On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
> ... There is nothing wrong with some good eroticism, well done, as
> recognized and accepted by most critical observers. you
> betcha--eroticism quickens the heart muscle. I also betcha that most
> critical observers of fine art would agree with the assessment of
> Farber's front cover.
Far be it from me to protest when a thread wanders.... I've much enjoyed
this one, even tho officially "off-topic" ... (the plentiful response
suggests others enjoy it too). Obviously each person adds his/her own
perspective, and blessings on them. HOWEVER, I beg to point out my reason
for protesting the Farber cover and its ilk gets lost when you say
"there's nothing wrong with some good eroticism."
There is and there isn't.
When eroticism, good OR bad,is IN THE MAINSTREAM, not a specialty and so
labelled, but always by custom and everywhere of WOMEN, as today 99% of
the time, it is, trust me, VERY HARMFUL. If the eroticized male figure
had 50 or even 40% of the everday mainstream public exposure (so to
speak), I doubt the issue would arise.
In which case we can only thank (who is it, Calvin Klein?) for those hunky
men on the bus in their jockey shorts.
love & xxxxxs,
Judy
Give me Chevalier or Woodman or Imboden over
> this. (In case you are wondering, I don't only deal with chemicals; I
> have also taught classes in photographic art.) Yes, you must have; i
> remember your comments during breakfast of what constitutes a
> successful photograph--bet you didn't think I was taking notes and
> hanging on your words: I wrote down technique, impact on viewer, and
> does it get the point across; however, you made a fourth point and I
> did not get it recorded so maybe you'll remember the fourth criterion
> of a good photo! Conventions and lists such as this are great for
> iron sharpening iron--we clarify our own stance when someone else's
> bugs us. See you at the next APIS? Chris
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 12:10:48