Simon Costin (British, b. 1963). “Incubus” Necklace, 1987. Silver, copper, Baroque pearls, and glass vials filled with samples of human sperm. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Gift of Mr. Simon Costin, 2006 (2006.364a, b).
The “Incubus” necklace is perhaps Simon Costin’s most notorious piece. When it was first displayed in a London gallery in 1987, the design was impounded by the police, and the artist was threatened with prosecution. As fashion historian Caroline Evans writes, “Surmounted by a little metal plaque that said ‘vice and virtue,’ the piece invoked the dark sensibility of Elizabethan and Jacobean literary imagery, suggesting an attraction of opposites that characterized much of the fashion sensibility of the following decade: vice and virtue, beauty and horror, sex and death.” Like other contemporary designers and artists, Costin also alluded to the interest in the nineteenth-century collector’s cabinet and that period’s preoccupation with documenting phenomena associated with the body. Costin’s work was made at a time when other artists were employing body fluids as a medium for their art, such as Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ, a plastic crucifix submerged in the artist’s own urine, and Marc Quinn’s self, a sculpture of the artist’s head formed of 9 1/2 pints of his own frozen blood.
For the design of the “Incubus” necklace, I used various elements from the story. The basis of the design is an intricate pattern of roots made from copper, which I gently buried for several months in order for the earth to give a natural and random patina. Overlaying this are several silver-plated swimming sperms. I wanted to use a base metal and silver plate as a reference to the corrupt nature of the church—seeming to be one thing on the surface but something else inside. The five Baroque pearls are a further symbol of this. A small scroll is engraved with the words Vice and Virtue, the two things that most preoccupy the church. The five phials refer to the five elements called upon in contemporary paganism: Fire, Water, Earth, Air, and Spirit. All these elements were also used in the making of the piece. Finally, there are the five “donations” used to fill each phial. Four friends were given a container to take away and were asked to return in a week. I provided the fifth contribution. After the week had passed, my friends returned and their donations were sealed forever within the phials, and the silver cap ends were added.
The “Incubus” necklace was complete.
—Simon Costin
January 10, 2008 at 12:09 pm
This is a very interesting piece. I was initially horrified. I immediately thought of “self” by Marc Quinn. I find the use of bodily fluid in art repulisive but it makes such a strong, clear point. I was thrilled to read about the process and his motive behind the piece. For that, I find the piece metaphorically relevant. What we see is only a fraction of the art itself. The process must also be taken into consideration. But I’m still horrified.
January 10, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Hi Krista Beth!
My reaction: I think the last word was had on this subject by the Italian artists of the 1950s who sealed their products of defecation in cans and called it products of the artist. I saw it as part of an exhibit at the Guggenheim. We’re more usually allowed to see the less unacceptable things like semen and urine, although there was that elephant dunged religious figure (Virgin Mary?) at the Brooklyn Museum–I’m blanking on the artist–that Giuiliani was so incensed about, so to speak.
I’m rambling. What I think is that the last word was long ago said, perhaps even by prisoners writing in blood.
Yes, the process was interesting, but I’m not the least interested in what these five men were doing with their bottles, and the knowing that that was part of it makes the whole object so clinical.
January 10, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Don’t ever wear artistic jewelry; it wrecks a woman’s reputation…
Colette, from Gigi, 1944.
January 10, 2008 at 5:39 pm
In the case of this artistic jewelry, makes you wonder why all those men were shooting it into bottles? I guess it all depends on what reputation you’re trying to uphold!
January 10, 2008 at 6:03 pm
ew
January 10, 2008 at 6:08 pm
The Brooklyn Museum exhibited a British show called Sensation in 2000. The painting in question , “The Holy Virgin Mary” by Chris Ofili , offended then mayor Guiliani. According to Wikipedia ( a source which in itself might generate a comment or two) a black Madoona was decorated with resin covered lumps of elephant dung..The figure was also surrounded by small collaged images of female genitial from pronographic magazines… alot of the works in this exhibit dealt more with political and cultural statements than beauty.
January 10, 2008 at 8:18 pm
It is very interesting that the only 3 comments are all by women. The “product of defecation” in a can by Piero Manzoni is a piece of the 60’s, a very helpful comparison. Duchamp’s urinal/ sculpture comes to mind. The point perhaps is not who has the last word, or the first word for that matter, but how through the work of art, the public enters in a corporeal, erotic communion with the artist.
January 10, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Let’s keep in mind the title of this piece “Incubus” : nightmare, demon supposed to cause nightmare, a spirit or demon thought in medieval times to lie on sleeping persons, especially women, with whom it sought sexual intercourse. Let’s also refer to incubate, to keep eggs, embryos in a favorable environment for hatching or developing…
January 11, 2008 at 9:18 am
Thank you, Marina. That was enlightening.
January 11, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Very, very interesting point about the incubus, and also the relationship to incubate.
What puzzles me is this. For centuries, art has certainly been sexual, portraying nude beauty, having women flirt to their viewers, portraying flirtations, but these were not relationships of viewers with the artist. But this business of the public entering “in a corporeal, erotic communion with the artist”…what’s that about? Marina, am I understanding that this is a newly developed requirement of art–or am I misreading you? Are you just referring to works that contain human bodily fluids, etc. As an artist, I’m not looking to create corporeal, erotic bonds with my viewers, merely an aesthetic and emotional one.
January 11, 2008 at 5:14 pm
It is always sad and disappointing to see that the Institute only seems to consider women’s fashion as worth studying. the Institute made a beninning with the 18th century mean’s coat and vest, but why stop there? It would have been quite fascinating to see how this fashion “evolved” to our current use fo the suit and tie which is the coporate costume most men wear today - around the world! I think this is worthy of museum effort and study. Please consider.
January 11, 2008 at 5:25 pm
ok if you just look at the necklace it looks really cool
but once you find out there is sperm in the vials then you completely change your mind about this necklace
who would wear sprem around their neck???
thats really gross…
there are some sick people in this world….some sick sick people…
the fact that someone put vials of sperm in a necklace proves that very fact
January 11, 2008 at 8:19 pm
It would have been nice if there were actual post-cards or catalogs with the different designs in the show.
January 11, 2008 at 11:25 pm
No, no, no. I am not referring only to works that contain bodily fluids et cetera, nor is this aspect new. The corporeal, erotic communion should not be taken in a literal sense. For the design of the “Incubus” necklace Simon Costin had many choices for the materials and elements to construct the piece. His selection speaks to us with the same intensity the madeleine of Proust does.
January 11, 2008 at 11:59 pm
“cool, gross, sick, who would wear sperm around their neck?” I would. Perhaps my incubi would stop. No more nightmares, no more demons…The cave paintings were produced as part of a magic ritual to ensure a successful hunt. The images of animals would perhaps produce the animals. By wearing this necklace the images and animals of my dreams will vanish.
January 12, 2008 at 12:33 am
Clever, I guess, but it’s tough to see the semen as anything but a gimmick.
Then there’s the appearance : the vials themselves aren’t particularly interesting aesthetically, and in fact I don’t find the piece as a whole too attractive. Too fussy, too busy. I can’t think of anyone who would look good wearing this piece.
I guess that’s not the point. But what is? I must be missing something.
January 12, 2008 at 6:57 am
Yuuuuuuuk. Ewwwwwww. Not Art.
January 12, 2008 at 10:49 am
Eww what is that stuff
January 12, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Whered he get five?!?!? The sperm bank wouldn’t let him have them cause he’d obviously not be a responsible parent.
January 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm
MMM it is so hermoso I can’t think anything to describe it. Me gusta mucho, muchisiiiimoooooo
January 12, 2008 at 5:55 pm
i find it fascinating that the necklace has viles full of sperm. it is what gives life and life is the most beautiful thing on earth. No view, or jewel or dress is as beautiful as life. wearing life is a great idea. i love the idea yet not exactly the necklace
January 12, 2008 at 6:51 pm
This truly is a piece of art, that accentuates how one can be such a big part of their works. It has a piece of the artist in it, making it a beautiful displayal of life and its possibilities.
January 12, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Marina, M. Proust’s madeleine speaks to me with crushing intensity. Reading “Searching for Lost Time” is like living amongst his nervous ganglia. But it doesn’t, and we can certainly agree to disagree, make a good analogy to me with the effect of Simon Costin’s piece. Proust was using the way his own memory worked–certainly the volumes are fairly autobiographical–and creating a literary map of memory functioning that amazed and continues to amaze me. Proust is a great example, to me, of what you’re saying about historical examples of corporeally intense relationships with artists via their work.
But with Mr. Costin, I feel, as I’d mentioned before, that the use of semen, and the process whereby he procured it seems clinical. It doesn’t really matter whose it is, and only some of it is his. It’s not enough involvement to get to that relationship, it seems to me. Crudely pulling an idea out of the air, say, sprawling a model on semen-stained sheets and photographing him/her–that might get closer to the artist/viewer relationship at issue.
Interesting conversation. Thank you Marina! (and the Met!)
January 13, 2008 at 5:15 pm
” Proust’s madeleine speaks to me with crushing intensity. But it doesn’t, make a good analogy to me with the effect of Simon Costin’s piece. Proust is a great example, to me, of what you’re saying, about historical examples of corporeally intense relationships with artists via their work.” But with Mr. Costin, I feel, as I’d mentioned before, that the use of semen, and the process, whereby he procured it, seems clinical.” You are right, this is certainly one dimension. Let’s keep in mind that this piece was made in 1987, in a period when sex and death became related in an intimate way. “It doesn’t really matter whose it is, and only some of it is his.” I agree, I did not claim that it was crucial that the semen was his, but again, in the serial aspect of the vials, there is a reference to the crisis of the decade of the 80’s. The vials bare witness to the enormity of the tragedy and work as crypts safeguarding the memory, as the madeleine did. “It’s not enough involvement to get to that relationship, it seems to me. Crudely pulling an idea out of the air” Perhaps you are right, my crude, capricious and gratuitous analogy was invoked by the reaction of the public: “gross, sick, Yuuuuuuuk” I wanted to bring something sweet, the madeleine, something that had the same “crushing intensity.” On the other hand, our culture, art, literature, is the result of a chain of intertextuality, one text, work of art, elicits a previos one, and at the end, perhaps, the cave painting and the madeleine both have the same magic powers.
January 13, 2008 at 10:45 pm
1987. Sex and death. No argument from me that that was a powerful theme. But there are so many interpretations we can place on or infer from any art work.
I keep going back to the quote from Simon Costin himself, which is all about Vice and Virtue and the corruption of the church, and the literal meaning of incubus, a male demon who has sexual intercourse with a woman at night or in her sleep. Shouldn’t we take these into account?
Of course, as I tell my own viewers, everyone is entitled to their own emotional reaction and interpretation of a piece of art, but if the artist goes to the trouble of explaining what he’s about, maybe that’s what he’s about.
It’s unfortunate the quote is so partial, because he does tantalizingly refer to a story, which I read as the story of the incubus, or some specific story about an incubus.
What thinkest thou?
January 14, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I think the necklace should be called a “Vile Necklace” instead of the Vial one! It is one you’d have to be “caught dead” in order to wear it.
January 14, 2008 at 1:29 pm
I did a slight gasp when I saw this piece close up and read the article.
Its stunning none the less, too bad it wasn’t jewels instead of the interesting vials of choice.
January 15, 2008 at 1:25 am
“if the artist goes to the trouble of explaining what he’s about, maybe that’s what he’s about.” Yes and no: it is always more and it is always less! Perhaps we do not disagree, but prefer to emphasize different aspects of this extraordinary work.
January 15, 2008 at 1:48 pm
sperm never looked so amber
but i love the rest of the necklaces wire-y and refined wreathness
beautiful in spite of the vials’ contents
January 16, 2008 at 2:06 pm
I read what Simon Costin is about on the blog on Claws for Alarm, where he also discusses the Vial Necklace. Somehow I picture him like Hannibal Lecter or Dracula—a bit intimidating and very intelligent. Wonder what he eats for supper?
January 17, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Mariana and Laurie, your conversation is fascinating!
Having only seen Mr. Costin’s piece online, I was most intrigued by the portrait of an Elizabethan women posed next to the mannequin (the third picture online). I was curious to see if anyone else saw a similarity between the ropes of pearls around the lady in the portrait and the necklace on the mannequin; having not yet read the accompanying text, I immediately felt that Mr. Costin was making reference to a sort of money and status-as-power / sex-as-power dichotomy. It was interesting to then see the piece in the context of the artist’s comments — it’s interesting to think how we can judge a work of art. Do our own impressions count, or is the intention of the artist, clear or not, which provides value to the piece?
January 18, 2008 at 2:19 am
“Do our own impressions count, or is the intention of the artist, clear or not, what provides value to the piece?” Yes, our response counts. The intention of the artist itself is not enough and once the work of art leaves the hands of the artist, it acquires a life of its own. Who knows what Simon Costin was thinking and feeling when he constructed this magnificent, extraordinary piece? Only he knows. We all are not indifferent or uninterested in the “Incubus” necklace. Perhaps our response reveals more about ourselves than about the construction, sculpture, necklace.
January 18, 2008 at 4:06 am
There is also an allusion to the ritual of keeping corporeal artifacts of saints and martyrs: bones and yes, Christ’s blood.
The work is thought provoking and genius on many levels.
Many thanks.
January 18, 2008 at 11:53 am
“…saints and martyrs…” Indeed the martyrs of the decade of the 1980’s.
Going back to the madeleine of Proust: in her book on Proust, Julia Kristeva proposes the thesis that the madeleine has a transubstantiating, eucharistic dimension. The samples of human sperm included in the necklace resonate with this implication.
January 19, 2008 at 3:04 am
To make this necklace, five guys had to jack off into a cup.
That’s magnificent. I can’t imagine that you could wear this without thinking of that.
January 19, 2008 at 1:54 pm
I wonder if there are matching bracelets and earrings?
January 19, 2008 at 2:33 pm
seriously this is by far the GROSSEST thing i have ever seen in my entire life. maybe you guys should get rid of that sperm
January 19, 2008 at 2:43 pm
When i first saw the necklace, i thought the insides of the tubes were amber but when i found out what it really was I thought it was just disgusting.
January 19, 2008 at 5:33 pm
“When i first saw the necklace, i thought the insides of the tubes were amber but when i found out what it really was, I thought it was just disgusting.”
What is amber?
Perhaps it is the “semen”, “sperm” of a tree. I would like to go back to the idea of bearing witness and the crypt safeguarding a memory. The amber implies the passage of time, it takes a long, long time for a resin exuded from a plant to become amber. It is possible that Simon Costin was thinking of amber from an oblique angle. “sperm never looked so amber” indeed.
January 20, 2008 at 6:54 am
The beautiful necklace without the glass vials would be enough to be effective - the content of the vials is unnecessary and repulsive - I don’t like this way of art.
January 20, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Obviously disgusting, definitely shocking, inexplicably mesmorizing.
January 20, 2008 at 4:04 pm
i wouldn’t have a single problem with the necklace if only the sperm were from people i know. the fact that five strangers in the 80’s gave their sperm is kind of disturbing. old sperm, yukk.
January 21, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Wearing sperm around your neck could come in handy when the mood strikes.
You could always go to the sperm bank and sell it.
January 22, 2008 at 12:37 pm
I was astounded by this piece. I have been to countless fashion and couture shows and have never seen anything like it–a combination of a vital bodily fluid and a wearable piece of jewelry. I love it. I was titillated by it. My reason for visiting the Met fulfilled yet again. . .
January 24, 2008 at 10:43 am
The Incubus necklace was very shocking and disgusting. i would never wear that necklace.
January 24, 2008 at 10:46 am
This necklace is very weird to me because I can’t believe that a there are vials of seamen within the contents of this necklace.
January 25, 2008 at 2:54 pm
the samples of sperm add a nice touch to this exotic necklace
January 25, 2008 at 2:55 pm
There is sperm in hurrr. ‘Tis nasty!
January 25, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Could u get pregnant from those vials?
January 25, 2008 at 8:17 pm
“Could u get pregnant from those vials?”
Yes!
January 26, 2008 at 1:30 am
I find this piece to be striking, but it disappoints when you read the artist’s motive behind the piece.
This is exactly the sort of artwork that always struck me as being unnecessarily sensationalist. From a design perspective I think the piece is very well balanced, and has an appealing baroque gracefulness. It could have come from Morticia Adams’ jewel box, and I mean that as a compliment. I do, however, disagree with his use of human fluids in the necklace. It leads me to believe that the artist never thought the design would have enough merit on its own to warrant a second look without mentioning that it has the sperm of 5 men in it. The patina on the copper would have been perfectly complemented by rods of amber, and in fact amber would have provided excellent visual cointerpoint to the frame of the necklace.
I understand that to use amber instead of semen would reduce the ‘vice’ portion of his ‘vice and virtue’ theme, but I honestly think that theme is a bit of a stretch anyway. Granted, pearls have represented virtue and sex without procreation represents vice, but that’s where the analysis ends. The mere presence of silver sperm overlaying a copper root pattern does not invoke the church at all in the mind of a reasonable person. That is particularly the case if he is choosing to include pagan imagery - both in the final work and in creating the work - and he is naming the piece after a male demon that copulates with unwilling females in their sleep. Further, the presence of the silver sperm retains the concept of vice, especially since he has them pointed at the pearls.
I think he just thought that the corruption of the church sounds good so he’s going to run with it when people ask him about the sperm in the vials. It really is too bad that he did not have enough faith in his own artwork to create without edgy marketing spin.
And as a jeweler, I can’t help but wonder how in the world one is expected to clean the piece without destroying the patina or disturbing the seals on the vials.
January 26, 2008 at 1:08 pm
If you have sex with ur boyfriend five times, take the condom, trash it…. then sneak into the trash and dump the condom’s contents into these vials, you will have a sweet method of blackmail for when he tries to break up with you and you don’t want him to- u can make a baby!!!!
SWEET necklace.
January 26, 2008 at 5:02 pm
“… as a jeweler, I can’t help but wonder, how in the world one is expected to clean the piece, without destroying the patina, or disturbing the seals on the vials.”
Excellent point: you are not supposed to clean this piece.
January 27, 2008 at 3:17 pm
When a “creation” produced by a so called artist produces a marked reaction by a viewer…it may be called “art”, even if it incites feelings of disgust or revulsion…it has at least produced a reaction. If the viewer has no reaction whatsoever and has nothing but disdain for the creation then I maintain the work has failed as a piece of artistic endeavor. ALSO…. Marina Urbach is grossly deluded if she feels she could become impregnated by the long dead sperm fluid in the vials. Sperm life is very short unless it is kept in ideal conditions or in a cryogenic state. Seminal fluid is a protein type substance that degrades rapidly when exposed to an unfriendly environment hence the brown color in those vials.( I have never seen fresh sperm fluid that was not “milky” in color)….. I assure her she could not get pregnant from those contents. My second question which is trite. Were the sperm donors gay or straight? Not that it matters much. Sperm is sperm. Actually, I feel the necklace is quite decorative, but the neck adorned by it should be most attractive.
January 27, 2008 at 3:28 pm
What was so interesting about this piece was how astetically pleasing it is, only to read on further to discover that that the vials are filled with human semen….
definately adds an intresting twist to the peice, and is sure to one of the memorable ones of the collection
January 29, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Wow! I just happened back into this thread and it’s really gone places since last I read it. At first, Robert I. and Marina, your joint blood of Christ/transubstantion of madeleines notion was attractive, but I would never attribute semen to a saint or martyr. Surely, they weren’t all celibate, but celibacy and sainthood/martyrdom are so closely linked.
Horatio: “If the viewer has no reaction whatsoever and has nothing but disdain for the creation then I maintain the work has failed as a piece of artistic endeavor.”
Quite obviously not true. Amazing numbers of great works of art have attracted nothing but disdain at first and are now considered–great works of art. Just stroll through the Met’s new 19th C gallery at those daubers the Impressionists, and that insane guy, van Gogh, who I believe did not sell a picture in his life time.
January 29, 2008 at 10:10 pm
“…is grossly deluded if she feels she could become impregnated by the long dead sperm fluid in the vials. Sperm life is very short unless it is kept in ideal conditions or in a cryogenic state…”
Good point. But, what about the Immaculate Conception fable?
January 29, 2008 at 10:18 pm
“Were the sperm donors gay or straight? Not that it matters much. Sperm is sperm.”
“Not that it matters much”
Does the “much” mean that it matters a little?
Do you seriously expect, someone from The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York to come out and answer your question?
My guess is that indeed they were gay, very, very gay and very accommodating.
January 31, 2008 at 10:55 am
I WOULD NEVERBR ABLE TO WEAR THE ARCH SUPPORT SHOES. I COULDNT STAND UP IN THOSE FOR 10 MINUTES.
February 2, 2008 at 1:16 pm
This is cute to wear at reuntunies! This is what i MIGHT post on my website!
February 3, 2008 at 10:34 am
really like the necklace it’s weird but interesting of a male’s sperm into a necklace
February 3, 2008 at 10:42 am
One word: Ew!
I was intrigued by this necklace; until I found out sperm was woven into it! What a incredibly creepy thing to do. Why put sperm in a necklace?!!!!
February 3, 2008 at 1:31 pm
All I can think when I see this necklace, is that it is meant to be worn around a woman’s neck. How degrading it is to nearly choke a woman with the essence of maleness. I find this piece of work extremely chauvenistic. Interesting though, I will admit.
February 3, 2008 at 3:20 pm
This is unsanitary. Someone call Angelina Jolie and Billy Bob to pick up their jewelry…
February 3, 2008 at 6:48 pm
I think that a truly great work of fashion inspires conversation and debate; and this piece certainly does! Whether you love the necklace or hate it, you can’t deny that Costin has done a fabulous job evoking emotion in everyone that views it. It’s a brilliant piece-my favorite of the exhibit.
February 4, 2008 at 12:33 am
‘you can’t deny that Costin has done a fabulous job evoking emotion in everyone that views it. It’s a brilliant piece-my favorite of the exhibit.’
I could not agree more!
I am not a designer, or vaguely related to the fashion world, but this necklace has inspired me to be creative: when my mother in law died, and we closed the house,
I discovered in a small box the “baby teeth” of my husband, that she had saved. When I had my own son, I saved his little teeth as well. I intended to keep them separate, by mistake, I was distracted, I put my son’s in the same box. After that, I could not tell them apart. Just as well. Now I am making a necklace, probably using several materials, silk, gauze, it is in progress.
February 4, 2008 at 1:01 am
I think this necklace is one of those things you don’t want to look at because you think it’s gross but at the same time can’t look away and want to learn more about it. He has caused an uproar and so much publicity for himself by creating a controversial piece of art. I think the idea itself is actually genius because it caused people to sit and think and feel emotion towards an object he created.
February 4, 2008 at 3:35 pm
I’m still waiting for my yeast infection bracelet
February 5, 2008 at 1:28 am
This necklace has many impressive elements. The twisting metal is ornate and very decorative. While the jewelry is quite large, the design speaks more to the sophisticated taste than that of the gaudy. I would love to see this necklace worn as a statement piece with a monochromatic outfit. While I’m not sure I agree with the inclusion of the sperm in the vials, I do not think it is “gross”. I am happy that artists and designers puch boundaries of art/design with controversial pieces such as this one.
February 6, 2008 at 12:22 pm
The commentaries that accompany each design piece are, in my opinion, distracting, in terms of their inability to clearly explain the peice. Rather, each one appears to have been written to obfuscate rather than clarify. Simpler choice of words would help those who come to understand. It appears that these comments are not meant to help, but to put off. As a college professor of communications, I encourage clear, precise and understandable language.
February 6, 2008 at 5:25 pm
‘The commentaries that accompany each design piece are, in my opinion, distracting, in terms of their inability to clearly explain the piece. Rather, each one appears to have been written to obfuscate rather than clarify. Simpler choice of words would help those who come to understand. It appears that these comments are not meant to help, but to put off. As a college professor of communications, I encourage clear, precise and understandable language.’
I disagree: the purpose of a text about a work of art is not to “explain”, as art
has no explanation.
I doubt very much that the staff of a museum wants to obfuscate or put off.
Perhaps college professors of communications should stick to corporate press releases.
February 8, 2008 at 7:51 pm
this necklace actually hangs very well,
and it’s one of the more interesting pieces in the exhibit.
plus the pearls add a classy touch.
February 9, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Yo llamaria a este collar “Genesis”, porque independientemente del significado que le dio su creador, el simbolismo es otro, por los elementos utilizados, en primer lugar el cobre, uno de los primeros metales utilizados por el ser humano, que se da libremente en la corteza terrestre pero que para utilizarlo en la fabricación del collar lo coloco por varios meses (9 meses??) en la madre tierra y lo extrajo luego en una especie de nacimiento, luego la perla testigo de un milagroso nacimiento que se da en las profundidades marinas y por último el semen humano portador del agente fecundador que da origen a la maravilla de ¡UN SER HUMANO!
February 10, 2008 at 2:32 pm
‘Yo llamaria a este collar “Genesis”
Estoy de acuerdo con usted.
Qué linda manera de expresar algo que indudablemente esta allí.
Usted ha hecho una ‘deconstruccíon’ de las varias posibilidades de significado muy bella y llena de sentido.
Me alegró muchísimo leer su texto y me estimuló para pensar en aspectos del collar que se me habían escapado, en los cuales no había pensado.
February 11, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Muchas gracias, me gustaria completar ese comentario diciendo que como una confirmación, el artista reune los elementos en una joya, para el cuello, de la que sabe de cerca el misterio de dar vida: La Mujer
February 11, 2008 at 5:25 pm
‘el artista reune los elementos en una joya, para el cuello, de la que sabe de cerca el misterio de dar vida: La Mujer’
Su punto de vista es muy interesante, un punto de vista que sorprenderá, sin duda, al artista, quien posiblemente no había pensado él mismo en todas estas dimensiones. Una vez que la obra de arte sale de las manos del artista, cobra una vida independiente con muchas ramificaciones.
Yo tengo mi teoría acerca de la selección de los elementos de este collar.
Esto no quiere decir que tengo razón!
February 11, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Oddly enough, I think if this were designed by a woman, I would be able to appreciate it more as a feminist piece. Originally, I assumed it was a women and I found it less offensive. I think that Costin has a real sense of humor with his designs. Aesthetics clearly come second in his work and meaning/irony first! Although, I wouldn’t want to wear either of his necklaces on display, I appreciate his gift of craft and expression for whatever his mind was exploring at the time. I think his inspirational sources are interesting and his resultant designs are poignant and attract solid reactions. I appreciate his necklaces more as sculpture/3-d art and less as wearable design. I am definitely drawn to the uniqueness of his vision and the stories behind his strange pieces. They have true substance and individuality. This artist really created his own design vocabulary of symbolism to represent the story behind his creation. The necklace itself though, is truly odd and offensive in any most other context and I’m curious to know if it has ever been worn??
February 12, 2008 at 2:10 pm
‘I am definitely drawn to the uniqueness of his vision and the stories behind his strange pieces. They have true substance and individuality. This artist really created his own design vocabulary of symbolism to represent the story behind his creation. The necklace itself though, is truly odd and offensive in any most other context …’
Uniqueness, vision, substance, individuality, personal vocabulary, what else do you want?
I disagree with the ‘offensive’ assertion.
‘Oddly enough, I think if this were designed by a woman, I would be able to appreciate it more as a feminist piece.’ Very odd indeed. I fail to see the ‘feminist’ implication, if indeed it were designed by a woman. The gender of the philosopher does not direct his/her theories.
Again, ‘oddly enough’ a previous statement about this piece in Spanish, could easily be construed as a “feminist’ interpretation of the ‘Incubus’. At least first wave feminist interpretation. The second wave is less literal and perhaps appreciates complexity more. It would take a bit of an effort, but it could be done.
February 20, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Gag me with a spoon, this is a vile piece of art
February 24, 2008 at 11:15 am
“Vial Things” is nothing but vial.
February 24, 2008 at 11:16 am
i wonder if its drinkible
February 24, 2008 at 3:36 pm
‘this necklace actually hangs very well,
and it’s one of the more interesting pieces in the exhibit.’
I could not agree more!
This necklace by Simon Costin and the ‘Crisp Tailoring’ piece by Miguel Adover speak to me, they speak to me in the same register. These are poignant, poetic memorials to a whole generation.
February 27, 2008 at 10:25 am
This neclace is pretty nasty. I’m a little curious as to who donated their stuff for a neclace! The maker might be a little messed up in the head because he also sculpted his head out of 9 and a half pints of his own frozen blood. Gross.
February 27, 2008 at 4:51 pm
I really do enjoy the frame of this necklace because it’s beautifully twisted into intricate swirls yet I wish they would have wound the vials into the necklace more because it sort of looks like they just stuck them on the front. The really scary part of this necklace is not that it contains sperm but the fact that the vials could break and that would be terrifying. Overall it’s an interesting piece and it’s interesting that they incorporated vials of sperm into a necklace. Interesting!! Yet, Scary!!
March 1, 2008 at 1:20 pm
This piece really drew me in and I really enjoyed looking at it. At first glance and not knowing what it was I wanted to own a necklace like this one simply for the beauty it would bring to my outfits. I was very intrigued by the time and effort put into this piece and inclusion of human bodyily fluids was a little horrifying but it put an interesting spin on the artwork. I almost want to call this piece wearable art because I don’t think that many people would wear this piece that often and when they did heads would turn to stair at this gigantic piece of jewelry hanging around the wearers neck.
March 7, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Some people rely on shock value when they aren’t as talented as other people. This is a perfect example. One could compare it to comedians who rely on obsene language to get a laugh. This piece won’t be here in fifty years. Guaranteed.
March 8, 2008 at 12:59 am
I love this sooooo much!!! and the other piece he did. So awesome!
March 8, 2008 at 3:24 pm
That’s my grandpappy’s little brothers and sisters…millions of them!
March 9, 2008 at 12:26 pm
The dresses & shoes are divine. I couldn’t imagine a world with out fashion! I would die! I will definetly come back to see every thing!
March 19, 2008 at 10:03 am
This is crazyyyy!! I don’t understand why sperm is worn around someones neck!! This confuses and what is the significance of this? What is this man trying to convey???? Well its weird….but itsss sexyyy and kindaa hottt
March 22, 2008 at 10:04 am
OH MY GOD!!!! GOD MY OH!!!! i was sooo surprised to see this. its so… so… slightly disturbing but if makes a statement whatever that statement is
March 22, 2008 at 9:36 pm
People seem to be afraid of this piece…
just because one of the materials the artist used was sperm.
Why question that?
March 23, 2008 at 1:17 pm
All I want to know about this “enlightening” piece is WHY WHY WHY W H Y !!!!!!!!!!
I mean really, don’t you want to know!
March 26, 2008 at 12:16 pm
this is messed up and nasty. what kind of an artist would do this??? a messed up and disturbed one would….. EEEWWW
March 27, 2008 at 11:27 am
i think that although this seems gross, that was the fashionable thing to do at the time
i think that some people might think that some of our fashions are disgusting as well
so basically, you dont have the right to bad mouth the artist
so there
March 29, 2008 at 10:41 am
This piece is totally intense. Mind-boggling and brilliant. People that just see “ew gross” are closed-minded.
March 30, 2008 at 3:41 pm
I was horrified by the vial necklace. It certainly is vile. But, there is something raw and intimate about it. A woman who wears it is holding the ‘potential’ of many men close to her chest. And she can select among them the one she likes, based on her taste.
March 30, 2008 at 3:42 pm
It definitely give new meaning to the term “pearl necklace”! Necklace is beautiful but were the vials really neccessary? I think not!
March 30, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Mdm. Gres - red taffeta dress is breathtaking! It just made my day.
March 31, 2008 at 2:01 am
Wow, imagine if whilst wearing the necklace you managed to smash it.. What a mess!
April 4, 2008 at 9:29 am
Handle with care….Do Not Break!!!
April 4, 2008 at 5:34 pm
I believe the very fact the artsit can produce this piece and call it art shows what is now acceptable in modern society. I infact agree with displaying art that is diverse and controvetial as it shows the sad decline of values and the lack of inhibition in modern day society. On another point however for the five donors it will let them live forever!!
April 5, 2008 at 9:26 am
Ewwww!
Are you saving that up for something?
I was horrified by the thought of having to carry sperm on my neck.
April 5, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Although this necklace is a bit strange, I truly admire Costin’s originality. I don’t know if I’d wear it but it is definately a unique concept. Very interesting! In my opinion, it isn’t wearable but it is art.
April 5, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Very original, I own an accessories company and I would totally use this necklace as my visual display. It would definitely attract my customers’ attention!
April 12, 2008 at 9:16 am
whyin the world would he put sperm in a vial
April 12, 2008 at 9:40 am
this necklace was soo interesting
i cant believe people would want to keep a necklace like this!!!
April 12, 2008 at 9:41 am
this is weird
April 13, 2008 at 3:29 pm
‘Some people rely on shock value when they aren’t as talented as other people. This is a perfect example. One could compare it to comedians who rely on obsene language to get a laugh. This piece won’t be here in fifty years. Guaranteed.’
The prophetic ‘guaranteed’ prediction is amazing in its repetitive
dimension: it has been said of the work of so many artists of the past, before they went on to the permanent collections of museums all over the world.
I am almost sure that Costin’s intention was not to ’shock’.
To me, it looks more like he was trying to work out a complex set of ideas. The successful result is a cryptic object of great beauty.