Dolls, Sculpture and Art Criticism

Warning: Graphic ARTISTIC image at the end of this post.

I was catching up on my reading at Final Embrace today. (My friend Tim is very prolific. Sometimes I think I work very hard at all of my jobs and responsibilities. Some days when I am feeling smug about how much I got done in one day, I go count how many posts Tim puts up on his blog, in the same time frame. That makes me feel less than prolific!) Tim's blog is interesting and entertaining, and not always about business.

One blog post from August 8 has a link to and a photograph of a sculpture or doll of a newborn baby. At first glance, the sculpture/doll reminds me of some of Ann Geddes photography work. I clicked over to the site of the artist and looked a little deeper. I won't post any of her images without permission, but you can look for yourself here: J. Stocks-Dearborn. She got started in this line of work after having a baby who died of SIDS. As a mother myself, my heart goes out to her. I am sure her efforts are cathartic.

Looking at Stock's-Dearborn's newborn doll sculptures, the ones with the closed eyes, they approach a lifelike appearance. But if you look closer, particularly at her premie dolls, with their breathing tubes and wires and their overly large open eyes, they approach something other than lifelike appearance to my sensibilities. They pretty much approach the concept of "creepy". What mother, when their newborn was asleep, did not have a moment when they thought their baby was not breathing? These babies have no lungs. That moment of not breathing, of no heart pounding is always real, they are not alive,  they never were and never will be.

The most interesting thing about venturing over to view these dolls was the idea given to me to research a broader subject. I then found myself on Autopsybabies.com. Now, mind you, these are just doll sculptures too, no real babies involved. This site has a strong warning on its home page which should be heeded by readers of InRepose Blog:

This site contains what some call offensive artwork. Everything on this site is just a doll, please keep that in mind. This site does not promote child abuse, rape, killing, drug use, sex to fruit, ripping tags off pillows or any other horrible thing. The Queasy & SQUEAMISH should not enter.

I spent some time looking at the dolls here too and found myself comparing the two artist's works.

One is seemingly trying to capture pure beauty and innocence; tiny, too-early born humans are shown struggling for breath and life. Some of these little dolls are adorned in angel's wings. Presumably, the artist knows babies and premies and has spent time with them and is trying to capture their life essence. Jeremi Rimel, creates and presents something utterly different. He approaches pure horror with his dolls; the complete opposite end of the spectrum of the ideal healthy newborn baby. Tiny little babies, the most innocent beings we know, are subjected to mutilation and more, he portrays extreme grotesque imagery, with blood, decay and sometimes metal implements.

Rimel does not provide an artist's statement other than to say if you have a reaction, that is good enough for him. I'll be so bold and say that work like his, that explores humanity's deepest and darkest side has been for eons, the way many people make sense of life and more especially, the way they come to grips with and make sense of death itself.

Both sites have guestbooks. The comments are mostly predictable, but an overview of them are almost as fascinating than the dolls themselves. Emotions run very high on both sites. The prices and marketing  of both artist's works are compelling.

I am no slouch when it comes to art criticism. I have both my BFA and my Masters Degree in Painting and have many years of Art History, gallery visits and heated debates with other artists tucked away in my brain cells to call upon when I write about art. However I can honestly reduce my reactions to these works in one simple sentence:

The dolls meant to be beautiful were utterly creepy to me and the the dolls meant to be creepy were to me, in many aspects, quite extraordinarily beautiful.

Why is that? I mean, I am totally not into bondage, S&M, bizarre type things. I don't even like scary movies, not slasher ones anyway. I don't seek out the ugly or the deranged. I think it is because of this simple fact: Rimel doesn't present these little monsters wanting you to imagine that they are living and breathing, viable, loveable, human things. He is representing other thoughts and human obsessions, and fears. He is even funny, if you look hard enough. (His doll Vincent is a prime example of that) Stocks-Dearborn wants to invoke thoughts of warm, good smelling newborn babies with working little hearts and breath in their lungs. Rimel wants you to acknowledge the harsher realities and baseness of humanity. Of the two, I simply find Rimel's work more purely honest.

Below is a photo of one of Rimel's doll sculptures. (Reproduced with his permission.)