From: Jeff Buck (jeffbuck@swcp.com)
Date: 08/24/02-06:37:31 PM Z
This posting provides no support for its basic assumption that, for
purposes of this discussion, there is an important distinction between
photography and other media. There isn't. If I and other people
commenting find it easier to think of classic nude sculptures, for example,
this is probably because artists have been producing sculpture for
thousands of years. Photographers have been producing photographs for 150
years. The distinction between males and females is irrelevant. -jb
At 04:53 PM 8/24/2002 -0700, Christopher Lovenguth wrote:
>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