Barcode Bondage Babies: One Boy, One Girl by Laura Wagner
woodcut, thread, and mixed media
15" x 16"
This image is posted with permission of the artist. Laura Wagner completed a small series of Barcode Bondage Babies in 2007 that can be viewed at her website here.
This is the sort of image that instantly engages me. The iconic shapes of the children pop out. My husband glanced at the image and called it “cute.” And yes, the forms of these paper doll children are cute, but in a generic illustration sort of way. Like a lot of art today this series of works reference iconography that is both adorable and familiar, but then adds a cynical edge. The heavy black straps, the black and red barcodes, and absent faces signify that these children are objects to be bought and sold, with no identity or will of their own. The background, too, is blank; they can be inserted into any environment.
However, the interpretation shouldn’t end there. The red barcodes appear like kites or balloons afloat. The children hold the strings, as if engaged in a fun activity. The use of actual thread - gentle loops of red string below the children’s clenched hands – further softens the image. “Barcode Bondage Babies” is more than ironic. There is a genuine tension between innocence and vice.
Laura Wagner posted an Artist’s Statement for the Barcode Bondage Babies series. It reads:
Found newspaper advertisement, 2003
"Loving, Married, SANE, stable and reliable professional couple (not an agency) seeks egg donor. Candidate must be healthy, non-smoker, 18 to 25 and willing to meet briefly with prospective parents. Caucasian, blonde, red or light brown hair, 5'6"+, slim and very pretty. Proven academic achievement, SAT score 1300+. Outgoing, sense of humor, organized. Interest in art or architecture a plus. Very generous compensation.”
I’m left pondering a conundrum: I assume no parent would want their daughter to end up so desperate for quick cash that she’s willing to undergo the painful and strange process of donating eggs to strangers. If this couple ever did find their ideal baby mama, they’d have to then also live with the knowledge that their impressive laundry list of socially and biologically advantageous characteristics isn’t always enough to get ahead, at least financially. If they ever told their child the story, the child would live with that truth, too.
Of course a generic list of stats does not describe a son or daughter, or any person who is known and loved. Stats about advantageous characteristics are most useful and meaningful when dealing with populations, not individual people. But the thing about being a prospective parent is that we can’t help but fantasize about what our future children might be like, and without a person present, we easily turn to stats.
When I was pregnant with my daughter Lysi, we called her “Notacat” (because we have 4 cats) and I refused to learn the sex because we had names chosen; I did not want him or her to be named until I could know him or her as a real person. After Lysi’s birth, my husband and I both recalled feeling a slight pang of loss. Underneath the immense joy of learning she was Lysi, we both felt the loss of the potential baby boy. No doubt if it had been a boy, a part of us would have felt the loss of the imaginary girl. No matter how much I avoided becoming attached to a fantasy, some managed to creep in. But those dreams of future children are just games of pretend. Like playing with cute, paper dolls.
