Redressing Naked Dave: Defending Dave Stevens by Challenging Laura Molina’s Unethical and Exploitative Artistic Practices
William J. Lorenzo
Independent scholar and historian
Citer cet article
Lorenzo, W.J. (2025). Redressing Naked Dave: Defending Dave Stevens by Challenging Laura Molina’s Unethical and Exploitative Artistic Practices. p-e-r-f-o-r-m-a-n-c-e, 8.
Abstract
Ethics and morality always play a role in artistic creation, but on occasion the converse can be the driving force behind a piece of art. But what happens when the driving force behind an artistic creation is immoral, and that piece of artwork is continuously viewed in an unethical manner? Case in point: Laura Molina’s ‘Naked Dave’ series of paintings. By examining the ethical issues surrounding the creation of such pieces of art, we can explore the implications of immoral art. From the standpoint of philosophy and ethics, this series of paintings can essentially be considered a piece of revenge porn on canvas, and examining such an unethical piece of art from a Kantian point of view can shed light on the interplay between art and ethics. And since this artwork directly concerns another artist, we should also examine the artwork of Dave Stevens, particularly how his working in an ethical manner creates an aesthetic that is in opposition to unethical works of art.
Keywords
Introduction
The two artists involved in this case study are Dave Stevens and Laura Molina. Dave Stevens was an American illustrator and comic book artist who was well known for his glamour and pin-up illustrations, as well as for creating comic book superhero The Rocketeer. Laura Molina, who has given herself the moniker ‘The Angriest Woman in the World,’ is known primarily for a series of paintings which she refers to as ‘The Naked Dave Project.’ The two artists became intertwined due to an incredibly short, yet extremely tumultuous relationship which lasted for only a few months in 1978. Though they remained adversaries for life, Stevens attempted an ill-fated reconciliation in the early 1990s. By 1993, Molina began working on her ‘Naked Dave’ series of paintings, a series which continues in perpetuity.
Molina’s ‘Naked Dave Project’ features the likeness of Dave Stevens, appearing as an objectified nude subject in a series of archetypical settings. Molina’s use of his likeness continues without his consent and in flagrant defiance of his forceful objections. Since the conception of her series of paintings there has been considerable, yet hardly widespread, criticism over her use of his likeness in these various artworks. When examining Molina’s motivation and attitude towards these paintings, one cannot help but consider the ethical implications of creating such works. A vital ethical framework to utilize when examining these works of art is the philosophical theories of Immanuel Kant. In Kantian ethics, Kant proposes the notion that universal moral principals should guide all human decisions, regardless of context. Most importantly, Kant argues that these moral principals should apply to every person, stressing the autonomy of the individual. Using Kantian ethics as a guide, it is clear that Molina’s art should be challenged as immoral. When her exploitative art is further compared to the art of its unwilling subject, particularly Stevens’ artistic motivations and ethical practices, it only exacerbates the problematic nature of Molina’s creating such unethical pieces of art.
Ethics According To Kant
Kantian ethics, particularly Kant’s notion of categorical imperatives, deals primarily in absolutes. Regardless of individualized circumstances, Immanuel Kant’s views are rigid. One of the central tenets of Kant’s ethical system, found within his notion of the categorical imperative is quite simply: “Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (Kant). This first formulation of his categorical imperative hereby asks us to consider if it is acceptable to universalize our actions. At its very core, Kantian ethics would immediately find Molina’s Naked Dave paintings an immoral and unethical act based solely on this most important tenet. Would it be acceptable for everyone to depict other unwilling subjects in potentially degrading ways without their consent? If this practice were universalized, it would lead to widespread disrespect for personal dignity, something Kant would find morally unacceptable. Kant would further critique Molina’s Naked Dave paintings from various perspectives of his ethical framework, particularly his concepts of dignity, autonomy, universalizability, and the categorical imperative.
As fundamental as Kant’s first formulation is, the second formulation of his categorical imperative is equally as poignant an issue with regards to the artwork in question. His second formulation states that we must “act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means to an end.” (Kant). Considering that the purpose of Molina’s paintings is to objectify Dave Stevens, these paintings therefore reduce him to a mere instrument for her artistic expression and personal/social narrative. Since Molina is using Stevens as a means to an end, under his second formulation, Kant would further classify her artwork as unethical. Even if her intent was a societal criticism (as opposed to addressing personal grievances), the exploitation of someone’s image, likeness, and being without their consent clearly violates their human dignity, treating them merely as a means to an end.
In a Kantian viewpoint, respecting the autonomy of individuals is paramount. The autonomy of a human being implies that each individual has the right to govern themselves and their representation. In the present day, a person’s image and likeness is certainly an aspect of their representation. Considering the undisputed verity that Dave Stevens never consented to being depicted in the manner chosen by Molina (or in any manner whatsoever by Molina), this complete lack of respect for his autonomy conflicts with Kantian morality. While Kant did have an appreciation for art and aesthetic value, he held that moral duty takes precedence over artistic expression. Regardless of Molina’s personal motivations, Kant would clearly argue that there is no moral or ethical justification for any such artwork which uses Stevens as a means to an end, compromising another person’s dignity and autonomy.
Since Molina’s Naked Dave series objectifies Dave Stevens, fails to respect his autonomy, and disregards his right to be treated as an end in himself, from a Kantian perspective these paintings are an ethical violation. Kant prioritizes the moral imperative to honor Stevens’ dignity over any artistic or personal intentions. But if a person is held responsible for his or her unethical actions, they need to be answerable for their intentions. The concept of responsibility can be used in two contexts: the legal and the personal (Korsgaard). The legal refers to punishment for one’s actions, and the personal to the moral and ethical implications of one’s actions. These two contexts are not necessarily always aligned with each other. For example, a person can be legally at fault for jaywalking, yet few would see that act as immoral; whereas, a person cannot really be legally held accountable for adultery, yet most would see that act as immoral. Though Molina herself has addressed the potential legal ramifications of her work, and that is an issue which should and will be discussed, the more pertinent examination would be Molina’s responsibility from a personal context. Particularly when examining the works of Molina and the works of her subject, Dave Stevens, one must consider the moral implications of their actions and motivations. Kantian ethics and morality requires one to hold another responsible for unethical acts, and through this examination, by highlighting the differences between creating ethical works of art and unethical works of art, we can shine light on the problematic nature of Molina’s immoral art, which in turn can promote Stevens’ works of art as a way to ameliorate the wrongdoing he has had to suffer.
Consent and Motivations
Understanding that Dave Stevens is completely unwilling to be a part of Molina’s artwork, one must beg the question of whether or not her series of Naked Dave paintings is some version of revenge porn on canvas. The simple fact that Molina has continued to espouse her malintent towards Stevens over the years lends credence to the classification of these artworks as revenge porn. The typical qualities of revenge porn are that one party discloses sexually explicit images of a second party against their will. Even though we’re dealing with paintings instead of photos in this particular scenario, the intent behind the artwork and the consequences of disseminating the images is aligned with the aforementioned qualities. Molina essentially defines and delineates many of the unethical and immoral quandaries directly in the description of the series itself. She describes the artwork by stating that “Naked Dave is a series of paintings of an ex-boyfriend, each one more personal than the last, all without the model’s consent.” (“Laura Molina Interview”). In other discussions of her paintings, Molina has stated that “Dave Stevens is a ‘male muse,’ and an unwilling one at that … this upsets the order of things. Women are not supposed to have my technical skill or use it to toy with and objectify a male subject.” (Molina in Ramirez-Dhoore). By continuously admitting both that Stevens is an unwilling participant, and that her intent in painting is to objectify him in a way which would upset him, Molina makes it clear that her motivations are unethical and immoral.
Molina’s depictions of Stevens are not solely limited to the ‘Naked Dave’ series of paintings proper, but rather has become a recurring element in a significant amount of her work. In some of Molina’s more recent depictions of Stevens she draws inspiration from Mexican artist Jesus Helguerra. Though these paintings seem to be less inspired by and more of an imitation and appropriation of Helguerra’s work, Molina depicts herself in the arms of Stevens in her 1999 “Legends of the Southwest” painting, sharing many similarities with one of Helguerra’s well-known untitled works. Of course the most glaring comparison is between Helguerra’s “Amor Indio” and Molina’s “Amor Alien.” There is an exact repositioning of the subjects between the two paintings, but there is one additional element to the art that is particularly of interest to the ethical implications. Julia Llano, Helguerra’s wife, was the model for the woman in his painting, and she frequently sat as a model throughout his artistic career. On the other hand, Molina’s painting depicts Molina herself as the female form, and (the unwilling subject) Dave Stevens as a nude astronaut. A rather interesting dichotomy exists between the two pieces, one featuring not only a willing model, but the artist’s lover and companion, and the other featuring an unwilling former paramour without the model’s consent.
The distinction between these two depictions also plays into a component of Kantian ethics and morality. In both his “Lectures on Ethics” and the “Metaphysics of Morals,” Kant touches upon the notions of pair bonding, possession, and autonomy. Kant argues that “Man can, of course, use another human being as an instrument for his service; he can use his hands, his feet, and even all his powers; he can use him for his own purposes with the other’s consent.” (Kant). This idea clearly applies to an artist’s use of a model, specifically if the model has given the artist consent to use his or her likeness. Additionally, there is an added layer of desirability and possessability with regards to the person who is being used as a model. “To yield to that desire … is to allow yourself to be possessed. The problem is how you can do that in a way that is consistent with respect for your own humanity. And the solution rests in reciprocity.” (Korsgaard). When referring to two individuals who are pair bonded, it is this very notion of reciprocity and personal intimacy which allows for the two parties to ‘possess’ each other in an ethical way. Kant discusses this idea thoroughly: “If, then, one yields one’s person, body and soul, for good and ill in every respect, so that the other has complete rights over it, and if the other does not similarly yield himself in return and does not extend in return the same rights and privileges, the arrangement is one-sided. But if I yield myself completely to another and obtain the person of the other in return, I win myself back; I have given myself up as the property of another, but in turn I take that other as my property, and so win myself back again in winning the person whose property I have become. In this way the two persons become a unity of will.” (Kant). Not exclusive to married parties, this social contract can be made between any two individuals without either party abandoning any individual freedoms or autonomy, and it is in this reciprocity where such behavior becomes morally acceptable.
Moral philosopher Christine Korsgaard discusses these Kantian notions with regards to personal reciprocity by articulating the mutual agreement that must be made between the two parties. She states that “the relations of reciprocity are relations that obtain between free and equal persons … and in order to make the ends and reasons of another your own, you must regard her as a source of value, someone whose choices confer worth upon their objects, and who has the right to decide on her own actions. In order to entrust your own ends and reasons to another’s care, you must suppose that she regards you that way, and is prepared to act accordingly. People who enter into relations of reciprocity must be prepared to share their ends and reasons; to hold them jointly; and to act together.” (Korsgaard). This notion is the reason that Helguerra’s artwork is not morally questionable, as each time he painted a figure using his wife’s likeness, she was sitting in front of him as a model – a willing and consenting participant. On the other hand, Molina’s depictions of Dave Stevens are certainly morally questionable, as he is neither a willing nor a consenting participant in her works. Rather than being able to make the choice as to whether or not to offer himself up as a model to be painted, Molina instead created this questionable figure of ‘Naked Dave,’ an association with which the real Dave Stevens never wanted to have.
In describing Molina’s painting “Amor Alien,” The New Routledge Companion to Science Fiction states that “Molina portrays herself as the stereotypical green alien, sitting on the lap of astronaut Naked Dave.” (Taylor). This figure of ‘Naked Dave’ has taken on a life of its own, and is a personification which Dave Stevens never sought. Dave Stevens illustrated and painted many well-known science fiction-themed pieces of art and comic books, yet his work does not appear anywhere in The New Routledge Companion to Science Fiction. Naked Dave, however, is mentioned numerous times, reinforcing how Molina’s depiction of Stevens takes away his autonomy in a most egregious way. Stevens spent his entire life and artistic career contributing a plethora of noteworthy artwork, nonetheless in many instances he is unfortunately known only as the naked figure in Molina’s pieces. Such a depiction of a not-so-public figure begins to enter the realm of potential legal ramifications in addition to the various ethical implications.
During an interview regarding her work, Molina admits that Stevens is certainly not enough of a public figure for her to be able to skirt legal responsibility on those grounds. As well-known as Dave Stevens may be, his personal image and likeness is certainly not an aspect of his celebrity, yet Molina feels that she’s “on safe legal ground,” citing the California case of Polydoros v. 20th Century Fox. This case involves the character of Michael ‘Squints’ Palledorous, a character from David Mickey Evans’ film The Sandlot (1993). The plaintiff, Michael Polydoros, grew up in a similar setting, has a similar name and childhood appearance, and personally knew the film’s writer/director David Mickey Evans. The lawsuit alleges that the filmmakers used a character that resembles Polydoros in both name and likeness, and as such amounts to both invasion of privacy and defamation. The court sided with the filmmakers and 20th Century Fox concluding that the film did not invade Polydoros’ privacy and that the character’s depiction is protected by constitutional guarantees of free expression. Molina is confident that similar legal issues apply to her depiction of Stevens in her artwork; however, there are copious differences between the two cases. But despite any potential legal issues surrounding the artwork, it is clear that these works of art are undoubtedly unethical and immoral in their depiction of Stevens. The fact that Molina might enjoy some sort of legal or constitutional protection from lawsuits and damages holds no weight in a court of morals.
The immoral motivation behind Molina’s paintings and her continued persistence in creating such works further compounds the severity of her malice. It seems to be Molina’s intention to strip Stevens of his identity and his very being and redefine him as another figure entirely of her corrupted design – as Naked Dave. When asked about whether or not Stevens gets recognized solely as ‘Naked Dave’ due to her paintings, Molina simply states that “yes, he has … he was practically hiding under the table at a comic convention. Other artists tease him about it, so he’s starting to get annoyed. And then when [documentary filmmakers] tried to stick a camera in his face and interview him about Naked Dave he just about lost it.” (“Laura Molina Interview”). Later in the same interview, when asked whether she will continue to keep painting Stevens as Naked Dave, Molina exclaimed “oh, yeah, of course. Nobody wants to see the real Dave. Real Dave doesn’t exist anymore. I turned him into an abject. I have … he’s Naked Dave. A woman can take a paintbrush and do that. It upsets people that I can possess him with a paintbrush – and I want to arrogantly add that not just anyone can do that.” (“Laura Molina Interview”). And as absurd as it may seem, there’s an element of truth to her sentiments regarding her objectification of Dave Stevens. When Molina appeared as a contestant on Win Ben Stein’s Money, host Jimmy Kimmel made several on-air jokes regarding the paintings of “Laura the penis painter,” as Kimmel quipped. (“Laura Molina Interview”). And all of this is precisely the issue regarding the objectification of another person’s being without their consent. As Korsgaard claims, it is the reciprocity that makes such behavior morally acceptable, but without Stevens’ consent, Molina’s work is an immoral and unethical act, which serves only as a means to do damage to Stevens while promoting her own artistry. In order to further illustrate the iniquitous nature of Molina’s art, it is only just to examine the artwork of her unwilling subject, Dave Stevens. Looking at the art of Dave Stevens serves not only as an example of how one can create art in an ethical and morally acceptable manner, but also provides some small level of amelioration in restoring the autonomy of Dave Stevens.
Redressing Dave Stevens
Dave Stevens was primarily known for his pin-up style illustrations and his work in comics, especially The Rocketeer, which he created. In addition to this, Stevens worked in newspaper comics, as a storyboard artist for both animated and live-action media, and was a mainstay at the San Diego Comic Con. Stevens described himself as the “slowest man in comics,” and was highly critical of his own work due to his well-known perfectionist nature. A documentary film about his life and art focused on his ideas of perfection, where “Dave’s demand for perfection, whether in his art or in his appearance/image, is a big part of his story.” (Fenner). In his constant efforts to improve his own artistic ability (as he was self-taught), Stevens routinely used models as a basis for many of his illustrations. In some instances he took pictures of himself in various poses that he wanted to draw. But as a large body of his work consisted of glamour illustrations, he often found it essential to have women sit as models for his illustrations. Stevens asked friends and lovers alike to pose for him, live and in photographs, and similar to Jesus Helguerra’s ethical depictions of his wife as a model for his art, Stevens similarly depicted his aforementioned friends and lovers. Notably, there is not one single figure in Stevens’ lifelong artistic career that bears any resemblance whatsoever to Laura Molina, for Stevens only illustrated and painted individuals who consented to his use of their likeness. There were two individuals, however, whose likenesses were frequently depicted in Stevens’ work: Brinkie Stevens and Bettie Page.
Brinkie Stevens is a scream queen, actress, model, and lifelong companion of Dave Stevens. She too was a mainstay at San Diego Comic Con, and the couple would eventually marry in the early 1980s. Even though their marriage was short-lived, Brinkie and Dave Stevens remained friends for the remainder of his life, and she continued to sit as a model for many of his illustrations. One of her most well-known depictions by Stevens is featured on the cover of Twisted Tales #1 (Nov. 1987), though she modeled for him essentially throughout his entire career. Brinkie Stevens also served as the model for The Rocketeer’s girlfriend Betty, a character who was based in part on the real-life pin-up model Bettie Page. After the success of The Rocketeer comic book, there was a renewed cultural interest in Bettie Page, who had been somewhat forgotten and lived in seclusion. Dave Stevens had the happenstance opportunity to meet Bettie Page, and after getting her permission, he began extensively illustrating Page. “Unlike other publishers, Dave Stevens paid her a royalty for every print he produced that featured her.” (Fenner). Stevens and Page became close friends, and Stevens went so far as to personally chase profiteers who used Page’s early career photos without compensating her. Of Stevens, Bettie Page has stated that “Dave Stevens is the best friend I’ve ever had in my life.” (Fenner).
By looking at the work of Dave Stevens which features Brinkie Stevens and Bettie Page as models, we can see how an artist can paint a person’s likeness in an ethical manner. Rather than immorally exploiting the likeness of unconsenting former lovers, Stevens chose to use only those with whom he had an intimate and reciprocal connection with as figures for his illustrations. From a Kantian perspective, depicting real individuals in art should only be done with that person’s consent, in order to avoid the violation of their autonomy and dignity. The ethical imperative is that artists should obtain permission prior to using a person’s likeness – just as Stevens did with Brinkie Stevens and Bettie Page, yet not in alignment with Molina’s unconsenting depiction. On the other hand, in opposition to the ethical principles of Kant, a counterpoint can be made with the argument of artistic freedom. Scholars have historically argued that thought-provoking art plays a critical role in challenging societal norms. From this perspective, the artist’s freedom of expression and creativity should not be restricted, even if their artwork is controversial. However, scholars must also take the contextual framing of the artwork into consideration. The ethical concerns could potentially be mitigated if the context in which an individual is depicted provides some element of clarity. This critical role in determining the ethics of representation can also be analyzed from a more postmodern perspective, which is also somewhat in opposition to Kantian ideologies. Even though postmodern scholars would question the very nature of representation, interpretation, and truth as depicted within artwork like Molina’s Naked Dave series, Molina’s stated motivations behind her series of paintings renders any potential justification for her paintings moot.
Ultimately, it is only the Kantian framework which can provide ethical foundations for contemporary artistic practice. Kant’s philosophy prioritizes moral duty, and Kantian ethics demand that artists be guided by respect and dignity towards an individual’s autonomy. This perspective ensures that artistic expression does not come at the cost of another person. With its emphasis on universal moral principles and the inherent worth of the individual, Kantian ideology ethically outweighs any other considerations with regards to the artistic depiction of real people and their likeness. It is evident when examining the artwork of both Laura Molina and Dave Stevens that Stevens’ more ethical approach to artistic practice only enhanced the intensity of his artistic output and the subsequent consumption of his artwork. The alluring nature of Stevens’ figures is unique to say the least, and there’s something to be said about his using willing, agreeable, and enthusiastic models as figures for his illustrations. As ethics, morality, and aesthetic judgment often go hand in hand, the average viewer can agree on a level of quality to a particular work of art, potentially based on considerations surrounding the ethical environment within which each piece of art was created. The documentary film on Dave Stevens’ life and art is titled Drawn To Perfection (2022) – a fitting title reflecting both the man himself and his body of work. As Stevens spent his entire life creating ethical art with only the best of intentions, it is clear that his body of work and his name, Dave Stevens, will forever be synonymous with artistic excellence.
References
Dave Stevens: Drawn To Perfection. Dir. Kelvin Mao. Art for Arf’s Sake, 2002.
Ramirez-Dhoore, Dora. “The Cyberborderland: Surfing the Web for Xicanidad.” Chicana/Latina Studies: The Journal of Mujeres Activas en Letras y Cambio Social. Vol. 5 Iss. 1. 2005.
Fenner, Arnie. “Dave Stevens Documentary.” Muddy Colors. 22 May 2023.
Franks, Mary Anne. “The Crime of Revenge Porn.” The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Ethics and the Criminal Law. 2019.
Freeman, John. “In Memoriam: Dave Stevens.” downthetubes.net. 12 Mar. 2008.
Guthrie, Shandon L. “Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative.” The Examined Life Philosophy Journal. Vol. 11 Iss. 7.
Helguerra, Jesus. Amor Indio. 1954. Museo Soumaya, Ciudad de Mexico.
Kant, Immanuel. Lectures on Ethics. 1775-1780. Edited by Paul Menzer. Translated by Louis Infield. Methuen & Co, Ltd. 1930. Reprinted by Harper Torchbooks, 1963.
Korsgaard, Christine M. “Creating the Kingdom of Ends: Reciprocity and Responsibility in Personal Relations.” Philosophical Perspectives. Vol. 6. 1992.
“Laura Molina Interview: Not Just the World’s Angriest Woman.” deuceofclubs.com.
Molina, Laura. Amor Alien. 2004. National Museum of Mexican Art.
“Polydoros v. 20th Century Fox Film Corp.” casetext.com. 27 Aug. 1997.
Singer, Marcus G. “The Categorical Imperative.” The Philosophical Review. Vol. 63 No. 4. Oct. 1954.
Taylor, Taryne Jade. “Diasporic Latinx Futurisms.” The New Routledge Companion to Science Fiction. Taylor & Francis. 13 June 2024.
William J. Lorenzo is an independent scholar and historian. He holds Bachelor’s degrees in both cinema and television history and pure mathematics and a Master’s degree in film and television history/theory. He is currently pursuing his doctorate in American Studies at Rutgers. His writings have appeared in edited collections such as Adapting Superman (2021), The Legacy of the X-Files (2023), ReFocus: The Films of Jack Arnold (forthcoming), Toyetic Television (forthcoming), The Works of Susan Harris (forthcoming), Laughter in Wartime Television (forthcoming), The International Television Commercial (forthcoming), Dinosaurs in Film, Literature, and the Arts (forthcoming), and Science Fiction at the End of History (forthcoming). His thesis examines Forbidden Planet (1956) as a veiled criticism of McCarthyism in 1950s America. He has also presented papers on topics such as 1950s sci-fi film and television, Star Trek, Italian-American film and television, animation, television history, and Cold War paranoia at international conferences. He has taught multiple courses at various New York City colleges and has also worked as an archivist in the Film Department at the Museum of Modern Art.