#1 February 3rd, 2015 12:33 AM

trevor

Member

Rita May

Once again, a comment is not showing up as posted so in the meantime, I'll post my comment to Rita May's lovely and interesting folio here--and invite discussion of the questions she raises in her statement:

Rita May, what interesting questions you pose, issues you raise: when "'the nuddy' becomes porn, when porn becomes art and when art becomes objectification. "  I think the difficulty (and the arguments) often are a result of confusion about what is being discussed.  When, for example, the issue is whether or not some work is "art" or not, the problem stems from whether the disagreement is about the object itself or whether it is about the definition of "art".  We might in fact agree about the substance of what we are looking at but not about what art is.  In such case, the issue is not of substance but of definition.  Often we forget that language is not precise; it is an artificial way in which we communicate.  So we must agree on the definition first and than discuss the specific.  This should be continued in the forum.  Let me say briefly though that I love your folio--the angularity of your body and the wonderful shape of your breasts.  Your mind and body are delicious.  Thank you.

Laney

Administrator

Re: Rita May

Some art is arousing, some porn isn't. Some porn is beautiful and meaningful, some art isn't. I don't think the two concepts can or should be thought of as distinct from each other. As long as people are inspired by sex there will always be work that contains elements of both porn and art and I'm perfectly okay with that.

---

Editor/Admin/Forum queen

trevor

Member

Re: Rita May

Your cartoons and good comments bring to mind Paul Cox's 1983 film, "A Man of Flowers ".

An insightful and thoughtful commentary on the film can be found at the Imbd website, http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0085893/revie … %23showAll:

Is there a little bit of Charles Bremer in you?
John-405 | 11 Nov 1999
In Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, James Joyce pokes a little fun at Stephen Daedelus' aesthetics. Daedelus says there are two extremes in art--the kinetic and the static.
Static art is beauty of the mind, or Apollonian beauty. Kinetic is more akin to sexual desire, or Dionysian beauty. Though Joyce found this theory to be rife for satire, albeit gentle satire, I think the distinction is compelling.
This film is in part about this distinction, or rather the absence of it in one man. For Charles Bremer, all beauty is erotic. For some reason, emotional or physical, he can't participate in the act of love, so he sublimates it into art. For him, seeing a beautiful painting or a beautiful woman undressing are two instances of the same thing, both equally erotic and equally profound.
All this babble makes the film sound pretentious, but in practice it is actually almost completely unpretentious. It has something profound to say, but it says it very simply. If there is a little bit of Charles in you, you will understand this film implicitly. If there isn't, then nothing will help you, because all of the great things the film has to say are unspoken. All is said with mood and characterization. The music, largely from Lucia di Lammermoor, is put to probably the best use that any music in any film ever has been. The 16mm flash backs with Werner Herzog (yes, THE Werner Herzog) playing Charles' father are brilliant and beautifully balletic, as if they had been choreographed gesture by gesture by the director.
The day I saw Man of Flowers in the theater, I walked out into the sunlight and looked at the world a little differently. That was in 1984, when I was 17 years old. And I'm still moved by the experience.

Laney

Administrator

Re: Rita May

Thank you for letting me know about this film, it sounds very interesting. I searched for it on youtube and found this clip, it's very funny. Also answers my question about what men talk about among themselves.

What do girls do among themselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVt2Me9GRNY

---

Editor/Admin/Forum queen

trevor

Member

Re: Rita May

Devochka, amusing clip of the movie you found.  Thank you.