DEAR SIL,
I am attaching my second message below for your consideration. I would
like you to site any comment in either this posting or my previous one that
states that I have any objection to nudes. All I have been saying (I feared
too obviously) was that I am tired of nudes of females being criticized and
much more exploitative, objectifying, blatantly beefcake, and worst of all,
uncreative or un-imaginative images of male nudes being protected by fear of
saying anything "Politically incorrect".
I NEVER said in either of my postings that I was in any way opposed to
figure studies of men or women. I do them myself. In my very first show
in which I showed 4 (yes, female) nudes I was pleased and surprised that the
many women who wrote in the comments book stated that they loved them
because they were sensual, even erotic, but not disrespectful or
exploitative.
I am sincerely sorry if anyone missed my point. I hope it has been made
absolutely clear by the above.
CHEERS!
BOB KISS
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Kiss <bobkiss@caribsurf.com>
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Date: Friday, December 10, 1999 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: PANDORA OR CAN OF WORMS?
>As long as the same consideration/acceptance/ license or criticism and
>castigation is applied to all artists and their work equally regardless of
>their sexual preference. It is when figure studies of women and the
>photographers who make them are criticized and very stereotypical
>beefcake/cheesecake photos of men are protected from comment by "political
>correctness" that I say that the "Emperor, indeed, has no clothes!"
> CHEERS!
> BOB KISS
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: mmorrill2@uswest.net <mmorrill2@uswest.net>
>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
>Date: Friday, December 10, 1999 8:42 PM
>Subject: PANDORA OR CAN OF WORMS?
>
>
>>"I do wonder why it is, too, and it seems you are totally correct in =
>>saying, that homosexual artists also produce stereotypical, objectifying
>>=
>>images?"
>>
>>I find the above statement to be quite narrow. First I wish to point out
>>that I doubt that the sexuality of the artist is relevant. This is more
>>of an indication of larger cultural values.
>>
>>It is also an assumption that what is visibly gay (so labeled) is the
>>only homosexual art using the nude.
>>Not all gay artists are out.
>>
>>Sex sells and that is in my mind why, apparently homosexual art might
>>appear to be about objectification.
>>It is targeted to a gay audience whose common thread is sexuality. If
>>the only platinum prints I ever saw were pictures on web pages I could
>>say that platinum prints look like the silver prints that I see on web
>>pages, therefore they are equivalent.
>>
>>If the point was that the cheesecake-beefcake is commonplace I can see
>>that.
>>
>>Artist must go beyond the scope of their everyday life and expand the
>>horizon of a culture. Unfortunately many artists yield to pressure of
>>commercialism.
>>
>>Some artists reflect the values of their sect of society. Like wildlife
>>painters.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 12:10:48