Rain of Brass Petals

sorry if you got duplicates of my reply. i keep getting an error. i even got an error making the last post. but i still wanted to send a reply, so i'll put it below. :)

yay for less standardized porn! i completely agree with that. :) maybe that author was just expressing that she wanted more stuff she likes, but i think she was also pushing that older ideals of beauty were normal, while modern tastes weren't. I have friends who do burlesque and who love to dress in 40's-60's fashion. when they're in public they stand out. not bc they're more normal than everyone else, but bc in the 21st century, to dress like that isn't normal. it's like saying that black and white photography is more normal than color photography.

then she went further by linking to her blog showing art from different periods implying that the newer examples were an undesireable trend bc all the older examples were of more fully formed women. i could easily find twice as many examples from the same older periods, and add classical art on top, showing the opposite.

the article just really irritated me bc this was about erotica or porn, which i understand to be about desire and fantasy and drama, and not necessarily about matching what one sees in the mirror. I'm all for feeling good about oneself, and all for liking whatever one likes, but i think the social police have no place in erotica.

one thing i would like to see though, is taking the black lines and smudges off the guys' faces when they're not on the girls'. :)

grr. i keep trying to post the replies but keep getting an error. sorry if you get a few duplicated emails. :(

so i'll post my replies here and hope they work. :)

i think i see your point. but i'm really not saying that art cannot focus on aspects of reality, but that art does not equal reality, and therefore art is not obligated to reflect it.

i'll also argue that even the most untouched photograph actually does not depict reality. out of an entire moment in time and space, a photograph is only a selective view focused on a scene that the photographer wants to show. it shows what the photographer wants to communicate. angle, lighting, color, tone, cropping are all manipulated to enhance what is being depicted. It's even true with something as basic as vacation photos. one can take several shots of the same scene. out of those shots there are often a few so-so images, but one "best" which is stuck in the album or framed. if they all depict reality, why be selective? it's because humans are selective. and focusing on one aspect of reality comes at the cost of editing out other aspects. When one gets into more artistic photography with artificial lighting, costuming, scenery, and acting/modeling, one is even farther from depicting reality.

So to me, this idea put forth (like in the article) that innocent giggling cherubic bikinied girls playing with beachballs is more "real" or "normal" than naked, sweaty, knowing, bulimic sex vixens is absurd. they're both just different focuses. only some like one and some like the other. i think even the most made-up, toned, haute-coutured model is still real, it's just not an experience most will share. and just like the images in an architectural magazine don't mean that my house must look like those for me to enjoy the images, so neither i nor my partner have to look like the models in erotica for me to enjoy it either. or vise versa.

I guess i just don't understand the apparent need to have erotica modeled on what someone thinks most ppl's lives are like. enjoyable maybe. would like to have more of it maybe (like what Vinnie says), but should be or needs to be?

Thanks for helping me work out my thoughts. :)

rant #98

kind of reluctant to post this, out of respect for Vinnie's discussions and bc i really don't want to offend anyone else's preferences, but i read something today and want to comment.

( thoughts on preferences in art and erotica )