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!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 02:24 pm (UTC)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!