From: Christopher Lovenguth (chrisml@pacbell.net)
Date: 08/24/02-06:22:01 PM Z
Should have proofread my work before sending it out. To long of a night last
night in the studio...
Mistake 1: "The ones like the most are the ones that
use the female for as landscape! Land to conquer right?"
Should have been: The ones I like the most are the ones that
use the female for as landscape! Land to conquer right?
Mistake 2: "On the other hand I have absolutely have no problems with
nakedness being
use in photography."
Should have been: On the other hand, I have absolutely no problems with
nakedness being
use in photography.
I bet there are other grammatical mistakes, but I just wanted to point these
particular ones out since they don't make any sense in the original post.
Sorry.
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Lovenguth [mailto:chrisml@pacbell.net]
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2002 4:53 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: RE: Art vrs. Porno etc.
I totally agree with you Judy. I also find it interesting in this discussion
the defenders on "nudes" as high art bring up examples of drawings,
sculpture, etc. especially when it comes to the male form. There is a huge
difference between photographic nudes and other mediums using nudes in their
work. Now I do believe that other mediums can be used for eroticism, but
often it is about form. But there is something about photography and nudes
that screams eroticism not form, especially when 90% of all photographic
nudes are young idealized females and not impressionistic or abstract but
straight photographic representation focusing on the feminine, softness and
curves, etc. of the female body. Oh that's right I forgot, they're classy
because they are black and white and use light well instead of color images
with bad lighting like porno mags. The ones like the most are the ones that
use the female for as landscape! Land to conquer right?
On the other hand I have absolutely have no problems with nakedness being
use in photography. Nakedness is used to promote an idea the photographer is
trying to communicate with the viewer (back to the reason of why it's more
important to have an idea for a photo then to just make one).
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Seigel [mailto:jseigel@panix.com]
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 11:20 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Cc: alt-photo-process-error@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Art vrs. Porno etc.
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. The teenager could have done that
at
> the museum but then that would have been indecent exposure. The use of
> words like "sophisticated art patrons admiring a "tasteful nude"" are just
> mere words to support a fabrication. There is no difference. People just
> want to believe that there is in order to feel somehow special or superior
> to others.
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.
True, the culture is now saturated with this view of women.... if you look
at the covers of high style magazines, the poses, expressions and hand
gestures of the models get closer and closer to their counterparts on the
covers of "stroke magazines" (even these days Vogue, alas -- how the
mighty have fallen). There used to be a difference in lighting & facial
expression (less flare of the nostrils and arch of eyebrow in fashion than
porn) but even that diminishes, at least on the cover.
The insides of porn magazines are different from fashion & art, however,
and more explicit than one would have thought humanly possible. IMO, the
porn photos are preferable -- for their honesty. tho of course they're
selling flesh, not clothes.
J.
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:02:50 AM Z CST