In several performances, we have seen artists submit to plastic surgery so their bodies can become breathing works of art. Never in our wildest dreams could we have pictured mutilation and cannibalism within the realm of artistic representation and performance, not until a Japanese chef decided to cook his genitals and transform them into his pièce de résistance.
To make sense of this performance, we must wade into the waters of philosophy. Let us begin with Schopenhauer, who was the one who started a dialogue about identity by revising the status of the human body. In his eyes, there are two types of identity, the first is where the will forms the core of the human being, and the second where selfhood is achieved by cultivating the intellect. If we follow the latter, then we can understand that by cultivating knowledge and creativity, a person can produce a work of art that will elevate them as an artist.
Art nowadays is more concerned with provoking admiration rather than the pursuit of perfection. Many times we wonder whether performance is also part of this process that elevates the value of the work and artist. We are blessed that there are hundreds of artistic proposals created on a daily basis and most importantly embraced by audiences. Despite this openness, we cannot help but wonder if a performance can be equally admired than the work of a virtuoso who transforms normalcy into beauty.
Chef turned performer, Mao Sugiyama, combines cannibalism, culinary extravaganza, and some kind of mental disorder to create a banquet where the main course was his sexual organs. The menu was inspired by his plight as a young, controversial, asexual artist. The objective of Sugiyama was to repeatedly confirm his asexual orientation, and there is no better way to do it than debuting his cooked genitals in an artistic fashion.
The first act of this Japanese artist was to publish on Twitter, on April 8, 2012, a post where he offered his penis, testicles, and scrotum as the main ingredients for a dinner he valued at approximately US$12,000. In this banquet, Sugiyama would cook and serve his genitals accompanied by mushrooms and Italian parsley.
What was first seen as a joke soon became a disturbing reality when it was later discovered that Sugiyama underwent a complete emasculation at the age of 22. Through surgical intervention he was able to preserve the ‘raw material’ in ice for a few days.
Asexuality is defined as a lack of sexual attraction and according to studies carried out by Anthony Bogaert from the University of Brock, only 1% of the population is asexual.
After surgery, exactly on April 13, the chef began to cook and season the main course for a banquet limited to five guests who enrolled in his performance. From the very few images that were released, we can see that dozens of people attended the event. The story was highly controversial in Japan, especially considering that there is no law against cannibalism, which is why the performance was not prohibited.
The procedure the artist underwent was carried out because in his eyes, he didn’t identify with any of the existing genders. For him, his genitals were unnecessary and as such he decided to place them as the main focal point of his performance. This menu has put in doubt the purpose behind these kinds of acts that are recognized by some as artistic manifestations. Many do not see a dinner where a man’s genitals are served as a creative and least of all artistic production.
News of this cannibalistic act spurred an incendiary debate in Tokyo, with people showing concern for Mao’s behavior, which he never clarified or justified. Actually, the only thing we know about him is that he is asexual and he decided to get rid of his private parts, deeming them unnecessary. Is this reason enough to create the idea of a young man into a creative cohesion? Should the transformation of a human body into a culinary experience be considered art? Is this his way of making something he sees as useless, palatable?
Art can be a fascinating and confusing at the same time, it can represent whole universes or it can narrow down to the smallest detail. But always, always, art has something to express, be it small or large, good or bad, beautiful or grotesque. Performances always seek to stretch the limits of art, but what is it truly necessary to disturb an audience by turning an everyday practice into a fatal one?
***
If you admire the way in which performance shakes the very foundations of art we invite you to read the following:
–>
5 Artists That Were Abused During Their Performances
–>
The Artist That Lets You Touch Her Genitals for Your Shame
