From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 09/13/00-06:32:35 PM Z
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Sandy King wrote:
> 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?
>
Folks, let it puleeze be noted that I wanted to talk about cowboys, not
naked ladies... OK?
But Sandy, are you being disingenuous? The claim of "neutral art
convention" is that these photos aren't eroticized or soft pornicized or
same old/same old, passive, available (at least for viewing & fantasy)
female bod on display (personality or individuation absent, backside or
boobs featured). Meaning a *neutral* not sexually charged art convention,
in the way I suppose that a bowl of fruit would be a still-life
convention. (Though for some reason we don't seem to see a lot of film
burned on bowls of fruit, bowls of fruit in the woods, bowls of fruit in
the desert, bowls of fruit with arched backs simulating orgasm on a bed of
sand or floor of an empty studio, or wherever).
> 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.
Again, I find this question disingenuous. The woman who "offers herself"
for eroticized presentation is probably gratified, at least in the short
run. And/or paid. Exhibitionism/pleasure is a more complex matter than
(even) I can explain by e-mail. What's harmful to "women" generally is the
consistent portrayal of women in this eroticized role. The intro to
my P-F #2 review of Bill Jay's "Occam's Razor" may suggest the gist:
QUOTE=============================================
Dave Barry, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist of the Miami Herald, reports
back from a trip to Paris: "To judge from the Louvre, until about 1900,
everybody on Earth -- men, women, children, gods, goddesses, horses --
basically just stood around all the time without a stitch of clothing on."
Things are, of course, quite different today. At least to judge from the
mass media (our Louvre), everybody on Earth wears clothes -- except of
course the gods and goddesses of the porn channels and skin magazines,
and, oh yes, the naked ladies of art photography. The people in power
certainly wear clothes. Which is to say, art showing naked women, but not
naked men, is an eroticized stereotype, harmful to women generally, and
one reason its harder for a woman past 40, when her boobs are beginning to
sag, to make partner.
================================== And so forth.
Permit me to repeat the *important* part: In our culture the people in
power wear clothes (at least while they're exercising that power).
Is lack of power, and loss of value in aging a problem for women? What do
you think? Pick up your daily paper & count how many photos of women past
40 you see in the news -- except in ads for nursing homes. God bless Janet
Reno and Madeline Albright is all I can say, otherwise we'd think all
women past 40 were shipped off on an ice floe or banished behind covered
windows as by the Taliban.
> 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.
>
Yes, and no. The male figure was the ideal -- but I defer to Christine on
that. She's fascinating on the topic (as is the topic itself, I might
add).
Meanwhile, I had occasion to walk into Soho this afternoon (a fruitless
quest, Staples is pure nightmare, but that's a different rant) and passed
a bookstore with some Helmut Newtons in the window. Now THOSE are naked
babes. Power babes !
best,
Judy
.................................................................
| Judy Seigel, Editor >
| World Journal of Post-Factory Photography > "HOW-TO and WHY"
| info@post-factory.org >
| <http://rmp.opusis.com/postfactory/postfactory.html>
.................................................................
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10/01/00-12:08:59 PM Z CDT