From: John Roseborough (jroseborough@dslextreme.com)
Date: 08/23/02-10:36:16 PM Z
That's correct - she is saying they are so sinular that there is no
difference hence they both are pornographic. Methinks the lady protests to
much!
John Roseborough
www.jroseborough.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cactus Cowboy" <cactus@tritel.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: Art vrs. Porno etc.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but what Solomon-Godeau is saying is that there's
> little difference between sophisticated art patrons admiring a 'tasteful
> nude' in a museum and a sex-crazed teenager 'spanking the monkey' while
> drooling over a copy of Hustler in his bedroom. There really is a thin
line
> between Art and Porno, isn't there?
>
> Dave in Wyoming
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <ARTHURWG@aol.com>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 11:11 AM
> Subject: Re: Art vrs. Porno etc.
>
>
> > Here's what feminist critic Abigal Solomon-Godeau has to say (in 1991)
on
> > the subject:
> >
> > "...whatever the elements that differentiate an art photograph of a
female
> > nude encountered in a museum from a photographic pin-up, both types of
> image
> > may posit a similar-- if not identical-- set of subject/ object
> relations,
> > and induce or foster fantasies that are themselves symptoms of the
> unequal
> > ordering of sexual difference."
> >
> > "Insofar as the various mechanisms of representation function to
position
> > women as object-of-the-gaze -- be it the voyeuristic gaze of mastery,
> > imaginary knowledge, or possession, or the fetishistic gaze that
> > simultaneously denies and commemorates sexual difference-- the act of
> looking
> > itself will be articulated through these psychic and social
structures."
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:02:50 AM Z CST