From: Jeff Buck (jeffbuck@swcp.com)
Date: 08/24/02-08:08:25 AM Z
I'd like to weigh in here (for some reason).... I understand the point of
view that "it's all porn anyhow" etc. and as a general matter wouldn't
bother crossing the street to dispute it. Still, I have an abiding
conviction that there's a difference between a "raunchy" nude guy in some
magazine and, well, Michaelangelo's "David". If that much is so, then
there is a problem with "it's all porn anyhow". It is just as obvious to
me that certain Mapplethorpes are in between these two extremes. Moreover,
I don't believe that it is all viewing context. This maligned teenage boy
we keep whipping would know perfectly well that there's been some mistake
if he pulled open the centerfold of the month and found a line and
watercolor nude by Rodin. I think Judy's closer in discussing the minutiae
of expression and pose and so on.... Defining porn is extremely
difficult. It's a very messy mix of aesthetic, social and political
ideas. I don't think statements like "it's all porn" throw much light on
the subject. -jb
At 11:54 PM 8/23/2002 -0700, Eric S. Theise wrote:
>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