i-xxii Front matter.qxd - Brandeis Institutional Repository

208 / Notes8. Nadya became a very prominent graphologist. Her book The Psychology of Handwriting:Secrets of Handwriting Analysis (North Hollywood: Wilshire Book Company,1960) included a glowing introduction by Harmon S. Ephron, M.D., whopraised her “profound sense of devotion to graphology as a clinical tool” that has“stimulated psychiatrists and psychologists to study and use graphology as an importantclinical indicator of trends in their patient’s progress” (8). The book containedher analysis of the handwriting of Albert Einstein, Mary Baker Eddy, Ted Williams,Fyodor Dostoevsky, and others.9. Kate Millet, Sexual Politics (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1969; 1990), 179.10. Ibid., 188.11. Ibid., 189.12. Raphael Soyer, Self-Revealment: A Memoir (New York: Random House, n.d.), 103.Pascin’s work was shown at the Daniel, Weyhe, and Downtown galleries.13. The art historian Emmanuel Cooper has argued that the motif of lesbian prostitutecouples in modernist art has been a means of relieving homoerotic impulses bytransferring them onto women: “The scenes these artists painted are titillatory andalso serve a function in relieving the tensions of repressed sexuality within the maleviewer. By transferring the homosexual content onto members of the opposite sex,it makes the subject safe and non-threatening.” Emmanuel Cooper, Homosexualityand Art in the Last 100 Years in the West (London and New York: Routledge, 1986;1994), xx.14. According to the Neel family, Nadya always insisted that she and Nona were notlesbian lovers.15. The parallels between Eakins’s and Neel’s male nudes warrants further discussion.16. Jerry Tallmer, “On the Town,” New York Post, November 15, 1980.17. Quoted in Mary Ann Doane, Femmes Fatales: Feminism, Film Theory and Psychoanalysis(New York: Routledge, 1991), 66.18. Idem. Neel’s portrait of Annie Sprinkle can be seen as a modern Baubo.19. D. H. Lawrence, Lady Chatterley’s Lover; À Propos of Lady Chatterley’s Lover (Cambridge,Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 221.20. Idem.21. Lawrence, “À Propos of Lady Chatterley’s Lover,” 310–11.22. Quoted in James T. Patterson, America in the Twentieth Century (San Diego: Harcourt,Brace, Jovanovich, 1989), 150.23. In Sexual Politics (1969) Millet summarizes the book as follows: “Lady Chatterley’sLover is a quasi-religious tract recounting the salvation of one modern woman . . .through the ofƒces of the author’s personal cult, ‘the mystery of the phallus’” (238).24. For a summary of the feminist debate over this text and pornographic images ingeneral, see Susan Gubar, “Representing Pornography: Feminism, Criticism, andDepictions of Female Violation,” in Susan Gubar and Joan Hoff, eds., For AdultUsers Only: The Dilemma of Violent Pornography (Bloomington: Indiana UniversityPress, 1989), 47–67. Susan Suleiman supplies a strong counterargument in“Transgression and the Avant-Garde,” Subversive Intent: Gender, Politics and theAvant-Garde (Harvard University Press, 1987).