From: Eric S. Theise (mataro@cyberwerks.com)
Date: 08/24/02-12:54:50 AM Z
Judy Seigel writes:
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2002, Chunin Martinez wrote:
>
> > But she is right. There is no difference other that the place where the
> > image was displayed from your example.
>
> Exactly.... Except on 2nd thought, there may be little difference in the
> photograph, but a large enough difference in the viewer. The sex-crazed
> (well, we shouldn't say crazed, it's age-appropriate) teenager is
> perfectly honest in his motive and pleasure. The "sophisticated art
> patron" or photographer may well think he is appreciating or creating art.
I'm having some problems with this.
In the context of Hustler (or whatever... I'm thinking of *Airplane*
where the section in the magazine rack is labeled "whacking material"),
the pictures, already degraded in quality by being reproduced in a
magazine, are going to be accompanied by text describing her ideal man,
her turn-offs and turn-ons, and her career plans. Or, the whole thing
is going to be accompanied by cliched (thanks Jack) stories about an
erotic encounter with the milkman, postman, plumber, deliveryman, etc.
The context seems to be much of the experience for the "crazed" viewer.
I do not especially wish to be a defender, apologist, expert,
or enthusiast when it comes to pornography. But I think it's
bordering on the absurd to say that there's no difference between a
Weston/Mapplethorpe/Bernhard nude and an image in a -- quoting Vonnegut --
wide open beaver mag.
--Eric
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:02:50 AM Z CST