Posts by Paul Litterick
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Real is the new fake.
-
I would rather have a Freud than that photograph of Mika. Freud investigates his subjects; he is fascinated by them. The Mika is a glib exercise in formalism, designed to épater le bourgeoisie in just the way the bourgeoisie likes to be epated, while making the usual supplications to Queer Theory, Gender Theory, Post-Colonial Theory and all the other theories that stifle contemporary art. It is art made by art historians, lifeless and conservative, a new orthodoxy based on adherence to convention and banal representation.
-
I am now distracted by the Victorian Etiquette Game, to which you linked. For once, I have found a game I can win.
-
Emma, I was not referring to the links you provided. However, even in the Victorian Web article there is an apparent assumption that the only motivation for making and viewing nudes is erotic.
It is a shame that the history of the male nude is described almost exclusively as a story of gay history. That erotic assumption overlooks the male nude's place in art, which is as important - if not more so - than the female nude. It also says more about contemporary viewers - incabable of seeing nudity in anything but erotic terms - than it does about the Victorians. There is a general assumption that Victorians were prudes, which simply is not supported by the variety of art works they produced.
-
Male nudes appear in mythological and religious art, just like they always did. The preconception that the Victorians had issues with the male nude is largely a reflection of contemporary prejudice against the Victorians.
-
Sandra Chesterman's book, FigureWork : the nude and life modelling in New Zealand art of 2002 is a good survey of what has been happening here.
-
There is no shortage of nude males in art, here or overseas. The selection show in this exhibition probably reflects what was available to the curators, works from the Gallery's collection.
-
JT, the sub-plot is available only to subscribers to the Premium Edition.
-
This thread was like a textbook case. It might be interesting to analyse why that is - why there has to be an immediate 'but also men!' before the discussion even gets going.
It might be interesting to analyse why you seem to think you are privileged to decide what the discussion should be. The point about rape of men is important, as subsequent posts have shown.
My main issue with your point is that this shit, like, *really needs theory*. No matter how uncomfortable that might make some people.
This matter does not need any more pseudo-academic tosh, especially amateur structuralism – but it will get it anyway. I'm hitting the ejector-seat button.
Goodbyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
-
In any case, the rape of men happens in environments were women are present. It is not that "women happen to have been removed in advance." Men do not rape men because they are starved of women to rape. They rape men for the same reason that men rape women: to inflict pain and humiliation on their victim.