PDA

View Full Version : "Artistic Pornography"



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Christopher Nisperos
11-04-2006, 11:52 AM
There is no subject that is iherently excluded from being depicted in art.

Thus, this classic painting on display at the Musée d'Orsay in Paris:

http://www.museesdefrance.com/_photos/IA720005/IA720005_l.jpg

blansky
11-04-2006, 12:05 PM
What could be more appropriate.

The origin of life. What wars have been fought over. And a damn good time.

I spent 9 months there once and enjoyed every minute of it and try to return as often as I can.

Bravo.



Michael

Christopher Nisperos
11-04-2006, 12:07 PM
Utah is a little behind the midwest. In illustration, most recently an Auguste Rodin exhibit was allowed, but the work was draped. I find that attitude far more revolting than pornography.

I'm speechless. Why bother showing the statues at all? What do they think: Jesus died with a suit on? He was buck-naked on the cross, in spite of all the romanticised paintings.

And what about respect for the artist's intention (ok, I know that this is the subject of another thread). I mean, we —as photographers— might expect to find our creations someday, somehow manipulated by some evil Photoshopist. If it were done against our will and/or without our knowledge, it would be wrong. But a sculptor —a darned scultor— would surely never expect his work to be shown, "partially covered". It's shameful scandal which reveals a really infantile mentality. "Bleaping" classic sculpture. I'm just amazed.

Sorry to flame, but it happens whenever I get hot. Back to the subject at hand.

.

Bromo33333
11-04-2006, 12:49 PM
I'm speechless. Why bother showing the statues at all? What do they think: Jesus died with a suit on? He was buck-naked on the cross, in spite of all the romanticised paintings.

That means when time travel reaches Utah, the people observing the crucifixion will avert their eyes, not because they are overcome with suffering, but because they are so stunned at the privates hanging there. Or prove all of us wrong, and he DID actually die in his suit.


And what about respect for the artist's intention (ok, I know that this is the subject of another thread).

I would say it is more respect for the artist - it would be better to not exhibit it at all.

But covering it is not good for the museum. The controversy generated would inject a lot of cash in the museum coffers. I would fire the curator and museum director for not generating the required controversy and therefore the traffic, memberships and so on! :rolleyes:

I think THIS (http://www.thefileroom.org/documents/dyn/DisplayCase.cfm/id/507) is the incident.

Bromo33333
11-04-2006, 12:53 PM
I think THIS (http://www.thefileroom.org/documents/dyn/DisplayCase.cfm/id/507) is the incident.

Well, a little more Googling and THIS (http://lds-mormon.com/thinker.shtml) is the thing in question.

The museum is owned by the Church. And apparently they tried to remove 5 statues, and ended up restoring 1 (th Thinker), and John the Baptists had to be covered ...

Kind of sad, but if it is a LDS Church owned museum, WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? I mean if you are going to exhibit something, you should do it properly.

Christopher Nisperos
11-04-2006, 01:01 PM
How about this: A representation is pornographic if and only if it's main purpose is to cause sexual arousal. A representation is successfully pornographic if and only if it's pornographic, and it succeeds in causing arousal.

Peter, you have many good points in your post. Just a comment on the above quote. Today's pornography sometimes becomes tomorrow's comedy fodder:

Like many on this thread, I tend to agree that "pornography" is subjective —not only relative to the individual, but to the times and particular culture.
For example, in the 1880's the sight of a woman's ankle might have caused sexual arousal. Even today —if I understand correctly— one reason the Muslim
religion requires their women followers to veil their heads and faces is to prevent arousal in men, too.

Therefore, what while it's perhaps true that in 1880 a photo of a woman showing her bare ankle might've gotten some gentleman-dandy hot under the collar, obviously by today's mores this kind of "porno" would have little effect, save for foot fetishists. As for Muslim women, I sincerely don't know what effect a "full head portrait" of a woman has on a Muslim guy, but I doubt that Muslims consider such photos as pornographic either. Heresy, perhaps!

Anyway, your definition has some merit.

.

bjorke
11-04-2006, 01:13 PM
Utah...an Auguste Rodin exhibit was allowed, but the work was draped. I find that attitude far more revolting than pornography.BWaaaahahahaha

I hope someone came by with a wee digital camera and made a couple of "upskirt" shots of it

Aggie
11-04-2006, 01:14 PM
I am conflicted by Aggies statement about where a camera should never be put. One reason for this is it conflicts with the advice I have given a couple of digital photographers..a second reason is who is Aggie to tell someone that a camera and axle grease should never be used for recreation?

Having gone through it twice, you never know if you have a person manning the camera, that knows how to make the correct turns internally. A wrong turn or incomplete turn just makes for a fuzzy image as you want to tap dance on the camera operators head for that mishap.

The controversy at BYU after reading the above link, seems so ridiculous. I remember (having attended that place) seeing nudes hanging on the walls in the art department in the 70's. Something has changed and not for the good. Granted they were not in anyway considered explicit, but they were nudes. That and the only photograph of a nude at BYU that is shown every single semester is that damn picture taken of me. Seems ironic somehow.

Christopher Nisperos
11-04-2006, 03:26 PM
Re: the classic painting of the vagina by Courbet at the Musée d'Orsay in Paris, Michael Blansky wrote:
I spent 9 months there once and enjoyed every minute of it and try to return as often as I can.
Michael

Michael,

You spent 9 months at the Musée d'Orsay? Wow. ... OK, just kidding. I get it. In fact —to share a personal note with you—, your comment reminds me of what my mother would sometimes angrily tell her six kids when we misbehaved or joked-around too much: "Sometimes I wish I could just put you kids right back where you came from!". Which would just stoke our stupid humor and bring dumb retorts such as, "Gee, mom, then to eat, we'd have to call for 'womb' service".

OK, I apologize (especially to mom).

.

Bromo33333
11-04-2006, 03:43 PM
BWaaaahahahaha

I hope someone came by with a wee digital camera and made a couple of "upskirt" shots of it

Now, now. Perhaps the statue was kilted - and they were trying to elicit the question of what is under a Scotsman's kilt? The digicam would only remove the eternal mystery....;)

Bromo33333
11-04-2006, 03:44 PM
[...] That and the only photograph of a nude at BYU that is shown every single semester is that damn picture taken of me. Seems ironic somehow.

Perhaps under the New Regime(tm) it, too will be draped with cloth...? :o

Roger Hicks
11-04-2006, 03:50 PM
Jesus died with a suit on? He was buck-naked on the cross, in spite of all the romanticised paintings.


Cher Nisp,

But no doubt you are familiar with the argument that the reason He is always portrayed with loincloth is because He was a nice Jewish boy and therefore circumcised -- and the less intelligent or educated goyim prefer to ignore the fact the He was Jewish.

Shalom,

R.

Christopher Nisperos
11-04-2006, 03:56 PM
With all the jokes (including a few of my own) which naturally arrive along with a topic such as this, things have gotten a little off-track, so I thought I'd show y'all the covers of the books which caused me to start this thread:

http://www.gfw.de/shop/images/lindemanns/441.jpg
https://www.gfw.de/shop/images/lindemanns/445.jpg

Bromo33333
11-04-2006, 04:02 PM
With all the jokes (including a few of my own) which naturally arrive along with a topic such as this, things have gotten a little off-track, so I thought I'd show y'all the covers of the books which caused me to start this thread:

http://www.gfw.de/shop/images/lindemanns/441.jpg
https://www.gfw.de/shop/images/lindemanns/445.jpg

I don't know - since it is less animalistic, it might be considered "Erotica" - I think that in the Midwest, it owuld be behind the counter with Hustler Magazine, though.

Claire Senft
11-04-2006, 04:21 PM
To each their bone.

Roger Hicks
11-04-2006, 05:45 PM
That and the only photograph of a nude at BYU that is shown every single semester is that damn picture taken of me. Seems ironic somehow.

Dear Aggie,

If there is one thing that could make me attend a BYU gallery opening night -- and it's a big IF -- it's the chance of seeng a picture of you in the buff.

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks
11-04-2006, 05:46 PM
With all the jokes (including a few of my own) which naturally arrive along with a topic such as this, things have gotten a little off-track, so I thought I'd show y'all the covers of the books which caused me to start this thread:

http://www.gfw.de/shop/images/lindemanns/441.jpg
https://www.gfw.de/shop/images/lindemanns/445.jpg

Dear Chris,

Well, as Xaviera herself might have said, f*** that...

Cheers,

R.

Flotsam
11-04-2006, 07:57 PM
What if a sexual subject or act was photographed in the stark, real, unromantic style of this scene?
http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=30126
Would it be Art or Pornography?

Claire Senft
11-04-2006, 08:17 PM
I am not sure but I would probably not notice the power lines.

Bromo33333
11-04-2006, 08:35 PM
What if a sexual subject or act was photographed in the stark, real, unromantic style of this scene?
http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=30126
Would it be Art or Pornography?

I assume the models should be disfigured in some manner as well ... ?