The sharing of information. Amazing. And with Social media, even more so. I recently posted the first of a series of works on paper called ‘Do you think I’m Sexy’ on Instagram.
Without trying to let the likes, comments and views affect me, I share my work partly to see the reaction and uptake, but also because social media has become my main active archive and point of contact with the world. It allows those who follow my practice to see where my thoughts and artwork are going.
This is very different from how things might have been in the past, when an artist created in solitude before bringing the full picture together in an exhibition or public display. But I digress.
What social media holds valuable is not necessarily the visible affirmation of likes, comments, and views, but the conversations beneath the surface: the messages, exchanges, and discussions that often move beyond Instagram into the physical world.
A friend of mine, after seeing Do You Think I'm Sexy?, messaged me and told me about Marilyn Monroe's X-rays. I had never heard this story before. I knew, of course, that Marilyn's image was a huge cultural symbol, and I had also recently discovered that she had endometriosis through my own experience of the condition.
What I didn't expect was to find another similarity that connected us: the sharing of medical images of our bodies. However, there is a significant difference. I have chosen to share my images. Marilyn's X-rays were retained and later circulated by others.
In Marilyn's case, I don't think the answer is straightforward. Perhaps the sexualisation is removed, but do the X-rays reveal another, more unsettling aspect of ownership? Who has the right to possess, display and profit from images of a woman's body?
Three of Marilyn Monroe's chest and pelvic X-rays, taken during a hospital visit in 1954, reportedly sold at auction in 2010 for $45,000. The buyer was identified as a doctor, who reportedly displayed the X-rays in their office. The buyer's gender was not publicly disclosed.
This also raises questions about ownership, gender, and intent. Would we feel differently if the purchaser of these X-rays was a woman?
How do we feel about these X-rays being on display at all?
They were private medical images of a woman, showing parts of her body that were never intended for public display.
No evidence shows that Marilyn Monroe's estate received any money from the sale of the 1954 chest and pelvic X-rays.
This point is particularly poignant in the context of sharing and commercialising the female body. Unlike Marilyn, I will profit from the sale of my own image when the artwork is sold. The distinction is not simply that our images have been shared, but that I retain agency over how mine are used and can benefit from their commercial value. She did not, nor did her estate, because a private individual owned the X-rays.
Another interesting dimension is the scale of Marilyn's commercial legacy. Her image continues to generate significant revenue through the brand managed by Authentic Brands Group. In 2024, approximately $80 million in annual global retail sales was reported.
An unexpected connection has also emerged through charity. Marilyn Monroe's legacy has been associated with support for the Anna Freud Centre in London, a charity I recently supported through the MODE EPS Gala at Spencer House by donating World Creation, which Kelly Osbourne subsequently purchased. I find myself wondering about the connections between our two seemingly separate stories, and how they have come together through these topics.
It's unbelievable how many seemingly minuscule connections I am beginning to find between my own life and Marilyn's story. Perhaps, in part, this is because we are both creative women who have experienced endometriosis. I wonder whether shared experiences can create a particular sensitivity to certain subjects, influencing what we notice and investigate.
Context:
The X-rays:
In November 1954, shortly after her divorce from baseball player Joe DiMaggio, Marilyn Monroe was admitted to Cedars of Lebanon Hospital in Los Angeles for treatment of a longstanding gynaecological condition, identified in contemporary reports as endometriosis. During her hospital stay, three X-ray films were taken of her pelvis and chest, including images showing her rib cage and lungs.
The original films were dated 9 and 10 November 1954 and carried the name "Mrs Marilyn Di Maggio", along with the names of the radiologists, Drs E. Freedman and S. Finck, and a referral from her gynaecologist, Dr Leon Krohn. According to Julien's Auctions, a young radiology resident at the hospital retained the X-rays and later used them as teaching examples for medical students.
They remained outside the public eye for decades before emerging in 2010, when they were offered for sale by Julien's Auctions as part of a Hollywood memorabilia auction. On 27 June 2010, the three original X-rays sold at Planet Hollywood in Las Vegas for $45,000, including the buyer's premium, despite having been estimated at just $800–$1,200 each. Marilyn had died in August 1962, almost eight years before the images became public.
https://www.juliensauctions.com/en/items/31487/marilyn-monroe-pelvic-x-ray
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-29/marilyn-monroe-x-rays-sell-for-51650/884906
The estate:
Marilyn Monroe's charitable legacy began with her will in 1962, which left 25% of the residue of her estate to her psychiatrist, Dr Marianne Kris, to benefit a psychiatric institution of her choosing. When Dr Kris died in 1980, she passed her interest to the Hampstead Child-Therapy Clinic in London, which later became the Anna Freud Centre.
Following a legal dispute with the estate's other beneficiaries, a New York court ruled in 1990 that the centre was entitled to 25% of the earnings from Marilyn's estate, which at the time generated more than $1 million annually in royalties and other income. In 2001, the centre became a 25% shareholder in the company established to manage Marilyn's intellectual property.
When Authentic Brands Group acquired a controlling interest in the Marilyn Monroe brand around 2010–2011, press reports in 2012 stated that the Anna Freud Centre received a £5 million windfall from the transaction. This marked a significant financial benefit from a charitable legacy Marilyn had established more than four decades earlier.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-03-12-ca-322-story.html