chilling. I think this photographer was trying to tap into the same thing, innocence rendering evil as evil squared, but it doesn't work the same way for me.
I think the photos make us speak. Art that causes conversation is powerful, if not disturbing. Sometimes I like disturbing, dark art. I am rather indifferent to the art itself, but, I am thankful for the conversation. It helps me to cement what is imaginary in this world.
Lastly, the only line I ever tell anyone about from the AA Big Book is the line, "they, like us, were perhaps spiritually sick." This is a line which occurs when a recovery member is looking to take a different view on all the perceived wrongdoing which they suffered under. When you remember the "like us" part, it shows your understanding of how you are intricately connected to humanity and that yes, that very evil, or the potential for it, lies in you. It takes a huge degree of humility to understand this. Barack Obama spoke those words when visiting Auschwitz in 2008, which is one of the things which impressed me about him - this fundamental understanding of human nature and the collective human experience.
Whether we are born with evil or dark energy is interesting to ponder...it depends on your take of past lives or not. It also doesn't take into account what can develop during a lifetime through circumstance.
In my life, the moment I judge something, I know that is nothing more than an invitation to experience it.
A while ago, I found this article that suggests that babies just might be evil...
http://www.cracked.com/article_18404_6-shockingly-evil-things-babies-are-capable-of.html
Part of me thinks baby exploitation dressed and photographed with no consent but I can't help but appreciate the black humor - the irony of thinking of these evil monsters with bunched up diapers in their pants. Disturbing yet amusing and thought provoking. Very strong and we know Faustina is an innocent babe not an evil monster in human form. The juxtapositioning is striking and I'm sure Faustina enjoyed all the attention she got totally unconscious and oblivious to what she was wearing. I'm still torn.
What it IS is a powerful work. Clearly, people are reading a lot of things into it, some of them completely contradictory. My first reaction was instinctive distaste, but as I worked through the series, that changed.
What I see is the photographer reminding us that even these monsters of history were once innocent babies -- or at least, LOOKED like innocent babies.
They were babies. Then they were children. Then they were grown. Were they monsters from the start? If not, when did they become monsters? They had human DNA. (Is it DNA which makes us human, or the possession of a human conscience?) The work reminds us to quit acting as if these men hatched full-grown under a rock somewhere.
Misel
Blue Waffle