From: Sandy King (sanking@hubcap.clemson.edu)
Date: 09/13/00-04:11:11 PM Z
Judy Seigel wrote:
OK, I have some questions. Neutral questions I believe, at least my
perspective on nude photography is pretty neutral.
>
>The objection, as Greg points out, is the pretense that the eroticized
>stereotype of slender, young, sexually attractive women is a "neutral art
>convention." (If that's "neutral," I'm the Queen of the May.)
What is a "neutral art convention"? Is neutral art somehow of a
higher order than non-neutral art?
> And the
>stereotype *is,* in a variety of ways, harmful to all women -- as I've
>written at greater length elsewhere, even on this list (tho I don't recall
>the subject line, it went on for a while).
What exactly is harmful to women in your opinion, the erotic
presentation of women, or the "eroticized stereotype"? Is there a
difference? And who is being harmed, the woman that offers herself
for erotic or eroticized presentation, or the woman who views these
presentations.
>
>Not everyone knows for instance, that until well into the Renaissance the
>female form was considered defective, beauty and perfection being the
>province of the naked male. The very latest in nudes in "our ever-changing
>artworld" range from John Coplans and Robert Mapplethorpe to Barbie,
>Jennie Saville, Jeff Koons, and the Chapman Brothers.
You appear to have forgotten about the Greeks and Roman. Just have a
look at their sculpture. You will many examples of the female body
presented as beauty and perfection.
Sandy King
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10/01/00-12:08:59 PM Z CDT