About erotic, porn and art

53

Today morning i woke up and saw discussion that hurted deeply my soul. Check up those link to understand what i gonna talk about:
https://www.suicidegirls.com/members/leetattar/blog/3096273/blog-about-pussy/.


https://www.suicidegirls.com/members/sofia_k/blog/3096335/erotic_is_not_porn/


To your regret, in this article i would not post my provocative photos and videos, if someone would like to make for me "Black PR", i don't mind. I want to talk with you about what is art, where starts vulgar and finishes estetico. As art-historian i want to remind you one of masterpieces by Gustave Courbet "Origin on the World" 1866, which is exhibiting now in Orsay Museum in Paris.

This piece was excibited only about 50 years after it was done. In 2011 Frederick Durant, a teacher of art-history from France posted "Origin of the World" on his Facebook profile and it was blocked for the reason of "pornograthic content". However, Durant, offended by such a disregard for the cultural heritage of France, did not hesitate to contact lawyers, demanding changes to the rules of sharing the art objects in Facebook with the representation of the naked body, as well as a modest $ 25,000 dollars for moral damage. Process was about 7 years.

Provocation is on of the stratagies, which makes art become an Art. Moreover, i want to draw your attention to another masterpiece by Well-know japaneese artist Katsushika Hokusai "Fisherman's wife nightdream"

And his сountryman Kitagawa Umataro

"Prelude to the fulfillment of desire"

Неre you can see direct depiction of sexual intercourse, in the first case even play with a aminal. Is it vulgar?

Last 2 pieces proves that even ponr can be art!

Even more, Art-works used in my article was depicted in previoust centuries, now, guys, is 2018. Here is Just some examples, and i can give you plenty. I don't even talking about contemporary art.

So, why i joined this discussion?

I was so sorry to face with such a conviction and censure in the nude-models world, which i accept as art-world, cause i started to be a model not for the reason of getting money, but for feeling myself as a Muse. I was posing for drawings in National Academy of Fine Arts and Architecture, while i was styding art history. So i strongly belive we shout leave such a discussions to one-track minded people. It was the first.

The second: all of us, both Models and artist Who do provocative artwork, already suffer from disapproval from the side of moralists, unfortunately even from the closest friends and even family. So places like SG Land can become kind of second family, community where you can feel safe and free and hope to be understood. That is why watching when somebody is tring to ruin this little world by spreading gossips because of competition hurts me so much! Yes, i want to support amazing @leetattar, cause anyone can be in her Situation, but to tell you the truth ignorance infuriates me much more. There is a saying in Russian "What is natural, can't be ugly". I am for no-frame art.

What is your point of view? Eager to hear your opinions

Peace and Love

@missy @rambo

#erotic_is_not_porn
#even_porn_is_art

VIEW 14 of 14 COMMENTS
jellyfishy:
I'm of the philosophy that anything can be art both conceptually and creatively.  As makers we have to understand that what we create will be judged and analyzed by others, and we have no control over what they may bring to the table in their interpretation of our works.  I believe that what someone thinks about a particular work says more about them than the actual work itself.  Using "Origin of the World" as an example:  it is a painting of a woman's vagina.  That's the literal interpretation of the work.  Going deeper, the name of the piece adds another level of conceptual meaning "Origin of the World" redefines the image not just as a vagina, but the origin of all things, the work has an elevated meaning given by the artist.  A viewer my see that image an be repulsed, or feel that it is vulgar or pornographic (which, let's face it, is what people often mean when they say "pornographic" - they mean "vulgar", "lewd", "exploitive", "base", etc.).  Really, calling the piece vulgar says less about the piece and more about the person calling it vulgar.  Is that what the artist intended as well?  I believe that art is supposed to make us talk about things.  Art isn't just aesthetics, it isn't there to just "look pretty" or be "beautiful".  Art forces us to look at things we don't want to, it makes us re-analyze aspects of life that we may take for granted or just simply overlook.  It can make a statement, it can challenge a notion or ideal, and it can also just be there to look pretty.  Ultimately, through the lens of time our view of a piece of art changes.  What outrages in one era, may be passe and banal in another.  What is considered beautiful at one time may, through overfamiliarity, become boring and uninteresting later.  I believe that by judging works of art, we judge ourselves.  By commenting on a piece, we comment on ourselves.  That is the eternal play between the creator, the created and the viewer.  I don't know the nature of the discussion you're referencing (dead link); but this is a discussion that happens all the time on all manner of things.  At the end of the day I'm more fascinated by what a person's interpretation illuminates about them, then their interpretation of the art itself.  A spread vagina; a close-up shot of a man's anus; or a large, erect penis.  These are just images of bodies.  What does it say about the person who gets hung up on these images?
ocp:
her post is down.. what happened?

More Blogs