| |
|
Oh, man, now I'm *never* gonna leave the house...
So there's no confusion, I was replying to the post above Jacen's last one; Jacen's wasn't there when I started writing (when I said I could have gone on, what I meant was I *did* go on, but decided to spare everybody and backspace 90% of my ramblings into merciful non-existence).
As to what Jacen just wrote -- again, I agree, essentially. I do think that the kneejerk reaction you describe to even the work of superior pin-up artists is a response to the kind of comics the casual viewer associates with (if I may be so bold) blatant t&a art (which is to say, the very bad Image and related comics of a decade or so ago). It is NOT necessarily a response to what the casual viewer is, in that moment, actually looking at. It's a response to an association. I would agree that Hughes is a good artist, and what you're describing to me is as sad as someone, say, refusing to watch Cronenberg's Videodrome because they "hate horror flicks," a conclusion reached on the basis of an unfortunate early exposure to the Friday the 13th franchise.
But it's not *quite* the same thing, and this is where it starts to get kinda sticky. Because, on the one hand, I don't think an objection to art that exploits/fetishizes women is invalid *if* that art genuinely exploits/fetishizes women. But this gets complicated. I outlined above what I would consider to be exploitation -- a desperate, stalkerish quality of pervishness (coupled with an amateur nature) to the work that seems to negate anything essentially human about the female subject, leaving behind only the exaggerated outward vestiges of her sexuality (i.e., big tits and a vacuous expression) -- but what falls outside of my definition (as far as *I'm* concerned) would include, for instance, Hughes, Manara, Linsner, and a wide array of other artists I consider highly talented. What's more, I don't consider them highly talented in spite of their choice of subject matter -- these are artists I believe do their best work when they are true to their interests (i.e....you know...sexy girls), and, as a fan of both good art *and* sexy girls, I would be disappointed if they were somehow shamed into doing something else. I guess what I'm saying is that, in the work of the best "cheesecake" (for lack of a less juvenile term) artists, I at least get a sense of an appreciation for women that, yeah, is erotic, but is also just appreciative. And, to me, that's not exploitation; far from it. That's practically spiritual. At all events, an appreciation for sexuality seems a whole hell of a lot healthier than an appreciation for mindless violence.
On the OTHER hand, I do think there's exploitative art, art that makes sex not sexy at all, which is where the confusion sets in, because that stance brings us back to the old saw about knowing obscenity when you (I) see it. Which is okay from my perspective, being myself and all, and more or less knowing what I mean when I describe something as...um...tacky. But there are people (all of them, I am certain, well-meaning) who would describe some writers and artists I like as smut-peddlers, pornographers, etc., and while I can argue that the well-meaning objectors just don't get it, that sex is a part of life too and just as open to artistic expression/exploration as anything else, the argument does have a tendency to fall down when the objector points to something *I* consider exploitative trash. Because now it's a matter of subjectivity, and the only way around that (other than extolling the virtues of the filth and slime you personally think is not filth and slime at all, which can become very exhausting) is to become a puritan and decree everything that presents sexuality openly nothing but garbage.
At which point one becomes dishonest, both with himself and others. One also probably becomes highly sexually frustrated, since the logical extension of this logic is to find appreciation of the opposite sex itself exploitative and oppressive, which means one is going to have a VERY hard time reconciling oneself to one's own desire to get laid now and then. Or, I guess, one could just become a hypocrite, which really kinda makes a whole lot more sense.
For me, I think what defines obscenity IS exploitation, and exploitation (for me) is art that presents sexuality (or violence, or...dogwalking) without emotional, empathetic content. Art that debases the human experience by potraying humans as robots (fembots, in this particular context). It really is something you kinda know when you see. Maybe some people understand that particular kinds of art are more likely to be exploitative than others, but lack the precision in judgment to make a finer distinction than "this girl has big boobs = this work is sexist." And that's too bad. But that mistake wouldn't be made if there weren't so much shit out there, I'm afraid. |
|
|
