Rant Number 1
Good morning and welcome to our new and exciting feature: Ranting Rich’s Friday Morning Rantathon. Our hero’s spicy and belligerent commentary on life, the universe and the meaning of Art.
I don’t get it!
I have often seen images that make me wonder what‘s wrong with people.
As an example I came across an image on Model Mayhem that reinforced this view. This shows a model perched over a toilet seat, wearing (supposedly) blood stained knickers with blood all over the toilet, her legs and toilet paper. The amount of blood is such that it’s not possible to think that it’s just the result of menstruation. So the viewer is left to wonder, has she been raped, has she had a miscarriage, is she haemorrhaging due to illness?
It’s obviously about pain and suffering, but its glossed up, well lit, and posed by a model. It’s not documentary, so I guess it’s about making a statement for the ‘Art’. Now I have had the misfortune of seeing a woman with that amount of blood and she did not look like she was thinking ‘oooh look at that’. Nor was she playing. She was clutching her stomach in agony.
There are a number of photographers and models who have commented about how fantastic this photograph is. It obviously appeals to them as an artistic statement.
There are also many ‘edgy bondage’ sites that show bound women being tied, beaten and bundled into the back of cars. Of course it’s all in the name of art and its harmless right? (Please note that I am excluding the erotic bondage sites from this description).
Well, let’s look at another class of image (bottom of this post), something so extreme and distasteful that MM won’t show it, Web Models won’t show it. It’s beyond the pale of what normal decent people could look at.
This could not be listed at any online modelling site I know of. It’s considered porn. There is no blood, no violence, no statement on society. It’s just about erotic self stimulation. And I suspect that my even showing this on the blog will shock and horrify models and have them cancel bookings with me in case, God forbid, I should ask them to do something like this. And if the image were a man and woman touching each other, OMG, how awful would that be?
So we have a situation that means that images which represent death, serious illness, abduction, kidnap and pain are acceptable, but the ones that represent erotic play and the one act that is required to create every living person on the planet, are taboo and frowned upon.
“I don’t do porn!” says the model, but I’ll show myself as a victim of rape, or suicide or anything that’s ‘arty’ but God forbid I shoot be shown as an erotic creature of love and desire. How twisted is that?!
This is reflected in so many ways in society, and in the art and media community especially. Consider Reality TV or some of the British soaps, which focus on the bad in society. I guess blood and gore have more interest, like driving slowly past a car wreck to see if you can see a body. But don’t even mention sex, unless it’s prostitutes, druggies and rape.
I do understand that the problem here is me. I would expect people to want to be represented by life, beauty, eroticism and sensuality, not looking like the meat on a butchers table. But I guess I’ll never understand the mentality of someone who won’t do erotic photography but will happily shoot or praise a photograph that makes them look like a train wreck.
Since when did bloody and violent glossy art become more publically acceptable than erotic art, and what does this say about the values of the society we live in?
I don’t get it!
I have often seen images that make me wonder what‘s wrong with people.
As an example I came across an image on Model Mayhem that reinforced this view. This shows a model perched over a toilet seat, wearing (supposedly) blood stained knickers with blood all over the toilet, her legs and toilet paper. The amount of blood is such that it’s not possible to think that it’s just the result of menstruation. So the viewer is left to wonder, has she been raped, has she had a miscarriage, is she haemorrhaging due to illness?
It’s obviously about pain and suffering, but its glossed up, well lit, and posed by a model. It’s not documentary, so I guess it’s about making a statement for the ‘Art’. Now I have had the misfortune of seeing a woman with that amount of blood and she did not look like she was thinking ‘oooh look at that’. Nor was she playing. She was clutching her stomach in agony.
There are a number of photographers and models who have commented about how fantastic this photograph is. It obviously appeals to them as an artistic statement.
There are also many ‘edgy bondage’ sites that show bound women being tied, beaten and bundled into the back of cars. Of course it’s all in the name of art and its harmless right? (Please note that I am excluding the erotic bondage sites from this description).
Well, let’s look at another class of image (bottom of this post), something so extreme and distasteful that MM won’t show it, Web Models won’t show it. It’s beyond the pale of what normal decent people could look at.
This could not be listed at any online modelling site I know of. It’s considered porn. There is no blood, no violence, no statement on society. It’s just about erotic self stimulation. And I suspect that my even showing this on the blog will shock and horrify models and have them cancel bookings with me in case, God forbid, I should ask them to do something like this. And if the image were a man and woman touching each other, OMG, how awful would that be?
So we have a situation that means that images which represent death, serious illness, abduction, kidnap and pain are acceptable, but the ones that represent erotic play and the one act that is required to create every living person on the planet, are taboo and frowned upon.
“I don’t do porn!” says the model, but I’ll show myself as a victim of rape, or suicide or anything that’s ‘arty’ but God forbid I shoot be shown as an erotic creature of love and desire. How twisted is that?!
This is reflected in so many ways in society, and in the art and media community especially. Consider Reality TV or some of the British soaps, which focus on the bad in society. I guess blood and gore have more interest, like driving slowly past a car wreck to see if you can see a body. But don’t even mention sex, unless it’s prostitutes, druggies and rape.
I do understand that the problem here is me. I would expect people to want to be represented by life, beauty, eroticism and sensuality, not looking like the meat on a butchers table. But I guess I’ll never understand the mentality of someone who won’t do erotic photography but will happily shoot or praise a photograph that makes them look like a train wreck.
Since when did bloody and violent glossy art become more publically acceptable than erotic art, and what does this say about the values of the society we live in?
posted by Richard at 7:53 AM
3 Comments:
Yeah, for a long while I was mystified by the models who would do bondage work, but would never consider doing nudes. In my mind, I eventually came to the conclusion that the bondage work can be rationalized as a "role" the model is playing, a situation staged for the camera, now almost common in the world of fashion and popular culture. But a nude is not a "role" -- that's her naked, exposed, and whether or not it's a role or art, a certain mindset will just see it as "naked pictures."
I guess the line between "nude" and "explicit" is also a tough one to cross for a lot of people, again, because of the associations of images that show the genitals, or "pink" or involve penetration. I understand that as well, and have found VERY few art models who will cross that line. Again, it's understandable and respecting limits and boundaries is essential to remaining a "respectable" photographer. Of course, there are those that think even the most coy art nudes render one unrespectable, so there's no winning.
Also, FWIW, AllModelZone.com would probably allow this image, as they have a pretty strong erotic contingent, and they seem to have a big UK base, so that may be especially good for you.
Nice image, by the way... bring on the dodginess.
por·nog·ra·phy –noun
obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.
There's nothing about sex or eroticism in the definition. Porn, apparently, is anything that is obscene and lacks artistic merit. Obscenity, of course, is difficult to define. What one individual will consider obscene or repulsive, another looks at as refined and cultured or, at the very least, tame and hum-drum. Like that U.S. Supreme Court judge once stated: He can't define porn but he knows it when he sees it.
It's long been a mystery to me why for example a film can fairly legitimately show extreme violence, but sex in most forms is taboo.
I thought that perhaps now that we are more open with our sexuality things might improve, but instead the bar keeps dropping to some sort of subterranean level.
However I do wonder what sort of impact an image such as yours would have if everyone were comfortable with it. Is its value in its capability to shock some and not others, or purely as an art form?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home