Masks Show
2015–2016
The work provoked a number of hostile reactions in social media, written predominantly by Russian-speaking men, whose language is marked by aggression and attempts to delegitimize both the work and the artist. Rather than engaging with the conceptual framework of the series, many comments focus on the female body as an object of judgment and control, questioning the artist’s right to work with nudity, authorship, and art history. The rhetoric ranges from dismissive evaluations to overt dehumanization, revealing an anxiety toward a female body presented outside a decorative or submissive visual regime. In this sense, the reactions form part of the social and political context in which Masks Show circulates.
Some of these comments, translated into English, are presented below.
Some of these comments, translated into English, are presented below.
This isn’t even shitty postmodernism — it’s just crap.
One of those cases where a fig leaf is used to cover shame. Shitty photos, no matter how you dress them up.
1. Anti-nude.
2. One of those cases where she looks better with clothes on.
2. One of those cases where she looks better with clothes on.
Take the camera away from the girl and don’t give it back. If she cries — give her a candy.
Such strange bodies overall. Flabby and ugly — the author must be photographing prostitutes. No wonder everything turns into a mess afterward.
Basically… just cheap posturing — supposedly “searching for oneself,” new interpretations. For a low-end audience.
1. What’s the merit here? 2. This is just a cover version of Flirt magazine. 3. An amateur’s photos. But “with pretensions.” Sorry. 4. Creepy — but I suspect that was the intention. 5. Yeah… the interior made the concept even more vulgar.
1. What the hell is this, guys? 2. As it turns out, no idea and no particular aesthetics either, IMO. 3. Dull.
1. She should have slapped the photographer’s own face on it instead. 2. Parasitizing on the classics, just like Rozhdestvenskaya. 3. I wouldn’t say that I like this… contemporary ‘art’ is provocative and seeks scandal. I’ll put it this way: I like the original paintings more, because there is an Artist there. Here, it’s just a compilation…
In a word, she — [an ‘artist’] — is an idiot. First, there’s not a damn bit of art in her photos — just pathetic pretensions.
Second, if she decided to shoot nudes, she should have a nude contract and amodel releasespelling out all the terms.And third, she’dbetter pray that thecopyright holders of thepaintings fromwhich she took the facesdon’t send her a bill.
Second, if she decided to shoot nudes, she should have a nude contract and amodel releasespelling out all the terms.And third, she’dbetter pray that thecopyright holders of thepaintings fromwhich she took the facesdon’t send her a bill.
1. The idea is good, but there’s no aesthetics. Ugly. 2. So what? It turned into outright vulgar trash. 3. This technique completely shifts attention from the face to the body. And that’s just horrible.
Digital collage, 2021