From: Chunin Martinez (chunin@cimphoto.com)
Date: 08/24/02-09:11:29 AM Z
Well, we are comparing what is considered a pornographic image to an art
image, not a pornographic magazine to an art magazine. I'm sure there is
difference between them. There isn't much that sets a pornographic image
apart from a so called art nude. If read your own reply you will see that
there is always the intent to describe the porn image in a negative way
regarding the pose of the subject. If you look through Playboy, there is a
policy of no open positions and there are none in the magazine. Sure, there
are bad taste porn magazines and images just like there are bad taste art
images. Pure crap done in the name of art. The foundation of my position
is the believe that we all as human beings have everything of the so called
human nature regarding desires and emotions being positive or negative. The
factor that sets one person from another is the ability or position to
express it. We are in the so called art community or doing things that are
classified as such have more freedom to express it. Lets take for example
the current discussion of sex. Being a photographer I have more opportunity
to express in terms of image creation. But then in order to do it and still
be accepted in society to which I belong, I have to do it in such a way that
conform to the norm of the group. That is where artsy nudes or images with
sensual or sexual insinuations comes into play. It could be with or without
the use of the human form. Had I been a carpenter, it would have been
harder to express it but no impossible. It could well be in the shape of a
piece of furniture and the exquisite finish. Like I always say to my
friends, we are all perverts, it is just that some people have more of a
mean to express it than others. I only use the word pervert in a casual and
more honest way and not in the way society has used it with the attached
negativity. I only mean sexual without being negative. But if I use
another word it would be too soft and might lose the sense that I'm trying
to imply. It is clear that if we want to live amonst a certain class of the
society, we would have to make it much more complex to do it and be
accepted. And that is what I see as the tasteful nude or any other form of
artsy image. It could be argued that there is indeed more sophistication in
the image at the museum than the image in the porn magazine. But the
purpose if the same. It is just that we have decided or been forced to take
the long road to the same destination. It could be more entertaining the
trip but we will all arrive at the same place.
Chunin Martinez
> 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