Comments on: Art and Sex

By: patrick

patrick — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 01:35:54 +0000

I think that pornography and art do meet at certain moments. I had a conversation with a close friend once about how painting brought out my most violent animalistic self at times because it is so physical and instinctive. I think that pornography brings out those same feelings in a person. Art that has the ability to remind us of this is no different than porn. Think of Francis Bacon. Now he was quite a hot one.

By: Davey T

Davey T — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:25:58 +0000

Its in “The Eye of Beholder”;

If deemed offensive - do not look or turn away. If thine eye offends thee pluck it out! At least you can have a look with the other one….

If okay by You - Enjoy the moment.

By: Karl Zipser

Karl Zipser — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 15:55:42 +0000

Leslie,

Regarding the issue of porn/art, I feel that you have something to say that you are holding back. I’m not certain, it is only an impression.

Angela,

I’ve been thinking about your question, “I see a desire to be dominated there, am I right?” all week. It intrigues me, but I don’t come up with a clear answer one way or the other. If you wrote to Hanneke regarding a still life, “I see a desire to be a strawberry there, am I right?” the answer would be more obvious. How does one know if one has a desire to be dominated? Is it a useful trait, or something to try to grow out of?

Birgit,

Don’t let your students catch you looking at dirty pictures.

D, Richard, Bob, Chantal, Sunil, David, Steve and Michelle,

Thanks for your insightful comments. I read them with fascination. I don’t feel the need to add anything, aside to say I appreciate that you took a look.

By: D.

D. — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 22:30:05 +0000

Karl,

AF’s emblematic painting of Paradise made me rethink Leash.

Equality? Same height, same pose, same brows, eyes, noses, lips, necks, nipples, etc.

Do you consider these two figures to be two unique individuals or emblems of their gender? Given their resemblance their bond is tricky, isn’t it?

By: Sunil

Sunil — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:50:35 +0000

The following review by Jerry Saltz on John Currin (who in recent times started to paint pictures that distort the line between art and porn) is also worth reading and is relevant to this discussion…
http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/saltz/saltz12-18-06.asp

By: Sunil

Sunil — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:18:23 +0000

If an image is manipulated to deliberately titillate the viewer sexually, then it can be called pornography. I think it really depends upon the perspective of the viewer. What is art to the artist could be pornography to a viewer and what is art to the viewer was really planned to be pornographic to the artist.
I think this image is a great example of the tension between the thin lines that separate art and pornography. In my view, this image is artistic and is classified under ‘art’. I think it is very beautifully executed notwithstanding the fact that the leash used may be unconventional to some but definitely exposes another point of view (pun unintended) – not too sure if my wife would agree.

By: June

June — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:48:32 +0000

Oddly enough, Michelle, I see the gaze of the two going right past one another. In fact, I thought instantly that while they were almost certainly pleased with what was happening, they both were pretending to be unaware of the event. This is so particularly with the male; the female seems also somewhat slyly pleased.

As for the question about pornography and its definition — I am reminded of a critic/artist who said that every life drawing class is filled with sexual tension.

Wow! that was a revelation. The only tension I feel in life drawing is about my own ineptitude. Pornography, like beauty, might be in the mind of the beholder. Or perhaps I’m just out of touch

A wonderful painting, Karl, evoking all kinds of questions and ideas and smiles in me.