[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Censorship issues
DEAR BOB,
It isn't only that many un-visually trained people consider painting
more of an art but that photography is so much more information rich and
many people don't differentiate between a photograph of something and the
subject itself. I begin my lectures on photographic prints as objects of
art by holding up a photo of a car and asking, "What is this?" The answer
is always a chorus of "a car". When I point out that it is a PHOTOGRAPH of
a car they scream, "semantics". I reply that they have skipped the object
of art completely and gone directly to the subject...because the photo has
been accepted by our society as a surrogate reality. When I finally get
them to look at the print as an object of art, in and of itself, they begin
to see that it may have its own reality, aesthetics, etc., beyond simply
being an information rich representation. Then we go into Peppers, Clarence
John Laughlin, etc., etc., etc.
Sooooooooo, photos of nudes, being closer to the subject in many peoples
minds, have a bit more power in them. I know it is a cliché (Verre or not)
but both Evil and Beauty are in the mind of the beholder. One of my
favorite lines in a movie is when Charlton Heston, playing Michelangelo,
responds to the Cardinals objection to nudity on the Sistine ceiling by
saying, " I show them as God created them. I leave it to the Clergy to
teach shame!"
Hmmmmmmmmmm.
CHEERS!
BOB KISS
> >>Usually outrage does not come from just nudity but
> > >how the body is treated.
>
> I disagree to some extent. Regardless of how the body is treated, ALL
> nudes will upset someone - singly or in a group. For some reason,
> photographed nudes cause far more trouble than painted nudes. Why is this
> so? Does painting have more credibility as an art form than photography?
>
> By the way, as I type this, I am not wearing any socks and I just took
> off my hat.
>
> Bob