I don't have strong views against pornography. I don't object to good, honest smut.
And yet -don't tell me it's art. It just - on the whole - isn't. Tom of Finland was an artist - well yes; he was; he used pornography to express something deep within him.
But Tom of Finland was an exception; Robert Mapplethorpe was another. Are these lines clear? No - no of course they're not. Pornography can be be many things; anarchic, revolutionary; disrespectful of a polity that doesn't deserve respect.
It can also be repellently exploitative and voyeuristic.
I've had more than enough of an artist in digital media posting on Painters-Online, who posts pictures of highly pneumatic women, in a repulsively salivatory representation that affords them no respect at all - it just ogles them, and some stupid people, invasriably men, then trot up to tell us how "beautiful" it is.
But it's not "beautiful". It's sexist voyeurism which those who produce it and those who claim to find it beautiful need to grow out of: tabloid newspapers used to present their page 3 "stunnahs", displaying as much respect for women as the worst lech you could seek to find.
I've no objection to a bit of smut: but sly, dishonest, sneaking, slimy smut, pretending to be something else, is nauseating. Dirt, not art. Those who produce it need to grow up beyond the smutty schoolboy stage, and admit their work is - well, shall we say meretricious? I can think of worse interpretations.
Most of them can do better than this: and they should.
Hello Robert, Marjorie here - don’t know how to ‘ manage comments’ I’m afraid. Just seen your comment….I don’t tend to get into “ deep” conversations online now, it can become very unpleasant. I do share your views on a certain poster of “ beautiful women” or as he would probably call them “ beautiful ladies”, a dead giveaway! I have to say your comments and later measured and “ tactful” comments shall we say are to be commended. I couldn’t have done that. In the end I resorted to talking about “ nuances”, attributes which quite a few people are unaware of - or perhaps pretend to be. I think that if you hadn’t said anything things would have inched further and further forward. I certainly can’t understand those who comment “ beautiful” etc, women especially. If you object you get the feeling you’re thought of as uptight or prudish, as per Mary Whitehouse. I don’t want to bang on about how women are perceived but I’d rather we were accepted…. as equals, even with a brain…..I won’t go on but I appreciated your intervention, much more rational than I could have been.
ReplyDeleteMany thanks for the comment: needless to say, I agree with it. I'm not by any measure prudish, but - there's a place for ogling at buttocks, breasts, and whatever else might take your fancy, and it's not the same place as appreciating serious attempts to celebrate the human body. If this artist doesn't know that, he's an idiot. And if he does, he's trying to push boundaries as far and fast as he can so that his kind of soft porn counts as "art".
ReplyDeletePS - I think we sometimes need to get into 'deep' conversations, because if we don't, shallow as a puddle conversations will triumph, and we'll conclude that they must be right because no one challenges them. I hate the possibility that POL will become stupidly bland because we won't trespass on the boundaries of controversy for fear of upsetting the stupid, tasteless, bonkers, or just b. ignorant! So, I'll keep at it.....
ReplyDelete👍🏻
DeleteHi Robert, Diane here. I agree with yours and Marjorie's views on this. 👍
ReplyDeleteWell, that’s disappointing about Painters Online!!! I won’t bother sharing my work there if the standards have fallen so low! Digital art is not considered as proper Art, involving paint, as for producing pornography, it is indeed for a genre of voyeurs 🙁
ReplyDeleteThe anonymous was me B. Cloake
ReplyDeleteBonjour, Béatrice! I wonder what drew you to a discussion on pornography, hmm? Tsk. Anyway - no, don't blame POL: they try to be inclusive, but frankly I've regretted the inclusion of digital art among other forms. There are some VERY good digital artists, some of whom are too ill or disabled to produce anything else; but a recent ingress of soft-core pornography quite honestly makes me vomit. It's repulsive, it's cynical, it's self-indulgent - you know, I could put up with that, or most of it, but what I can't stand it's the voyeuristic self-indulgence. If men (it always is) want to produce this stuff, then make it, salivate over it, but keep it to yourself). But it does NOT belong on a public website about painting - it exploits the platform as much as it exploits women.
ReplyDelete