Sex vs Gender vs Art

Recently in class, we were discussing Judith Butler's theory on contemporary gender roles in society and how her ideas are applicable or not applicable to art criticism. I don't often enjoy discussions on modern art or modern theory of art criticism. It's tedious, often disorganized and generally based on opinion and therefore remains, overall, rhetorical.
That all being said, I actually found something to write an article on. There is a photographer/'performance artist' named Vanessa Beecroft. She photographs women nude (this is not her sole body of work, but the object of contention for the following discussion). The general concensus of Beecroft was that artists had a problem with Beecroft, because they disagreed with her use of 'models' in her work. They felt that because people assume that she is part of the fourth wave feminist movement (not something Beecroft has openly admitted to), that she should use average looking women so as to not idealize the female form in conformation to societal objectification. I asked the professor if Beecroft has a responsibility to her viewers to use average women and to promote fourth wave feminism. Our professor made a statement, 'Yes, she does. As a public figure and popular artist, she has an obligation to promote the 'real' woman and not the model (thin, big boobed, tall and blonde) idealization of the feminine figure.'
Here is my problem with the above statement. First, you must ask yourself, 'Does an artist, regardless of gender, sex, nationality, race etc. have an obligation to represent said differences or promote said differences in their artwork?' (by the way, sex and gender in this particular discussion is seen as two separate issues. One is the biological construction (sex) and one is the societal construction (gender)). My answer to that question, as a female comic book artist, is a resounding, 'no'. No, I don't feel that I have to draw average looking women on my pages so as to not promote the objectification of women.
In contemporary theory of art, the entire argument revolves around how restrictive structuralism was to art. How art was something made in the service of religion or to the state and not for the artist themselves. Modern contemporary theory argues that art has moved to the service of self. Basically, the artist should do art for themselves and for no one else. If you follow that theory, then it shouldn't need to be said that as a woman and more importantly as an artist, I do not have any responsibility except to myself what I choose to paint/ink/draw/sculpt etc.Do I feel that drawing comic book characters with big boobs, small waists, long legs and luscious hair will hurt or demoralize young women? Not at all. If you look at studies done on eating disorders (specifically in women) you find that the media is merely a symptom of a larger problem: Depression. Depression is not caused by seeing models on TV. Depression can be genetic, it can be from physical or emotional abuse given to the child by the parents or relations. To say otherwise makes women look weak, in my opinion. And that's because we don't turn the question around. We don't ask, 'Is portraying men in comic books as muscular, often violent, often villianous, often self-sacrificing hurting or demoralizing the young men who read comic books?'. Why don't we ask this question? Because we know the answer. Or we think we do. Men are strong, both physically and mentally. They're smart enough not be hurt or demoralized by this kind of material. They're adults. Using this train of thought we can then deduce that Women are weak and, according to the Lacanian theory, immature (due to our lack of access to language) and thus are more prone to being hurt and damaged emotionally by these false depictions of females.
The point is, I don't feel that in my work I have an obligation to promote fourth wave feminism. I don't agree that Beecroft has a responsibility as a woman to promote it either. I don't feel that I have to promote Jewish causes in my work, despite being a Jew. I mean seriously. Where will it end? Am I to be responsible for promoting Jewish Female figures in my art? Absolutely not. I have every right as a modern artist to say, 'I find these shapes pleasing. I like drawing the things I am drawing. I am doing this for myself and not for anyone else.' The fact that I'm being told that I have a responsibility is indicative of another serious problem: Women are sexist against women. We are SUPPOSED to want to promote positive female figures in art. We are SUPPOSED to go against gender and create gender trouble. If we don't, we're just promoting a stereotype of the gender question. It's ridiculous. There was a fascinating chapter in Art and Fear about artists now doing art for themselves. Well, why doesn't that apply to women and minorities? Why is that only applicable to white males? And the worst perpatrators of the notion that we need to make sure our art fits in to politically correct standards: Other women.Paint what you want to paint. Paint whatever the hell you want. Draw whatever motivates you, moves you and speaks to you. I may not like it, the majority of people may not like it, but it's you. If you want to take pictures of model thin women with huge tits, a small waist and a beautiful face nude, by all means. If you want to create art that makes a feminist statement, go ahead. I won't stop you. But the point is, we should be promoting choice. The pendulum always swings and never stays in the middle for long. Let's see if we can stop the pendulum all together and find a common ground based on choice, not on perceived gender obligations.