Art in America

May 2003

David Levinthal at Paul Morris

Photographer David Levinthal has long fixated on toys as signifiers of cultural myths, employing toy soldiers, cowboys and Indians to deconstruct historic icons through the prism of 1950s boyhood. In recent years, Levinthal has moved from boy's playthings to those of men, in the form of adult-oriented female figurines built from model kits. Though suggestive of keyhole voyeurism, in his 1990 "American Beauties" series, featuring pinup models, retaining a whiff of nostalgia for 1950s Americana. A subsequent series, "Desire," pursued a more prurient edge with bondage figurines depicting women in contorted, submissive positions.

Erotic models are again Levinthal's subject in his "XXX" series, recently on view in New York. Photographed in a 20-by-24-inch Polaroid against a black background, the figures are shot in a hazy focus, with extreme close-ups often isolating and intensifying attention on specific body parts. At first glance, they might be mistaken for photographs of actual women. With exaggerated bodies often attired in thongs or fetish wear, the figurines are frozen in the seductive and explicit postures of exotic dancers and porn stars. Some images conform to the allure of photos in off-the-rack-men's magazines, with the figures in poses long since codified as standard centerfold fare. Others have kinkier connotations. A woman seemingly splayed on a marble floor exhibits long legs sheathed in sidelaced black boots, her upper torso and face dissolving into the background. There is the occasional suggestion of a domantrix among the group, but, as in the "Desire" series, the models are more likely to bound submissives. One extreme example, photographed from various angels, depicts a bent-over corseted figure, with wrist and ankle restraints chained to a device locking her genitals.

Levinthal's technique blurs the distinctions between toys and what they represent, and by extension, between fantasy and reality. The results in this series are at once uncanny and grotesque, as the figures are revealed to represent not women, but male fantasies about them. Those offended by the pornographic depiction of women's body would likely be disturbed by Levinthal's unconventional representation of the models that are his source. Even so, such critics may appreciate Levinthal's tinkering with the machinations of male desire.

Grady T. Turner