From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 09/23/03-01:31:30 PM Z
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 Ender100@aol.com wrote:
> Now I am going to stick my neck out to be severed as if by Witkin's camera...
> regarding Charis's legs which are strategically pointing to the North and the
> South—well, maybe North and Southwest. First, I suppose I should ask what
> it is that that strikes you as "soft porn"? I have seen some wonderful work
> by Annie Liebowitz that used a similar pose of a female and I did not feel I
> was looking at soft porn. I must say I did not feel this when looking at work
> by Weston either. Neither soft nor hard. (OK, I'll apologise in advance
> for that one) Now if Eddie or Annie had photographed a male in the same pose,
> would it be considered the same—soft porn?
Puleeze -- don't give us "IF." The point is, they *didn't* photograph a
male like that -- until very recently. Or not for general audience "art"
(possibly Gilbert & George for the gay trade, but even that was 40 to 50
years later).
The Charises, with the knees coyly up just so, the tight riding pants over
crotch, etc. etc. were IN THEIR TIME utterly pornographic poses, just
masked by aura of "art." You cannot cannot cannot judge by our time.
After all, in the 1890s an actress photographed with her hair backlighted
was considered blasphemous because the effect created suggested a halo,
and actresses were considered sinners.
J.
>
> Perhaps this is similar to the severed head/geek issue with Witkin. The
> photograph gives you the opportunity to stare at something and see what it really
> looks like rather than a furtive glance.
>
> I guess in some ways, porn is in the eye of the beholder. The older I get,
> I the more I find that I make less distinction between this body part vs that
> body part showing in an image. It's all part of the body. I like hands a
> lot. I like interesting compositions. Sometimes an interesting composition
> might have a naughty bit showing, unless you cover it with black electrician's
> tape.
>
> So, to each his own.
>
> Again, I paraphrase a favorite quote attributed to Mae West when asked the
> difference between art and pornography: "The lighting!"
>
> Mark Nelson
> (cleverly distracting the conversation from Indigo)
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 9/22/03 11:33:57 AM, jseigel@panix.com writes:
>
>
> > So while we're having this nice friendly discussion about "controversial"
> > photography, I draw attention to an EXTREMELY interesting article in
> > yesterday's NY Times (Style Section, if memory serves) about Helmut
> > Newton. We had a discussion about him on the list a few years ago, with,
> > I believe, the consensus condemning him for "pornography."Â I myself,
> > considering Newton one of the greats, explained that the actual problem
> > isn't so much pornography, but pornography that masquerades as art -- for
> > instance E. Weston's shots of Charis with her legs spread (very soft porn
> > indeed by today's standards of course, but the lubricious element is
> > always ignored in the winds of hagiography.)
> >
> > Newton's "pornograpy," or lubricity, is right front & center -- honest in
> > other words -- and IMO extremely well done.
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/03-03:09:00 PM Z CST