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]

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:-))