What separates criticism through replication from simple perpetuation
Bianca Censori exhibited the first installation of her seven-part performance art series, entitled BIO POP, this past December in Seoul, South Korea. Censori first hit mainstream media when she became romantically involved with rapper Kanye “Ye” West. The pair were first spotted together in January 2023, approximately two months after West and reality TV personality Kim Kardashian finalized their divorce. Censori quickly became an overnight sensation for her incredibly revealing attire, infamous for once appearing with a pillow clutched to her chest as a top. At the 2025 GRAMMY’s, Censori took the “barely there” look to a new level, appearing beside West in an entirely sheer mini dress. Some found her outfits scandalous, others found her style as art, and discourse on BIO POP is no different.
BIO POP alludes to British artist Allen Jones’ controversial Hatstand, Table, and Chair collection, which features three sculptures incorporating women into furniture. One kneels on all fours, supporting a glass tabletop on her back. Another lies on her back with her knees squished against her chest, belted in place. A cushion lies on the backs of her thighs, and her legs serve as the backrest. The third stands with her hands outstretched, presumably in anticipation of a hat to be hung. All three women wear heavy makeup and revealing clothes, as though they may tiptoe out after closing in a Night at the Museum-esque escapade and hit up the strip club for some extra cash. Jones refers to the artwork as a critique of the objectification of women.
BIO POP incorporates women into furniture in a similar approach. However, Censori takes it a step further by contorting the women in uncomfortable positions. One becomes a human chandelier, hanging from a fixture above. Another is positioned in an elbow stand (an acrobatic move similar to a handstand, except one balances on their forearms rather than their hands). Her back bends as though she has no bones, the backs of her thighs touch her head, and her legs are stretched the length of the table. Another is positioned in a chest stand (similar to an elbow stand, except one balances on their chest, with support from their hands). Her legs pierce the tabletop twice, once out and once back in, allowing her feet to rest above her head.
Then there are two chairs, arguably her most disturbing design. Their positioning appears similar to the practice of tying one’s wrists together, one’s ankles together, and then the wrists to the ankles, a bondage position which leaves the restrained completely vulnerable and is used by the BDSM (bondage, discipline/domination, sadism, and masochism) community to enact total dominance and serve sadistic and masochistic pleasures. The women’s arms are drawn back as the arm rests, their head and curved back create the backrest and seat portion, their thighs serve as the chair legs, and their lower legs bend back up towards their hands.
Censori provides the same argument as Jones, that the artwork is a critique of the objectification of women. However, where is the line between criticism through replication and simple perpetuation? You can argue a mission statement rife with criticism, but at the end of the day, if what you choose to show is disturbing images of objectification, that is what sticks. That is what gets the most media attention. Art is meant to comfort the target audience and disturb the ignorant, but I myself remain disturbed. If to critique the objectification of women, you must objectify women yourself, how significant of a critique can it really be? To those who take pleasure in the objectification of women, to sadists who take pleasure in their positioning, it is not a criticism; it is blatant perpetuation. It is exactly what they want to see. Is there not a way one may critique something without relenting to the culture it criticizes?
As BIO POP is the first instalment in a series of seven, I hope to see the true message strengthened as the project unfolds.