Why is Art Distrusted?

[aricmayer]

Wow, there is a lot of ill will going on in this thread. I will just

speed through my contribution in order not to add too much to

the many thousand words here already. It's complicated, but

here's a synopsis of how it happened.

 

The beginnings of the rift between the art world and the rest of

the world starts in the industrial revolution and is completed by

the Nazi take over of Germay. The industrial revolution takes

farmers who have their own culture, moves them to the city,

teaches them to read so they can work in factories and then

houses them in boring tenements that are ugly and cheap.

 

Stripped of their own culture and in need of something to

brighten their weary lives, these workers turn to easy pop culture

and Kitch is born. That is, cheap, easy entertainment that

requires no effort to consume (one doesn't have much energy for

culture after a 12 hour day in a factory.)

 

Flash forward to the beginnings of the Nazi takeover of Germany.

A powerful medium is needed to help win the minds of the

desperately impoverished Geman public. Socialist Art is born. It

is beautiful, using the human form to illustrate the triumphs of

the Wotan Archetype, or, the Aryan Race. The Nazi's rally around

this vision of Germany and conscript artists to make more

Socialist Art.

 

Those artists who are creating a different vision of Germany, the

German Expressionists, see an ugly, corrupt, decadent,

exploitive culture in the Wiemar elite and they paint them that

way. These are difficult, ugly paintings of a currupt and perverted

culture. They are also honest about the dark side of Nazi

Germany. Those artists of course are told either to change their

art or die. Many are killed, the others flee Germany. A similar

thing happens in Russia as well.

 

Before the exodus of artists from Germany in the early years of

Nazi rule, Germany was developing a lot of exciting movements

in art and design. Those teachers and artists went into exile,

many of them coming to the United States, and many of them

coming to New York City.

 

Having seen the power of representative art to capture and move

people who don't understand or question it's message to do

horrific things like killing other people and participating in

genocide, those artists in exile sought another form of

expression. Increasingly that expression developed into

abstraction and abstract expressionism.

 

The artists themselves are deeply distrustful of "easy" art, since

it was used to motivate people to kill their friends and family and

to drive them from their countries of origin. It is hoped that

abstraction can not be co-opted for propaganda use. Much

interesting and meaningful art comes out of this, but the general

public, now very used to Kitsch as it's art, does not buy it.

 

Hurt by their public reception, artists say a big f__ you to the

public in general and continue to make art that avoids the pitfalls

of the art they hate, propaganda. Now the rift is solidified.

 

There is great danger in the unquestioning acceptance of

images. Anyone who tells you differently should look at the

effects of art used to further the regimes of Nazi Germany,

Communist Russia, Communist China, Fascist Italy and Spain,

Cambodia, North Vietnam etc. etc. ad nausem.

 

Admittedly, the art world would do well to work to bridge the gap

a bit themselves, too. But the truth is, culture takes work. If one

doesn't want to do the work, then one isn't going to get it.

 

Whoops, company is coming... got to go.

[james_oneill]

Thomas.

You've missed my point with "hate art". Art doesn't have to be about the beautiful, and the happy. My questions to answer "is it art" are: Did the artist bring something to it, does it connect, does it make you feel something. ? If it provokes and makes you think, and question things that is valid. If the viewer is not willing to think or question, it doesn't succeed as art. In some ways, your anger is what the "artist" wants when he goes <i>after the negative, an icon of a group, when the artist knows they're being disrespectful and they have no other intent then being hurtful towards others, it then becomes hate and not art.</i> I'm guessing we're still with "Piss Christ" then ... I looked at this, and thought "You want to attack the Christian religion and this is the best you can do ? How lame. 10/10 for being provocative, but minus serveral million for thought. Looks to me like a publicity stunt". <p>

<i> Dumbing down people's sensibilities is the purpose of social anarchists. </i>The corollary of this is being the guardian of public sensibilities of the purpose of social fascists. Making people think about these things isn't dumbing down, quite the reverse. Some people prefer not to think and keep their minds closed; the only art that works for them is the immediate. There is a difference between (a) An artist saying "You're too stupid to get my art" (b) A viewer saying "I won't think about this; if I have to think about it's not art", and © A viewer saying "I've considered it, and I see what you're driving at but for me, this doesn't do it."<p>

<i> I think guys just like women's breasts and use art as an excuse to lay their eyes on them. I truly think it's that shallow of a concept and all this artiness is just a cover up. How many guys jump the gals they've conned into the studio. In my mind, it's all about sex and getting the next chick in bed. </i>

OK now you are being insulting. Guys like breasts. No dispute there, but the rest of it is tosh. I can't say no man has ever used a camera to con a woman into bed. But I only work with professional models, and it doesn't happen in the circles I move in. Everything I have done with nude work is about the body as something beautiful independent of sex. I've said before, any man who gets an erection looking at the stuff I do needs to see a doctor. As for breasts, the satistics are against you. I have 80 "nudes" on photo.net, and 3 have two models in. That's 166 breasts I could have shown, I did a quick count, I've shown 40 of them. The two most obviously sexual pictures <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1903359">Zoe with Leighann</a> and <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1445061"> Strike dear mistress and cure his heart</a> don't show nakedness. <p>

<I> It's not that I'm that shallow, it's that the photographers are that transparent. "I'm an artist." No you're not, you're just a dude that likes naked chicks. </I> I shouldn't trade insults with you, but you're not shallow; if you developed a lot more depth you could aspire to be shallow in 10 years. But with only your postings here to go by, lack of depth is not your problem, but lack of width, as in "He was so narrow minded he could look through a keyhole with both eyes". When I see someone who refers to women as "Chicks" and people with different views as "pervs" it sends up a big warning that they may be a bit lacking in the respect of others department. One can be an artist and like breasts, it's not mutally exclusive. The last part of that could be turned back on you To say "you're not an artist, you just like pretty pictures." (which would be silly, right ?) But hang on ... <p>

<i>unacceptance is what I have to fight. If it's they're way, it's cool. If it's anyway that doesn't fit their mold, it's out. Personally, I don't see art in the way you do</i>, well the last bit's true for sure. But the first bit - you do feel a lack of acceptance because you like "pretty pictures" ? There is a difference between my view - which is art can be provocative and/or ugly, and require some thought from the viewer and the Clique view that art MUST do these things. There's no such requirement, and that's where I line up with you. From what you've posted you do leave yourself open to the charge of displaying the same intolerence as you are trying to fight against. <p>

<i>saying [over manipulated work is] "unsuccessful art" you denigrate it and put the same boundries on it that you yourself hate</I> Not really; good/bad, successful/unsucessful, art/not-art are all things from the mind of the viewer. "For me this doesn't work because of xyz" is something I'll post. I try not to condemn other's efforts as "crap" though (see above about respect for others). <p>

Karsh's picture of Churchill - the photographer knew how he wanted Churchill to appear. Even if you do not know who Churchill was you get a sense of the man from the picture, but it is with the artists interpretation. Whatever you think of taking the cigar, and preference you have for "Smiley happy people", had Karsh done nothing the photo would just have been a record, a passport snap, and his role would have been camera minder, not artist. <p>

<i>I stopped by your portfolio. Some very nice, tastefully done stuff. No complaints on my part...... save one. :-) If the human form is so interesting and it's not about sex, then why no sensitive images of fat chicks. It's just an observation but only the pretty are photographed and none of this sensitivity is pushed in the direction of the not so pretty. That's being intellectually dishonest. "</I><br>

Well first off I thank you for the compliment. As for the complaint ... I flinch at the term "fat chicks". If you use a label like that then you'd probably apply it to my wife; who is unwilling to be photographed clothed, never mind nude. I work with professional models - I'm interested in a narrow band who do art nude work and whose main interest isn't in the adult industry. In London there are a couple of hundred such models, they are almost exclusivly young, female, and thin-ish. I want to do some male nudes, and I've worked with a model in her late 40s but the number models in these categories in the whole of southern England is in single figures. I don't know <u>any</u> "BBW" art-nude models. I make no secret that I don't like my models skinny or flabby or musclebound; I like the body to be defined but not overly so; outside the studio, like many men I like big breasts, but they don't photograph as well as small ones. <br>

Maybe it's because it is late, and maybe I'm being obtuse but are you saying now that I can't claim to be producing art (and it's a claim I am always hesitant to make) because I only produce "pretty" pictures of medium build women: but if I produced ugly pictures of "fat chicks", that could be appreciated only by the artistically enlightened then I would be on better ground. Doesn't fit with the rest of what you've said.

 

 

[beeman458]

James

 

First, before I start in, I'd like to preface my comments with a comment; rational thought can be a pain:) That being said, I'll try to fill in the blanks that you asked about.

 

--------------------------

 

Thomas. You've missed my point with "hate art". Art doesn't have to be about the beautiful, and the happy. My questions to answer "is it art" are: Did the artist bring something to it, does it connect, does it make you feel something. ? If it provokes and makes you think, and question things that is valid. If the viewer is not willing to think or question, it doesn't succeed as art. In some ways, your anger is what the "artist" wants when he goes after the negative, an icon of a group, when the artist knows they're being disrespectful and they have no other intent then being hurtful towards others, it then becomes hate and not art. I'm guessing we're still with "Piss Christ" then ... I looked at this, and thought "You want to attack the Christian religion and this is the best you can do ? How lame. 10/10 for being provocative, but minus serveral million for thought. Looks to me like a publicity stunt".

 

-----------------------

 

Assuming we're on the same wave length with your above, to me, if done for the publicity and just to provoke, makes it hateful behavior.

 

-------------------------

 

Dumbing down people's sensibilities is the purpose of social anarchists. The corollary of this is being the guardian of public sensibilities of the purpose of social fascists. Making people think about these things isn't dumbing down, quite the reverse.

 

Thinking about something and tearing down socialbilities are two different items. It's one thing to challenge a law, no pot. Okay and why shouldn't someone be able to blow a joint at night. Well around here, it's against the law. Challenging the law, that's cool but when people start getting hurt, death and such, that's a bad thing. I also think that drinking any alcohol and driving should be made illegal. So there's a point of social constructionism and destructionism that I'm in support of. But beating up on a religions icon, purposfully, with full knowledge of the uproar that it's going to cause, then you're nothing but a common $hi+ stirrer and you become hateful by the intentional act. Thought or no thought of purpose, this is the behavior of hateful people.

 

------------------------

 

Some people prefer not to think and keep their minds closed; the only art that works for them is the immediate.

 

---------------------

 

And there's not a thing wrong with this sort of behavior. If someone wants to keep themselves closes, that's perfectly fine with me.

 

--------------------

 

There is a difference between (a) An artist saying "You're too stupid to get my art" (b) A viewer saying "I won't think about this; if I have to think about it's not art", and © A viewer saying "I've considered it, and I see what you're driving at but for me, this doesn't do it."

 

------------------

 

Sure there's a difference but there is something wrong with condemming the viewer but there's nothing wrong with not wanting to open your mind. Yes the third possibility is the most desirable but the middle one is not a social crime but the first one is.

 

-------------------------

 

I think guys just like women's breasts and use art as an excuse to lay their eyes on them. I truly think it's that shallow of a concept and all this artiness is just a cover up. How many guys jump the gals they've conned into the studio. In my mind, it's all about sex and getting the next chick in bed.

 

------------------

 

OK now you are being insulting.

 

-----------------

 

Then consider my written word art and I'm trying to provoke thought in my choice of words. Do you think that I considered the impact of my words before I chose them. I'm not stupid and I'm very much aware how people will react to my written word:-) If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander:-) You've just been given the equivalent artsy world treatment via the written word:-) I know when my written words become inflamatory:-) Just as artist know when their art work is going to become inflamatory.

 

---------------------

Guys like breasts. No dispute there, but the rest of it is tosh.

 

---------------

 

Not in the least. I can see no other purpose for naked lady pics.

 

---------------------

 

I can't say no man has ever used a camera to con a woman into bed. But I only work with professional models, and it doesn't happen in the circles I move in. Everything I have done with nude work is about the body as something beautiful independent of sex.

 

--------------------

 

The reason the woman's body is beautiful, by natural design is to get you to want to have sex with her. It's all about genetics which we'll never rise above. Our destiny as men is to think about sex. That's why the normal male thinks about sex, once every five minutes. It's what we are. No big deal. Some get use to this and others perpetually deny but either which way, it's our human cross to bear.

 

-------------------

 

I've said before, any man who gets an erection looking at the stuff I do needs to see a doctor.

 

------------------

 

I won't argue with that, unless you're ten but it does have a sensual content as opposed to a lewd content and yes the models are sexually attractive, so to deny the part of sexuality in your work is to only deny the truth of who and what we are as well as who and what you're working with.

 

As for breasts, the satistics are against you. I have 80 "nudes" on photo.net, and 3 have two models in. That's 166 breasts I could have shown, I did a quick count, I've shown 40 of them.

 

--------------------

 

I didn't say to share the pics for the purpose of but for you're own personal visual pleasures. Please. I feel you're peeing on my leg with this one:-) What makes a gal beautiful, physically? Her sexual attractiveness. By definition of being phsically appealing. It's not enigmatic.

 

-----------------------

 

The two most obviously sexual pictures Zoe with Leighann and Strike dear mistress and cure his heart don't show nakedness.

 

I can assure you, if sex wasn't a part of it, gals wouldn't need to take their clothes off for guys. "No, no." "Keep the clothes on, what do I want to see you naked for?" Playboy is always looked at for the articles:-) Venus, she was a dog:-)

 

---------------------------

 

It's not that I'm that shallow, it's that the photographers are that transparent. "I'm an artist." No you're not, you're just a dude that likes naked chicks. I shouldn't trade insults with you, but you're not shallow; if you developed a lot more depth you could aspire to be shallow in 10 years. But with only your postings here to go by, lack of depth is not your problem, but lack of width, as in "He was so narrow minded he could look through a keyhole with both eyes".

 

------------------------

 

It's a matter of convenience to see my sensibilities as being narrow minded instead of being a man of conviction. But seeing me as narrow minded is the easy thing to do as it makes your analogies simple.

 

--------------------

 

When I see someone who refers to women as "Chicks" and people with different views as "pervs" it sends up a big warning that they may be a bit lacking in the respect of others department.

 

----------------------

 

And when people insult other people's cultural icons, these same flags don't go up. Again, I'm chosing words to make you think by intentionally chosing inflamatory words. Pissing a person off is just as easy as insulting cultural icons. Not a wit of difference. I'm just being a bit more surgical in my efforts:-) Hopefully, with the affect my words have had on you, I've caused you to stop and think about condemming those that see certain artists as hateful in their behavior. Going over the edge is easy. Walking the fine line and being thought provoking but not going over the edge is hard.

 

-------------------------

 

One can be an artist and like breasts, it's not mutally exclusive. The last part of that could be turned back on you To say "you're not an artist, you just like pretty pictures." (which would be silly, right ?)

 

--------------------------

 

Not at all as I do like pretty pictures. I don't have much use for all this thought provoking stuff. Why, it only breeds discontent and unhappiness. So I'm up to my eyeballs in hate around the world. A little bit of beauty for a mind to rest is a good thing. Pretty is not all that bad and being noncontroversial is also not a bad thing. Stirring things up and making people mad, that's easy.

 

-----------------------

 

But hang on ...

 

-----------------------

unacceptance is what I have to fight. If it's they're way, it's cool. If it's anyway that doesn't fit their mold, it's out. Personally, I don't see art in the way you do, well the last bit's true for sure. But the first bit - you do feel a lack of acceptance because you like "pretty pictures" ? There is a difference between my view - which is art can be provocative and/or ugly, and require some thought from the viewer and the Clique view that art MUST do these things. There's no such requirement, and that's where I line up with you. From what you've posted you do leave yourself open to the charge of displaying the same intolerence as you are trying to fight against.

 

----------------------

 

There's a difference between being willing to work within social limitations and being unwilling to tolerate total social anarchy and the conveninet distruction of all social rules to benefit those that don't want to have any rules. Point out where I've been intolerant as opposed to being in support of being thoughtful towards others that think differently then the artists do.

 

---------------------------

 

saying [over manipulated work is] "unsuccessful art" you denigrate it and put the same boundries on it that you yourself hate Not really; good/bad, successful/unsucessful, art/not-art are all things from the mind of the viewer. "For me this doesn't work because of xyz" is something I'll post. I try not to condemn other's efforts as "crap" though (see above about respect for others.

 

-----------------------

 

And if you put my comments back into the context they were made, the comments will stand on their own. You took my words out of context, of course they're not going to sound right.

 

--------------------------

 

Karsh's picture of Churchill - the photographer knew how he wanted Churchill to appear. Even if you do not know who Churchill was you get a sense of the man from the picture, but it is with the artists interpretation. Whatever you think of taking the cigar, and preference you have for "Smiley happy people", had Karsh done nothing the photo would just have been a record, a passport snap, and his role would have been camera minder, not artist.

 

------------------

 

I guess then I'll never get it if I don't agree with it after all these years:-) If someone wants that sort of portrait, that's fine, but you're not going to even get a portrait out of me. I don't believe in portraits even though I've done my fair share of them. But that's another story that has nothing to do with the distrust the general public has of artists. The thought provoking attitude in of itself causes the distrust. Why? Because the artist thinks they're way is the correct way and the general public needs to be educated. That's arrogance on the part of any artist to think anybody needs to be awakened.

 

------------------------

 

I stopped by your portfolio. Some very nice, tastefully done stuff. No complaints on my part...... save one. :-) If the human form is so interesting and it's not about sex, then why no sensitive images of fat chicks. It's just an observation but only the pretty are photographed and none of this sensitivity is pushed in the direction of the not so pretty. That's being intellectually dishonest. "

 

------------------

 

Well first off I thank you for the compliment. As for the complaint ... I flinch at the term "fat chicks". If you use a label like that then you'd probably apply it to my wife; who is unwilling to be photographed clothed, never mind nude.

 

------------------------

 

And unlike some artists, I would never want to do anything to harm her mentally should my comment apply to her situation. I suppose you could say that if artists have a right to wake people up then I should be able to go around trying to wake people up, fat, because it's for their health. If I tried to do this, they'd have me arrested and tell me to rightfull pi$$ off. Funny, we can easily see where in society, certain behaviors by a commoner are unacceptable but if others, artists, do it then somehow it's okay. I don't think so. The same social conditions that would apply to me speaking to your wife, applies to religious icons such as a cross.

 

---------------------

 

I work with professional models - I'm interested in a narrow band who do art nude work and whose main interest isn't in the adult industry. In London there are a couple of hundred such models, they are almost exclusivly young, female, and thin-ish. I want to do some male nudes, and I've worked with a model in her late 40s but the number models in these categories in the whole of southern England is in single figures. I don't know any "BBW" art-nude models. I make no secret that I don't like my models skinny or flabby or musclebound; I like the body to be defined but not overly so; outside the studio, like many men I like big breasts, but they don't photograph as well as small ones.

Maybe it's because it is late, and maybe I'm being obtuse but are you saying now that I can't claim to be producing art (and it's a claim I am always hesitant to make) because I only produce "pretty" pictures of medium build women: but if I produced ugly pictures of "fat chicks", that could be appreciated only by the artistically enlightened then I would be on better ground.

 

---------------------

 

Not at all. I'm saying that there's no balance in the art world. The guys like to say, I'm only doing chick pics because I'm in it for the art but I don't see them doing fat gals. There's no balance to cooberate they're comments that they see the female human form as a facinating shape. If that were so, then physical beauty wouldn't be a prerequsite. All manners, shapes and forms would be in demand, not just the good looking ones. Remember, a person's behavior, belies their intent.

 

-----------------

 

Doesn't fit with the rest of what you've said.

 

-----------------

 

Sure it does. How? If guys were to have balance of different sorts of gals in their portfolio, tall, short, fat, scrawney, ugly, beautiful and there was a poporri, then I might believe what you're saying but when it's clearly onesided and there's a difinite discrimination going on, then I'm rightfully inclined to accuse the person of peeing on my leg.

 

I hope my above has fleshed things out a bit more and help you better understand the nature of the distrust the art world has created and brought upon themselves. I'm just trying to help answer the question from a person that's not in the art world and yet all the while is an artist. I don't want to be a part of the art community. Why? They've made their attitudes very well known. And that is, they have no room for a stripe of a different color.

 

I'm cool with that and again, I hope I've helped. Below is a pretty picture where the tired mind can wander. I'll give you a clue to understanding the image. The trees are not the subject matter.

 

[james_oneill]

Thomas: staying with "Piss Christ" for a second. You're upset with an artist using your icon in that way. Nazis have been mentioned in this thread, so if he had done "Piss swastika" you'd have been OK with that ? He took a swing at the church (the icon) not the teachings. Forgive me, but the church has a pretty shameful history - we've done the spanish inquisition (you can go back to the Crucades, or look at the Church's stance on slavery) but if you think of modern times you only have to look at the way church sat idly by and allowed genocide to happen in Nazi Germany, and in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. Do you think the church telling people in Africa that they must not use condoms has a connection to the spread of AIDS in that continent, or to over-population and resulting starvation? Did Jesus say that if a person was attracted to someone of the same sex then rights granted to others should be denied to them? Can you defend what the church has done when it has become aware of people within its hierarchy abusing children ? There's a degree of Orwellian doublethink required to both beleive in the teachings of Jesus, and to be loyal to institutions of which have grown up around them. If the artist had a point then the fact the people get worked up about what he has done with their icon, while staying silent on child abuse, oppression and genocide serves only to to reinforce it. I would describe my beliefs as "basically Christian", but I have an antipathy towards the church, which is similar to your view of yourself and the "artistic community".<br>

I guess you and I are not going to agree on whether it is valid for art to be provocative, if it is ONLY trying to provoke and make the artist infamous it's claim to be art is pretty weak. That's as close as we're going to get.<p>

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make around pot. People become violent when drunk, but "mellow" when stoned. Living in England where we have a problem with football hooliganism, I have said that not only should pot be legalised, it should be made mandatory for (say) attending football matches. Tobacco and alcohol are more damaging to health, but they are very valuable sources of income to governments. Making pot illegal only makes it more attractive to young people. It wasn't illegal in Victorian times (indeed I think Queen Victoria was partial to opium) so it is perfectly valid to ask Why was it made illegal, do we still think those objectives are valid, and do we think making pot users into criminals helps meet those objectives ? <p>

As for closed minds, yes absolutely people have a right to be closed minded, but having one is a pretty poor basis for attacking others, wouldn't you say ? <p>

<I>[me] :OK now you are being insulting. <br>[you]:Then consider my written word art and I'm trying to provoke thought in my choice of words. </i> Nice try. But you've already defined that behaviour as being hateful not artistic. I'll judge your actions by your own standards thanks all the same. <p>

<i>[me:] [what you say about nude art] is tosh. <br>

[you:] Not in the least. I can see no other purpose for naked lady pics. </i>

Just because (as an advocate of keeping the mind closed) you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. And if it were true, explain why it is I get better reactions to my nudes from heterosexual women than I do from men. Explain why, as a heterosexual man I would want to male nudes ?. <p>

<i>The reason the woman's body is beautiful, by natural design is to get you to want to have sex with her.</i> I've heard this argument before that evolution has made us feel positive about seeing those attributes in prospective mate that would make that mate good to breed with. Large breasts = good milk supply, good legs = ability to avoid danger etc. So why do I find beauty in backs and shoulders - parts of body which are the same in both sexes and don't relate to breeding quality ? Why do I find it in a woman past child bearing age ? And why is a tree beautiful ? Nature doesn't need me to have sex with trees. So why can't one see beauty in a body the same way one does in a tree or a flower ? And please remember I've stayed with a mate I picked nearly 20 years ago for a whole bunch of non-visual reasons. Your argument may look attractive, but it doesn't stand scutiny.<p>

[My portfolio]<i>does have a sensual content as opposed to a lewd content and yes the models are sexually attractive, so to deny the part of sexuality in your work is to only deny the truth of who and what we are as well as who and what you're working with</i>. Two things here, if you were right, then wanting to do male nudes would make me a bisexual in denial. Secondly there is a fair criticism to make that I am lazy: in my first year's work I have shot 8 models, and they've all been reasonably attractive, that's not the same as being sexually motivated and in any case I'd question your ability to judge my motivation better than I can myself. <p>

<i>What makes a gal beautiful, physically? Her sexual attractiveness. By definition of being phsically appealing.</I> So if children are beautiful we are sexually attracted to them ? Or would you say we were but we surpress it ?<br>

The journey to taking nude photos started watching a table dancer in 1998 - table dancing is a way of conning your subconsious into think there is sex in the offing, in the same way that roller coaster makes it think you are in danger; in reality neither is actually the case. I've seen maybe 30 such dancers and done well it brings out a feeling that went beyond beyond sex. I went digging back to find something I wrote in 98, about the dancer who first made me think a back was a thing of beauty. "Her moves were becoming familiar, as were the shapes of her body, the complex curves where the neck meets shoulder, thigh meets abdomen or breast meets rib cage; but I might almost have been studying a race horse" - this thing about looking at her like a fine horse is the turning point. That's when it stopped being about sex. <p>

<i> if sex wasn't a part of it, gals wouldn't need to take their clothes off for guys. "No, no." "Keep the clothes on, what do I want to see you naked for?" Playboy is always looked at for the articles:-) Venus, she was a dog:-) </I> :-) Actually, you may have noticed there is quite a big industry in sexy underwear; many men find a woman in stockings more of a turn on than one who is completely naked. I'm going to raise the idea of having sex with (most of) your clothes on and then close it off again. And it is interesting you mention playboy, which is faring better than more explicit magazines at the moment. No one buys Playboy just for the articles, but why do they buy it in preference to Hustler ?<p>

<i>It's a matter of convenience to see my sensibilities as being narrow minded instead of being a man of conviction. But seeing me as narrow minded is the easy thing to do as it makes your analogies simple. </i>You can be both narrow minded and a man of conviction. Indeed it probably helps conviction. But being serious, yes I am aware that I have simplified the views you express to the point of caricature in places for ease of constructing an argument.

<i> I'm chosing words to make you think by intentionally chosing inflamatory words. Pissing a person off is just as easy as insulting cultural icons. Not a wit of difference. I'm just being a bit more surgical in my efforts:-) Hopefully, with the affect my words have had on you, I've caused you to stop and think about condemming those that see certain artists as hateful in their behavior.</I>

I hope I haven't condemned anyone; because I try not to do that. You are the one who condemned what some call art as "hateful", and now you say you are setting out to do the same thing. Maybe you should condemn your own behaviour as hateful; I won't. I disagree with a portion of your views, just as I think "piss christ" is a piss poor peice of art. But right at the core of my beliefs is that people have the right to be respected as individuals, and that includes the right to their opinions. What follows on from that is right of anyone to reject having anothers definition of art (or porn) foisted upon them - which gives Serrano the right to create his work and call it art. To me the idea of calling an unmade bed "art" is a nonsense, but that doesn't take away Tracy Emin's right to do exactly that. <br>I don't beleive you call people "perverts" to provoke debate, I beleive that's how you think of them, and I do question your respect for others - it may be there, but it doesn't come across in what you post. <p>

<i>I'm saying that there's no balance in the art world. The guys like to say, I'm only doing chick pics because I'm in it for the art but I don't see them doing fat gals. </i> There are no pictures of naked children either ... and I'm not going to start doing those. I don't say I'm only doing it for the art. It's the other way round, I like to photograph attractive women (and I don't see fat as automatically unattractive) and I try to do it artistically, rather than as cheesecake, or porn. I've never thought of what I do as "chick pics" and I've already said I hesitate to lay claim to "art", what I have said in <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=196256">one of my prsentations</a> was:<br>

<i>"There are a lot of BAD nudes on the internet; not bad - in the sense that they are immoral - but BAD in the sense that Paul Fussell uses it in his book "BAD or the dumbing of America", something "phoney, clumsy, witless, untalented, vacant or boring that many Americans can be persuaded is genuine, graceful, bright, or fascinating.". In November 2002 I told my wife what I had in mind, booked a model called Red Lilly and a convenient studio and decided to see if I could produce something which wasn't BAD."</i><br>

I find all my models via web sites (for starters you can look at www.onemodelplace.com, and www.themodelsclub.co.uk) if you can find what you term a "fat chick" who does art nude work in the southern half of England, I'll photograph her. Maybe when I have a bit more experience and confidence I might ask someone I know - but asking the only current candidate could cost me my job.

 

regards

 

[beeman458]

You ran wide of the mark in your comments. And I find people do this a lot. When someone sticks to their guns, spicious arguments come out. And the further you get into an argument, the wider of the mark the argument becomes.

 

I'll try to simpify.

 

Nazi symbols in piss would not create an outrage.

 

Naked children pics are illegal and the creator would be arrested.

 

In the beginning of time ten and eleven year old girls were being impregnated because life only lasted a bit more then twenty-five years. So there was sexual attraction in the beginning and yes there still is today. But it's been rightfully made illegal because life is more complicated then it was twelve thousand years ago.

 

There's a difference between examples and actually commiting the act as in choice of words to make a point and going out and doing it to create a world wide outrage.

 

I submit that you, though your words have showed a typical close minded artistic attitude. Your way is the way to truth and light and those that disagree are not acceptable. You spoke about using art to wake someone up and then when the tables were turned, you refused to see the similarity. That's disengenuous. Either you're for it and you applaude it or you're not for it and you condemn it. I condemn it and don't condone it. My examples were mild in comparison but you raised them to the same level of defiling religious symbols when one was clearly an example of the smallest size. You also have left out the disengenuous nature of only going after one religion as opposed to being even handed. This is also convenient behavior.

 

I could go through your last missive, line by line, as we have done, but you're running further and further wide of the mark as I'm trying to stay central. And no purpose will be served.

 

When you bring up nakedness of a child and sexual attactiveness but leave out the social history in how we got where we are today, you're being argumentative.

 

When you try to compare Nazi symbols to religious symbols, you're trivializing.

 

When you take my comments out of context, then you are being intellectually dishonest.

 

When you try to speak without understanding about purposful closemindedness to bad ideas, as being bad, you're being arrogant.

 

I'm in agreement with you on most points but you ran wide of the mark on many points and they come accross as intentional and convenient.

 

That's fine but I see them in a truthful, nonconfused light and will stay central to the original idea; mistrust the art world has created.

 

To try to seperate the back out from sexuality is nutty thinking. To compare sexy clothing to being fully clothed is specious. Why? The back is an integral part of the human body and sexy clothing is an enhancement device. You can't seperate out sex from the human body. Why. It's the essance of being human. Why? No sex, no humans and we'll cease to exist.

 

I'm not the closed minded one here. I see things very clearly. Obfuscation is a wonderful invention of the human mind.

 

As I commented, my choice of words are by intention and to exemplify. And in stating so, I was accused of being hateful when I was trying to make a point. The point was, it's easy to be hateful. If I wanted to be hateful, my choice of words would continue to not be screened and there would be an outpouring of hateful words being added to my screen. But I consider this wrong and don't do it. But sometimes to make a simple point, to wake a person up out of their malaise, or to make a comparative point, it's necessary. But to go wide with it, is wrong.

 

To keep to the intent of the original question.

 

You, yourself, via the dishonesty in your photography, further the distrust. You don't see it, I do. So do others. But! You're right and I'm wrong. And if you ask people that are like minded to you, of course they're going to agree with you. Birds of a feather and all that rot.

 

That's the easist form of handling the critic, to dismiss them.

 

So ignore my comments. Disavow the truth of what I'm sharing and enjoy your life. Even artists have the ability to be blind. You, nor I have a lock on truth.

 

I'm not going to be dragged into a world of denial because someone chooses to call me narrow minded. I'll stick with being honest and I'll stick with going through your two eyed keyhole if you will because the alternative is too distasteful for me. Why? I won't live a lie.

 

Just a suggestion, your wife won't let you photograph her because she doesn't feel good about herself and/or her value system stops her. Tell her that you're only going to do images of her back and that there won't be anything suggestive or that she should feel ashamed of and if she doesn't like the images, you'll destroy the digital positives. That and offer her the same wages that you offer your models would provide additional incentive:-)

 

If you're being genuine, she won't mind.

 

I'll look forward to seeing the images.

 

I purposfully didn't address your last comments because they were out of control and ran way wide of the mark. I'm happy to go to e-mail, continue this conversation, one point at a time. bee(removespam)man458@aol.com. Just enter an appropriate heading as I delete any headings I don't recognize and I spam lock all thet I recognize as spam.

 

Looking forward to the future.

 

[james_oneill]

Thomas, there is a difference between beleiving in the validity of your own opinion (which we both do) and allowing others to have their own. <br>

Read what I said; I defended peoples' right to have a different view to mine. <br>

Read what you said: you defended having a closed mind; you even call being open minded too distasteful for you. You say now that I have an arogant view about people who prejudge what is good and bad and close their minds <br>

I love the way you can say "Your way is the way to truth and light and those that disagree are not acceptable."... "you ran wide of the mark on many points and they come accross as intentional and convenient. That's fine but I see them in a truthful, nonconfused light". Sorry, remind me again which of us is the one claiming the corner on truth ?<br>

 

You said <i>I'm chosing words to make you think by intentionally chosing inflamatory words. Pissing a person off is just as easy as insulting cultural icons. Not a wit of difference. "</i> and when I said you were being insulting <I>consider my written word art and I'm trying to provoke thought in my choice of words. Do you think that I considered the impact of my words before I chose them. </i> Sorry, I read that as saying "I'm pissing you off on purpose which is what you say artists should be free to do - aha - I've turned the tables on you". But you condemned those same artists saying when someone <i>"knows they're being disrespectful and they have no other intent then being hurtful towards others, it then becomes hate"</i>. <p>

 

Don't tell me that I <i>can't seperate out sex from the human body.</i> I've done it. If you can't, don't project that onto everyone else. <p>

 

You've insulted me (calling my photography dishonest here and saying earlier <i>How many guys jump the gals they've conned into the studio. In my mind, it's all about sex and getting the next chick in bed. </i>), You find the fact I haven't photographed models who don't actually exist to be grounds to attack my integrity. You're disrespectful to women (the whole "chicks" thing) and dismiss people with other views as perverts. You seem proud of your prejudices, and prefer not to consider any view you don't already agree with. That makes batting ideas back and forth with you a rather pointless activity, and one I shall now cease.<p>

[jake_tauber]

After eating Thanksgiving dinner and left-overs at a relative's house for 3 days, I thought I knew what "bloated" was. Then I returned to this thread which now has more words than an article in the "New Yorker"!!

 

I think you all should turn off your computers and go out and take some pictures. If you're good enough, you might create some Art. Then show them to someone. Your viewer(s) could like what they see, or be full of distrust. :>]

[grant_.]

this is like a really bad, long novel, that i aint readin...

[andy_laycock]

Some people should look at #4 in the forum rules.

[robert_potts1]

Amazing! Actually people do trust art. What else is there to trust? Nobody trusts science. I'll illustrate this by pointing ou that we flock to the polls to vote for artists like Ronald Reagan and Arnold S.!