posted
Alas, I fear I was hopelessly unclear in my last post. I blame the mind-fog that affected my typing on my perpetual insomnia combined with sunburn from the day's activities, and I thank you for replying intelligently to my babble. *grin*
I was specifically talking about the line that divides tastefully done "aesthetically pleasing" nude art and "porn"; I am aware that the phrase is used to describe other things, such as the layout of a room or the placement of flowers or whatever.
But...how can this "beauty" be defined, in regards to figures? Is a concrete definition even possible between people with wildly different backgrounds and mindsets? I don't like things being subjective; I prefer to think that we just don't have the language yet to describe the things that we think of as being subjective. Of course, I could be wrong *laugh*.
If a painting of a nude and a Playboy are sitting next to each other, what is it that defines the "artistic-ness" of the former and the "pornographic-ness" of the latter?
You are correct in that I did frame my questions from the point of view of someone who believes that lusting over a picture of someone is wrong, cuz that's my position. (You're also correct that I'm arrogant and unfair at times, but we shan't go into that. )
The questions were asked because I have noticed that I *do* make a distinction between porn and erotic art when I'm painting, and I don't understand the distinction I'm making. I was aware of people who do *not* have a problem with "oogling people" and I was wondering where *they* draw the lines between porn and art. Am *I*, in fact, using the phrase "aesthetically pleasing" to cover up the fact that secretly I find the pictures arousing so that I do not have to face the fact that I am doing something I object to ideologically? I don't *think* I am, but then...I can't define WHY, and I don't like it *grin*.
I also apologize for the word "invented". Twas a typo; or rather, a word-substitution. Should have been "implemented", as in: when people who have no problem with lusting over a picture use the phrase "aesthetically pleasing", are they saying that as a euphemism, or are they seeing the picture as both arousing AND aesthetically pleasing in a non-arousing way? If so, what is it that is aesthetically pleasing to them that does NOT involve lust in some way? Are they in fact separating the two? Where?
I meant no offense, if there was any taken (my offense-o-meter is showing a slight reading, but maybe it's low on batteries). I am really just trying to understand.
(Honestly, I butchered the way I asked these questions...I was in the mindset of a particular class I had when I was in art school, and the fact that, uh, you weren't even THERE conveniently slipped my mind. I was using definitions in ways specific to that class and referring to specific objections raised IN that class, so it's no wonder there was confusion. My fault. Sigh. *kicks brain*)
quote:One reason I find the phrase useful is because too often we equate "beautiful" with "pretty". Much art is beautiful, but not remotely pretty.
*nods* I really like that, dude. Puts into words some of my thoughts on the matter.
Sigh. Perhaps I should ask questions that might have answers. *grin*
Edit: Holy crap, I've sure been writing essays lately. These posts don't look nearly as long when I'm *typing* them. O_O
'Nother edit: forgot to mention, those are suuuure some nice sensual pleasures up there. *grin* *takes notes*
posted
Zotto!: But...how can this "beauty" be defined, in regards to figures? Is a concrete definition even possible between people with wildly different backgrounds and mindsets?
It may sound trite, but there is wisdom in the phrase "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I think a concrete definition of beauty is impossible, precisely because (as you point out) people have "wildly different backgrounds and mindsets". Now I believe it is possible that civil dialog can assist in teaching others to see your own point of view. Before I were to try to convince someone of my view, however, I'd ask myself if I was trying to teach them to see beauty, or trying to steal the beauty they see and replace it with lasciviousness.
If a painting of a nude and a Playboy are sitting next to each other, what is it that defines the "artistic-ness" of the former and the "pornographic-ness" of the latter?
You presume too much in your question. I'd argue that being painted or drawn does not preclude a nude figure from being pornographic, nor does appearing in a nudie magazine automatically make a photo of a nude figure void of artistic merit.
In the 60's and 70's gay pornography was tightly regulated. Publishers got around some of the regualations by publishing "art study" magazines of the male form. These magazines, from that era, are filled with photos of nude men in non-specifically sexual poses. Some posed like Greek or Roman statues, others in more modern settings. Something like this illustrates the difficulty of defining what is art and what is pornography. It seems clear to me that these were meant to be pornography marketed to gay men of that era. However, I find many of these photos to be artistic as well. Just because any artistic qualities of these photos was created specifically to allow them to squeak past the porno-police does not, in my opinion, invalidate them as art. Erotic art, yes, but art nonetheless. Today things have taken a slight turn. Graphic and sometimes extreme gay porn is relatively easy to find. However, most gay bookstores also have a pretty good selection of nude male "art" photo collections. These are usually hardbound, often coffee-table sized books filled with photo studies of male nudes. Some of these are quite artistic. Most are not explicitly pornographic. I have no doubt, though, that many people would look at the whole genre and stamp it with PORN in bright red letters without a second thought. Such is the subjective nature of the label.
You are correct in that I did frame my questions from the point of view of someone who believes that lusting over a picture of someone is wrong, cuz that's my position. (You're also correct that I'm arrogant and unfair at times, but we shan't go into that.
I do not think it is arrogant and unfair to believe as you do. What I believe is arrogant and unfair is to assign ulterior motives to others without just cause. It is fine for you to think a photo is pornographic. It is arrogant and unfair to assume that despite the fact I say I like the photo for its aesthetic value and do not find it pornographic that secretly I'm really lusting over it and just don't want to admit it. See the difference?
when people who have no problem with lusting over a picture use the phrase "aesthetically pleasing", are they saying that as a euphemism, or are they seeing the picture as both arousing AND aesthetically pleasing in a non-arousing way?
Could be either. Could also be that they do not see the picture as arousing at all.
If so, what is it that is aesthetically pleasing to them that does NOT involve lust in some way? Are they in fact separating the two? Where?
Many people find beauty in a form, shape, arc, curve, proportion, or even ideal that is apart from specific subject matter. Others appreciate subject matter over craft in their art. That is why two people will look at the same still life and one will find it artistic and the other will find it boring. That also explains to some degree why some people will collect cat art regardless of its quality. They want it as long as it has a cat on it or in it.
More specific to the human form, I saw a sculpture of a nude female in a gallery in Monterrey, CA. I believe it was bronze, but silver plated over the entire sculpture. She had a cloth over her waist. The cloth and the hair were polished to a high gloss, but everywhere her skin showed, the silver was burnished into a silky matte finish. The effect made her flesh look warm and alive. She was beautiful and beautifully proportioned. I would have bought that sculpture on the spot if I'd had the thousands of dollars they were asking. It really was a captivating statue. I found it extremely aesthetically pleasing, but not in the least arousing. I thought at the time that it was too bad it wasn't a statue of a male nude. If it were, I probably would have found it both aesthetically pleasing and arousing. Because I found it beautiful in a non-sexual way, I could not doubt a straigh man who also claimed to recognize a non-sexual beauty in it. However, because I would love to have seen a male form rendered the same way and recognize that such a statue might very well trigger a more viceral response in me, I have to recognize the possibility that a straight man might find the female statue arousing. But also, because people are attracted to different body types and features in terms of sexual attraction, I also would believe a straight man who thought the statue exquisitely beautiful, but also claimed to not find it arousing in the least.
If you still don't understand the difference, ask yourself this (assuming you are straight): Can you recognize an aesthetic difference between a nude photo of a male athlete and a nude photo of, say, Danny DeVito?
I meant no offense, if there was any taken
None taken. And I really wasn't trying to call you arrogant and unfair, specifically. I was trying to point out that assigning motives to others based only on one's own reactions to a given image is arrogant and unfair.
Sigh. Perhaps I should ask questions that might have answers. *grin*
I hope that I have provided some answers to your general questions. I believe it is possible for some people (myself for instance) to recognize aesthetic appeal apart from lustful appeal in renditions of nudes. However, as to the personal questions about the ability within yourself, only you can answer those. If you believe you can, even if you don't specifically know why you can, does it matter if you can justify that to an outside observer?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I wish you could come to my May Revel. Dancing barefoot around the maypole, children laughing and blowing bubbles, sitting on blankets in the grass eating fruit and cheese...
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zotto!, thank you for keeping my interest in ArtSpeak piqued.
You would probably be interested in the writings of Clement Greenberg, a very famous art critic who I would call a formalist critic - he often talks about very very basic stuff like form and balance and contrast and why things like shapes can be aesthetically pleasing in an objective way. I don't subscribe totally to his conclusions, but he does talk an awful lot about things that are hard to put into words.
This site, though it appears to have been written by the National Coalition of Clement Greenberg's Very Best Buddies, has links to a lot of his writing.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My question will require a bit of setup, so I hope you will bear with me.
I had to go back and check in the Landmark Archive to make sure I had my facts straight, and it appears I do. Some of your background is remarkably similar to that of one of my best friends through most of my youth. He grew up in an active LDS family. His immediate family didn't appear to have any particular turmoil, but I later found out about some unpleasant family issues that weren't knowable at the time. He put in his mission papers after I was already on my mission, and he was called to Japan, but he went home from the MTC and never went back.
When I got home from my own mission I didn't see him around. He was living on his own in another city. After a few months, I found out that he was gay. All the years we had been best friends I never had a clue. I was surprised, but not overly much, and it didn't affect the way I though of him. When I went away to college, in the same city where he lived, I finally got to see him a couple of times. We went to lunch once, and another time he brought me over to his apartment to play computer games.
The subject of his sexuality never came up. There wasn't a reason for it to come up. But while I was at his apartment he had to leave to do something else, and left me there with his roommate. Some other friends came over, and it was quite evident that almost all of them were gay. Their conversation, if nothing else, made it clear. They knew of no reason not to be open in front of me, and it didn't bother me. Finally, I got a ride back to the dorms.
I didn't hear back from my friend. I found out later that he had had a fit when he returned and learned that his friends had been so open around me. He thought I didn't know he was gay, and he hadn't intended for me to find out that night, that way. The whole thing put a stop to any efforts to reconnect, or get to know each other again. He soon moved away to San Francisco, and I got into a serious relationship and then got married. I have seen him maybe once since then, and exchanged e-mails one other time.
The problem as I see it: he and I have very different lives now, with no points of intersection. We live in different places, know different people, spend our time differently, etc. He knows I know he's gay, and he also knows my religious faith, and the position the Church takes on homosexuality. He does not know my own feelings or opinions on the subject, or on the matter of his own particular situation, because we have never discussed it.
I think of him often, and want to get in touch with him, but I have doubts. He may not want to hear from me. He may assume that I "disapprove" of him, or he may simply feel bitterness or resentment toward the Church he grew up in and those feelings may color how he sees me. He may simply not have the time.
Finally, here's the question. Are there former friends, people you knew before your mission, or companions from the mission itself, etc., whom you would be interested in reconnecting with? Under what circumstances would the answer be yes, and how do you think it could best be accomplished? Do you feel that there is enough of a break between the two periods of your life that it would be better not to make the attempt?
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Olivetta: Why don't we do the Terse Movie Slams anymore?
Probably because everyone has forgotten about them, except you and now me and anyone else who is reading this thread still. That may change if someone starts a new thread for them.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
ketchupqueen: why does my shoulder hurt so much?
Because you have injured it and have not properly rested it enough to fully heal. If the pain is severe and lasts much longer, I'd suggest seeing a doctor. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
UofUlawguy: Are there former friends, people you knew before your mission, or companions from the mission itself, etc., whom you would be interested in reconnecting with?
Yes, definitely. There are many people I met in Brazil who were wonderful friends to me while I was there. There are a few former missionary companions I'd like to catch up with and see how they are doing now. There aren't all that many people I remember much from before my mission. I was very much a loner until I went on my mission. I've been contacted by a couple of highschool acquaintances who found me on the internet and wanted to know if I was that Karl Jennings, but we didn't have much in common except the fact of attending the same highschool so nothing much came of the re-connection.
Under what circumstances would the answer be yes, and how do you think it could best be accomplished?
For most of the people I'd like to reconnect with, the best way would probably be through a letter or email. As for the circumstances, ideally for my ego they would contact me , but I can hardly blame them for not doing so if I, for my part haven't done so either.
Do you feel that there is enough of a break between the two periods of your life that it would be better not to make the attempt?
Better? No. There is enough of a break that my nostalgia isn't likley to override my laziness unless chance puts me closer in contact so I wouldn't have to do so much detective work. But I don't think it would be better not to make the attempt. I initially lost contact with several people when I came out (a complicated, multi-stage process). This was probably for a variety of reasons. I wasn't ready to explain myself, if the need arose. I was still feeling a little embarassment at rejecting something I'd spent so much of my life trying to justify. (I spent a lot of time feeling like a large part of my life had been wasted.) But for the most part, I felt that I no longer had the primary connection with my LDS acquaintances, namely the LDS church. I felt that I had lost that connection and didn't yet feel like I had anything of value to take its place. Maybe at that time I might have thought it was better not to make the attempt.
At this point in my life, though, I don't have those qualms so much. I am happy in my life, for the most part, and I can be happy for others who have found fulfillment in theirs, even if it is through religion.
But more to the point of your question, I don't know your friend, but maybe his point of view is similar to mine: I would be thrilled if anyone from my past contacted me because they were thinking about me and wondered how I was doing. It wouldn't bother me if they knew about my sexuality or how I might have changed in their eyes or not. I have progressed beyond feeling awkward letting people know that I am gay if they didn't know already. I don't think I'd be thrilled to be proselytized or have a friend try to "save" me or something, but I don't think I'd be offended even by that, depending on how close I once felt to them.
I think you should contact your friend. The lack of contact has clearly left some sort of void in your life. Don't be reluctant to share yourself to someone you once cared about. You might find out that he doesn't want to talk to you, in which case you can put it out of your mind. But you might find that he misses you too. You might find out that you still have some things in common, or some new things in common. At any rate, you can feel good that you made the effort.
Maybe I'll take my own advice. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would it be copacetic if I idolized your equanimity, intelligence, articulation,... and all around coolness? You don't really need to answer, I just wanted to express my admiration of you.
posted
punwit: Would it be copacetic if I idolized your equanimity, intelligence, articulation,... and all around coolness? You don't really need to answer, I just wanted to express my admiration of you.
Thank you. - wait! er, you're not making fun of my vocabulary, are you? Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm-yum- hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm-tasty-hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm-yikes! time to close- hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm-ok, open slowly-hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm-yum- hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm-yum- hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm-ack!-bleh!-who put all this crap in the water? I'm trying to eat here!
quote: Thank you. - wait! er, you're not making fun of my vocabulary, are you?
No KarlEd, I really do think you are a top-notch person. NO making fun in that particular post, although I can see, given my history, why you might question a serious post from me. Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea: KarlED, you broke the frame with your last post....but you know that, right?
Hmm, actually, I didn't. The frame isn't broken for me. Maybe it's different for different browsers. I'll go add some spaces and maybe it'll work ok.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Megan: How can I avoid turning thoroughly misanthropic?
Short answer, keep posting and reading at Hatrack. You can hardly hate "humankind" when there are all these wonderful people here.
Additionally, surround yourself with people you respect. Take time to nurture good relationships. Be careful, though, to not put individuals on a pedestal. Allow them to be human, just like you are.
Lastly, learn to love yourself and strive to be the kind of person you can love. You can't be thoroughly misathropic if you like yourself.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of my mother's best friends died yesterday in a car accident. They have (had?) six children, the oldest around my age. I've known them all my life, and the family lives here in Dallas now. I called their house and no one answered. My question has two parts: 1. How do I find out when/where the funeral is? We are not in constant touch, but are of the old friend variety. I don't want to leave a message, but I don't know how else to get information. 2. How do I get my dad to come to Texas for the funeral? He avoids anything that's inconvenient or painful, but they came up for my mother's funeral and I think he should come to Texas for hers. He said he'd go if it was in Idaho where she's from, but it didn't sound like he would if it was in Dallas. Of course, if it is in Idaho, then I don't need to worry about the second question.
posted
katharina: How do I find out when/where the funeral is?
Try looking here. Let me know if this site works for you. Alternatively, you might call the newspaper in the hometown. They often have obituary information including funeral times, etc. (This is all assuming you've though of the obvious, like calling mutual friends or their church or place of employment, etc.)
How do I get my dad to come to Texas for the funeral?
The only thing you really can do is to appeal to him using the same logic you used above. If he feels strongly enough against it that "returning the respect" isn't a good enough motivator it is unlikely that you will be able to persuade him without some sort of bribery or coersion, which I don't recommend. And certainly don't make him feel guilty. I didn't attend my grandmother's funeral largely because when I expressed reticence (mainly because it would be full of relatives I had not seen since before I came out) my sister laid a huge guilt trip on me, reinforcing all my negative feelings about the event in the first place. And I didn't speak to her for over a year after that.
However, "Come on, dad. We'll pay our respects then I'll take you out for a nice dinner and we can catch up on things" is a pleasant form of bribery that would work for me. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for the first information. It's not in there, but she only died yesterday. Maybe it is not scheduled yet. I have to say I disagree with what you did in the second, but thank you for answering.
posted
I supplied that information only as insight into the reaction of some people to guilt trips. I don't know your father, but I do know that they have the opposite effect on me than is usually intended.
As for my own situation, there were many factors that led to my decision. I gave a shorthand version because the rest is irrelevant to your question and I didn't want to go off on too much of a tangent. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. My dad reacts slightly better to guilt trips, I think. Rather, if it's up to him he won't do it, but if he realizes it's important to someone that he's tied to, then he's much more inclined. Maybe he doesn't understand that it's important that he comes. More specifically, if it's in Texas I am definitely going, and I'd like my dad to be there without me having to beg him.
I'll go to Idaho if my friend - the daughter that is my age - wants me to. I need to talk to her. *worried and restless* Holy freak, I wish there was something I could do. I hate that there's nothing I can do.
posted
I agree that you should let him know it is important to you. I certainly wasn't implying that would be a guilt trip.
I'm sorry you are going through this at all. Grief is such a personal thing that there really is nothing one can do but be there for the people who are suffering through it. But I know from Hatrack that you can be very kind to those in need. I'm sure your presence will be a comfort to them. (((kat)))
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is the best dye to use if you are dying someone's hair blue? (Please let it be semi-cheap...)
What is the best method when puting red streaks in one's hair?
Well you might find something useful at this site. (It might take a little while to load. It did for me.) Other than that, I admit myself unqualified to provide a better answer. Just as with medical questions, I must refer you to a qualified professional. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What advice do you have / resources do you reccomend for persons renovating/decorating hypothetical Victorian style houses? Particularly in regard to bathrooms?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Manic Panic is the way to go for fun hair colors. If you're putting in red streaks and your hair is dark, if you really want them to stand out you'll need to bleach the streaks first, then dye them red. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw: What advice do you have / resources do you reccomend for persons renovating/decorating hypothetical Victorian style houses? Particularly in regard to bathrooms?
There are many online resources that specialize in Victorian era decor. There are also a couple of magazines (I'll see if I can find some links) that are specifically for and about renovators of Victorian homes. The good thing about Victorian style homes, though, is that they lend themselves to many different tastes in terms of decorating. My advice is to visit a good newsstand and buy a couple of nice home decor magazines. Try and get at least one that is specific to Victorian homes, but don't limit yourself to them alone. One of the hallmarks of Victorian era homes was that for the first time fine fabrics and richly designed furniture was available to the middle classes. The result was that many "went overboard" filling their homes with fabric, paint, furniture, and knick-knacks. Some people today really like that lush, almost opulent decor. I, personally, prefer a less cluttered look, but I like to find unique pieces that fit my budget. I'd rather splurge on one really nice item than buy a dozen mediocre things for the same price.
At any rate, when decorating a Victorian era home, you can probably find someplace anywhere along the spectrum that you feel comfortable, from spartan to opulent. Decide where your comfort zone is, and keep that in mind as you look in the magazines. I'm finding that my house is responding well to very different decorating styles in different rooms. (Anyone who's seen my house will laugh at that statement as right now it's still a clutter of boxes and furniture and no single room is completely finished), but my kitchen is fairly modern and my new bathroom is mostly natural tile slate. Neither of those rooms is specifically Victorian, but I don't think the house suffers because of that in the least.
In a nutshell, what counts as "Victorian" is pretty wide. I'd have to know specifically where along the spectrum you fall to give you specific resources. Feel free to send me an email.
And good luck if you're looking at renovating something. I'm finding it really does cost more than you plan on, but it's a lot of fun.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heya Karl, sorry for the ginormous time lag between repsonses. Haven’t had time to do much more than lurk on the ‘rack.
quote:Before I were to try to convince someone of my view, however, I'd ask myself if I was trying to teach them to see beauty, or trying to steal the beauty they see and replace it with lasciviousness.
Very good point. *takes*
quote:You presume too much in your question. I'd argue that being painted or drawn does not preclude a nude figure from being pornographic, nor does appearing in a nudie magazine automatically make a photo of a nude figure void of artistic merit.
*nod* That was actually my point: where is the dividing line? (I just skimmed the first bit of that Porn Thing mayfly thread, which I apparently missed when it was first posted, and I’m guessing this bit is discussed in there. Hopefully I’ll have time to read that tonight. )
quote:I do not think it is arrogant and unfair to believe as you do. What I believe is arrogant and unfair is to assign ulterior motives to others without just cause. It is fine for you to think a photo is pornographic. It is arrogant and unfair to assume that despite the fact I say I like the photo for its aesthetic value and do not find it pornographic that secretly I'm really lusting over it and just don't want to admit it. See the difference?
Totally see the difference. Again, this was in relation to that art class, where there were people who had given me AMPLE reason to believe that they liked such controversial art for nothing more than the “hehe, boobs!” aspect of it *grin*. However, there were also people in the same class who, I believe, liked the pictures for something MORE than that as well, whose opinions I trusted. What were they seeing in the picture that was “aesthetically pleasing” but separate from the more titillating aspects of it?
I guess what I’m trying to get at is what makes the shape or placement of objects pleasing to look at? It seems so nebulous to me.
quote:Many people find beauty in a form, shape, arc, curve, proportion, or even ideal that is apart from specific subject matter. Others appreciate subject matter over craft in their art. That is why two people will look at the same still life and one will find it artistic and the other will find it boring. That also explains to some degree why some people will collect cat art regardless of its quality. They want it as long as it has a cat on it or in it.
This is completely the crux of it. How are the particular forms, shapes, arcs, curves, proportions or ideals of nude art in particular pleasing to look at, if they are not connected in any way to (for lack of a more descriptive term) “lust”? I mean, I’m a very straight male, and yet I find something pleasing about drawing a man’s anatomy in correct proportions. I know many straight female artists who feel the same way about drawing women. We’re not aroused by the pictures we make, but neither can we express what exactly it is that is pleasing about them. There’s basically just a sense that it “feels right”, that the work is “good”. (Of course, one explanation might be that none of us are quite as “straight” as we might lead ourselves to believe *grin*)
quote:If it were, I probably would have found it both aesthetically pleasing and arousing.
Where is the dividing line? Is there even a line at all, or is it a hopeless murky jumble? (Or even not a murky jumble at all, but rather a smooth blending of the two reactions, where they are impossible to quite separate, which makes anything like a concrete definition pretty much useless? *grin*)
About the only thing that I can think of about any art that is pleasing and yet does not depend on some form of bodily desire is the sense that the artist “got it right”. That is, they showed the “truth” about a human body, which is something we all come into contact with every day. Even THAT definition is too unclear for my taste, though. *hangs head*
That statue sounds cool, though.
quote:Can you recognize an aesthetic difference between a nude photo of a male athlete and a nude photo of, say, Danny DeVito?
Exactly! I can indeed recognize a difference between photos of nude athletes and nude Danny Devitos (which is one sentence I never particularly thought I’d ever write *laugh*). The question is WHY can I recognize the difference? I think of Devito as a pretty unattractive dude, which is what I assume to be some sort of evolutionary response that judges him to be someone unsuitable for my sister to mate with. I wouldn’t want his genes in my family if we were basing it entirely on external “beauty” (if you’re reading this, Danny, I’m sorry!). Of course, this opens up a whole different can o’ worms about the related issues of why bisexuals and homosexuals find each other attractive and what evolutionary advantage such attraction might be.
Is there some meta-rule that transcends our bodily hungers that makes art pleasing, some quality that can pretty much only be summed up as “it just feels right”? I don’t LIKE not knowing! *grin*
quote:I hope that I have provided some answers to your general questions. I believe it is possible for some people (myself for instance) to recognize aesthetic appeal apart from lustful appeal in renditions of nudes
You’ve certainly helped me to clarify my question (if indeed it is any clearer at all, my apologies for my ineptitude at this whole “writing stuff down” thing). Understanding more about my questions seems to be the right track to getting some friggin’ ANSWERS. *grin*
quote:However, as to the personal questions about the ability within yourself, only you can answer those. If you believe you can, even if you don't specifically know why you can, does it matter if you can justify that to an outside observer?
I suppose you’re right. Still, in some ways I treat my*self* as an outside observer (which might not be particularly healthy, come to think of it *laugh*) and I like to know WHY I think the way I think. It’s really pretty hopelessly narcissistic of me.
Anyway, thanks for your responses, dude. Very edifying.
Also, I don’t want this thread to die, so I’ma do my part. *grin*
…
Annie, I’ll be reading those links. Sounds like exactly what I’m looking for, thanks for the tip. : )
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zotto!: Where is the dividing line? Is there even a line at all, or is it a hopeless murky jumble? (Or even not a murky jumble at all, but rather a smooth blending of the two reactions, where they are impossible to quite separate, which makes anything like a concrete definition pretty much useless?
I think its that last part. Some things are so completely subjective that they defy concrete rules or blanket definitions. If anyone had the ability to answer such questions definitively, much of the controversy would be gone from the world.
Sorry for taking so long to respond. I thought this thread was dead and had stopped checking it.
Beanny: Why is Hatrack so great?
Because it is a near-perfect example of successful community building. OSC has created a place that attracts people through what is ultimately a very tennuous common connection, but it holds us here long enough to discover more and more common threads that bind us together.
Really, what percentage of Hatrack time does the average Jatraquero spend talking about OSC and his work in this forum? What percentage of posters here also post on "the other side"? While OSC and his work are the initial attraction for most of us, I'd venture to say it's the connections we make with each other that keep us here. That seems pretty great to me.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
, but I can hardly blame them for not doing so if I, for my part haven't done so either. ![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
