Out of Lascaux

Art vs Porn

An interesting discussion developed in my Information Professions class a couple of weeks ago. In discussing censorship, the internet and filtering, the question "What is the difference between art and pornography?" came up.

I, personally, have a very definitive stance on this. Like most American courts, I believe it's a matter of context and common sense. What was that nude image created for? To be gazed upon for purely lascivious reasons, or is it an image telling a story? What story?

The question of whether Artemesia Gentileschi's paintings might be considered pornography because of the nude women in them came up. (I discuss her work here briefly) In no way could her works ever be considered prurient in nature. First, they are usually bible stories. Second, Artemesia would probably never have been approached to paint anything of a lascivious nature, at least, not by a male patron. She was just the wrong choice for this debate.

So, let me present others. Images of nude women have been around since the cave paintings at Lascaux. The Venus of Willendorf comes immediately to mind. What was that used for? We can guess, but we really don't know. Is it pornography? Honestly, we couldn't say if we are talking about context. But, looking at it with a little common sense behind us, we say it isn't.

It is known that certain patrons of various eras commissioned "private" paintings from artists, paintings that may have been hidden behind curtains or in cupboards, and that may never have shown up on inventories for one reason or another. But few - if any - of these paintings exist today. If they did, we may or may not call them porn. I guess it depends on what the people in the images are doing. There are many "erotic" engravings in existance, though, so many that it was obviously a booming trade. Were these considered pornography? You betcha. While looking for the engravings of one Marcantonio Raimondi, I came across Pornokrates, a website which labels itself as "Historic Smut for the Discerning Viewer." Very interesting site which proves that just because a picture is old and may wind up in an art history book does not mean that it isn't smut. I suppose we can split the difference and say it's art AND porn.

Now, look at the image below. Is it art or pornography?

Well, it's by the Rococco painter Fragonard, and it's called "La Gimblette" or "Undressing the shirt." I have to say I would feel uncomfortable showing it to a class of teenagers, even without knowing its title. It seems obvious that it was painted for prurient reasons. What do you think?

Well...

I haven't posted in a while because I haven't had anything to talk about. Nothing in the art world has struck my fancy lately. Also, I've been very busy with school work. This is the first - and last - semester where I'll be taking 4 courses. Even online, that's a lot of work.

I have also been working on my new eBay store project. I see a real need for scanned 19th century readers - particularly ones where I have created worksheets for 21st century students. It's a homeschoooling thing. I 'll probably mention it again when I get closer to opening the store.

Also, Christmas is looming - for me, at least - and I still have two more quilts to finish. One will definitely be finished, but the handquilting on the other is taking waaaay too long. Feh!

And of course, all of this is on top of crushing headaches which incapacitate me from mid-afternoon 'til bed time most days. Yes, I've been to the doctor. He keeps giving me different drugs. Lots of drugs. But I never know which ones will work when, even though we kind of know what's causing them. I'm just falling apart.

Saw Serenity. Loved it. Go see it. Plenty of other people reviewing it, so you won't see a review here. Bought the Firefly DVD's for the DH. He loves it, too.

Later.

Crop Circles

I was watching Is It Real, a show on the National Geographic channel that challenges things usually considered to be paranormal phenomenon. Last night it was crop circles.

Now, I detest "The Amazing Randy." That man doesn't believe in anything. There is no poetry in his soul, no magic in his life. He tries to debunk absolutely everything. But I have to agree about crop cirlces. These things are man made. We've known this for years. We know who did it. We know how they're done. These guys actually charge money to make them. And yet, there are still people who think they are made by aliens or something. They really need to get over it. Crop circles are beautiful works of art. I love looking at them.

Unfortunately, they are also destructive. Farmers lose bushels and bushels of wheat to crop circles, so it's no wonder circlemakers are arrested when they are caught at it. But maybe that's all part of the art - part performance (not getting caught), part sculpture and very much design.