Paul McCarthy’s sculpture ‘’Tree’’, exhibited in a Parisian square, is the most appropriate example of modern art significance versus the controversial phallic art and its partisans. Modern art does not only differ from classical art, but it reverses it in ways which at times might seem a childish playground… conservative art critics might agree. Nonetheless, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and art is the most debatable field of all.
Paul McCarthy is a vivid figure on the contemporary artistic stage, his works having been exhibited from New York to London or Stockholm to Paris. His creation has raised numerous controversies among artists and non-artists and has been tagged as phallic by numerous viewers.
His latest exhibition of an artistic piece has created a tremendous stir among locals. The 79-foot-high inflatable green artifact named ‘’Tree’’ was placed in Place Vendrome, causing numerous debates among pedestrians, which eventually led to an act of vandalism. Are Parisians deeply conventional in their inner structure of sheer classical heritage or has McCarthy’s exhibit crossed a boundary of common sense? His want-to-be Christmas tree resembles a sexual toy.
The American artist confesses to draw his inspiration from the father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, the founder of theories such as the oedipal complex, or Phallic stages in human development. This being the case, the idea of a phallic-shaped tree does not seem to be so lavish. Psychologically explainable or not, Parisians are obviously appalled by the so-called ‘’Tree’’.
Constantin Brâncuși, a Romanian forerunner of modern art, had experienced the same scandalous treatment at the exhibit of his sculpture, ‘’Portrait of Mademoiselle Pogany’’ (1912), due to its supposedly phallic shape and symbolism – he had crafted the sculpture for Marie Bonaparte (the niece of Napoleon Bonaparte), one of the well-known followers of Sir Sigmund Freud. Eerie or not, Brâncuși has remained until today one of the most influential artists of modern times.