Stuff

[smokingboot]

So the eclipse came, and the wind blew, and the leaves flew, and the only glimpse of the moon we got showed her determinedly full.

And we drank hot chocolate and had the kind of conversations that can't be repeated, because there's everything and nothing to them.

Friends are the best.

Larians has posted in his LJ today, about many things including Venice and the art in the Peggy Guggenheim collection. I feel he's being a little harsh, and in defence of Aht, put up a couple of pieces from the museum:

Here's poor old Pollock:
http://www.guggenheimcollection.org/site/artist_works_129_0.html

Not impressed, eh? Oh dear. Well, let's try some William Baziotes.

http://www.guggenheimcollection.org/site/artist_work_md_13_3.html

What? You don't feel the mystery of the spiritual landscape, the soft resonance and sensuality of primitive form and texture? *sigh* back to the old favourites then:

http://www.guggenheimcollection.org/site/artist_work_lg_102_1.html

It's called the angel of the city, and as you can see, he's full of joy. Urban myth says his member is screw-on, so that it can be removed for the benefit of the coy, and our guidebooks claim that the watergates through which he can be seen from the canal are often closed to spare passers-by the surprise of his extreme friendliness.

What worries me is that there was enough material to give the angel a priapic member, but the poor horse has to go without ears. A message in there somewhere I think.

Time to work. Bleah.

Comments

[november-girl.livejournal.com]

Of the three I personally preferred Baziotes. then again, I tend to find sculptures with erect members tasteless in the extreme.

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

First then, apologies for not putting a warning in - I hope the paragraph made it clear, but it has just occurred to me people might read it after seeing the pic.

Hope not to have grossed you out. I am also rather surprised! Taste is an interesting thing - what is the difference between a flaccid penis and an erect one, in terms of art? Personally, I really don't see it at all, but I am interested in other people's reactions. Why is one OK and the other not?

[november-girl.livejournal.com]

First of all I wasn't shocked or offended - I just found it tasteless.

I'm just not comfortable with sex of any form being exhibited so publicly as in a museum. And yes, I do consider an erect penis to inextricably connected with sex, whereas the flaccid penis is simply an expression of the male form. I would be as uncomfortable with a portrayal of a woman with her juices running down her legs. :-P

Yes, I do like my erotica and my porn. However, I wouldn't be comfortable with the idea of even my favourite erotica, no matter how arty, being exhibited in a museum or gallery unless it was specifically a museum or gallery dedicated to that type of thing.

I think it's probably to do with maintaining a common level of public decency - as you well know I don't have a problem with nakedness per se, but once you add a sexual bent to it then that can only serve to encourage the pests who do things like whip it out on the escalator in House of Fraser and jizz down some poor girl's back.

Going back to the sculpture in question - what the hell was he doing riding with an erection like that anyway? Rushing to a late night liaison with his lover? Riding naked into battle? There's just no need for it, in my opinion.

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this, I find it very interesting. I'm going to put a counter-argument here, not to persuade you, because your views are valid as they are - but because this interests me a great deal.

Why is it alright for art to depict war, mutilation etc and not portray sexuality? Why is it OK to depict adultery, murder and torture in every medium from TV to computer games, but somehow not Art? As for there being 'no need for it,' well, no, there's no need for any art really; there's also no need for all the blood and limbs in Grand Theft Auto...Do all those violent films and videogames produce killers and torturers?

Sex in Brookside, say, seems acceptable; let's chew around those ideas of incest and rape because that's just on telly, but an erect penis in a museum is a shocker because we think any physical depiction of it will trigger every sex maniac who sees it?

We can handle multi obscene ideas of forbidden Badsex; we just can't bear to look at a facsimile of a member of the body looking ready for its use. No straps, no kinks, no trauma, no victim, but we just can't do it. How lost in mindgames can we get?

Are you saying that there is a link between sex pests and the depictions of rampant sexuality in art? You mentioned women with their juices running down their legs; Sheelagh-Na-Gigs have been found everywhere, open eager vaginas gaping at the watcher; Are there more cases of nymphomania where they are found?

Surely the sex pest doesn't need to spend 6 quid (approximate price of the Peggy G collection) to get his rocks off - he can buy a top shelf mag for much less and do it. If he's going to jizz down some poor girl's back, he is surely more likely to have done it c/o Crack Hustlers Weekly than Angel of the City. Or just pay his TV licence and watch East Enders.

Surely, if art is going to be anything other than a collection of pretty things - also very nice - it has to reflect the human condition. Sex and ecstasy is a huge part of that condition, as is the ugly stuff. Art can perhaps show us the heights we can aspire to, the depths we can reach, but one thing it cannot be is a barometer of public decency, not least cos Art is supposed to remain eternal,* and social mores change all the time. Decency isn't the point. There's a lot of great artists, composers and writers who were s**theads/perverts/freaks. We can make art respectable and watch it die on our Habitat walls. It goes without saying that I am anti-censorship!

As to the sculpture in question, I have no baking idea what the gentleman in question is doing!

*many exceptions to this of course!

Of mists and shapes unknown

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

One thing I forgot; maybe one day we can wander round the Guggenheim together, and I can learn to appreciate Baziotes through your understanding!

[november-girl.livejournal.com]

Sarcastic missus! :-D

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

I must have been funny without meaning to be:-D

Not one ounce of sarcasm, I think it would be great -though I feel Larians would rather eat his own leg than go round that exhibition again!

[november-girl.livejournal.com]

Perhaps we should take larians to the Tate Modern. Go on, you know he'd luuuurve it (in a new and interestingly defined manner).

As for Baziotes, whist I can appreciate the art, as it evokes an emotional response, I wouldn't want to try to explain how, and I certainly wouldn't have it on my own wall. However, in the extremely unlikely event of my ever ending up in Venice, I shall call you and we shall wander and marvel (me at the painting, you at my odd tastes!).

This will be in a number of parts due to the LJ word limits on comments.

[november-girl.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this, I find it very interesting. I'm going to put a counter-argument here, not to persuade you, because your views are valid as they are - but because this interests me a great deal.

I feel this may be returned to after some saki on Saturday. *grin*

Why is it alright for art to depict war, mutilation etc and not portray sexuality? Why is it OK to depict adultery, murder and torture in every medium from TV to computer games, but somehow not Art?

In my view, the examples you give above are equally tasteless.

As for there being 'no need for it,' well, no, there's no need for any art really;

That depends on your definition of need, which is a difference debate entirely so I won’t go into it here.

there's also no need for all the blood and limbs in Grand Theft Auto...

Too true. Then if I was Empress I’d ban playstation/X Box/Sega whateverdrive and all those type of things.

Do all those violent films and videogames produce killers and torturers?

Therein lies a huge topic of debate amongst some of the world’s leading psychologists. There is a lot of evidence that shows a correlation between such games (and such television viewing) in childhood and violence in later life. However, as we all know, correlation is not proof of cause, as both could be the symptoms of a third factor. However, a lot of the leading minds think that violent films and videogames do indeed have a hand in producing killers and torturers.

Sex in Brookside, say, seems acceptable;

I would disagree that any kind of full on sex scene would be acceptable in a context such as Brookside.

let's chew around those ideas of incest and rape because that's just on telly, but an erect penis in a museum is a shocker because we think any physical depiction of it will trigger every sex maniac who sees it?

That’s a bit of a misrepresentation of what I said. If I didn’t express myself clearly enough I apologise. What I was trying to say is that if the production of erect members in polite company becomes more socially acceptable then it is likely to become more commonplace, and those who would wish to push the boundaries into the unacceptable will find it less of a jump. In the example I cite, if getting your erect cock out in House of Fraser is fine, it’s not a very huge jump to wanking down poor girl’s back (I use this example only because I know someone who it happened to). I am not suggesting a direct causal link between the statue we refer to and such behaviour, but merely a connection between such statues and general levels of decency, and a link between general levels of decency and increasingly prevalent indecency.

[november-girl.livejournal.com]

I think that most people would agree that any sexual act should be consensual, and there is some disagreement over what constitutes a sexual act. I think the exposure of an erect penis is a sexual act. If I open a porn mag or visit a museum of erotica I consent to that act. I would disagree that I do so by wandering into a museum, although that may be something that you consider to be my bad, not the museum’s. I would say that you reflected that consensual issue by apologising for not leaving a warning on your LJ as to the content of the picture.

We can handle multi obscene ideas of forbidden Badsex; we just can't bear to look at a facsimile of a member of the body looking ready for its use. No straps, no kinks, no trauma, no victim, but we just can't do it. How lost in mind games can we get?
I’m not sure what you mean by this.

Are you saying that there is a link between sex pests and the depictions of rampant sexuality in art?

Not directly, but I think I’ve covered this point above.

You mentioned women with their juices running down their legs; Sheelagh-Na-Gigs have been found everywhere, open eager vaginas gaping at the watcher;

Ew!

Are there more cases of nymphomania where they are found?

I have no idea, but if they are what I think they are then they were intended to provoke an increase in shagging. Nymphomania as a disorder has, I believe, very little to do with sex, other than that is the way it manifests itself.

Surely the sex pest doesn't need to spend 6 quid (approximate price of the Peggy G collection) to get his rocks off - he can buy a top shelf mag for much less and do it.

I’m not suggesting for a minute that anyone is going to go into the museum to toss over the sculpture!

If he's going to jizz down some poor girl's back, he is surely more likely to have done it c/o Crack Hustlers Weekly than Angel of the City. Or just pay his TV licence and watch East Enders.

Surely, if art is going to be anything other than a collection of pretty things - also very nice - it has to reflect the human condition. Sex and ecstasy is a huge part of that condition, as is the ugly stuff. Art can perhaps show us the heights we can aspire to, the depths we can reach, but one thing it cannot be is a barometer of public decency, not least cos Art is supposed to remain eternal,* and social mores change all the time. Decency isn't the point. There's a lot of great artists, composers and writers who were s**theads/perverts/freaks. We can make art respectable and watch it die on our Habitat walls.

I take your point. Art should not be a barometer of public decency – but perhaps the way in which it is displayed should be. I don’t know. Personally I find the statue distasteful – not offensive, just distasteful.

It goes without saying that I am anti-censorship!

I shall think on this and see if I can come up with a situation in which you’d be pro-censorship. That can be my challenge for the rest of the week!

Oooh too much amazing stuff!

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

Thanks for these insights. It's very stimulating! Perhaps as you say, we shall return to them post-saki (cos we are bound to be in a fine state for intellectual discussions:-))