Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
right, pedophiles ruined baby photography for all.
the thing is though, contexts that obviously serve an artistic purpose are hard to come by these days.
as for me, i'll say this: when i see the picture of a very beautiful woman (e.g., that one i posted above) what i often get is not a boner but a lump in the throat. what does that mean? i don't fucking know, but i hope it's not cancer.
the thing with kern is that he walks right on that line and you could legitimately say he makes porn and he is an artist and be correct on both counts. kern himself has said repeatedly he makes porn for rich people and while he might mean it ironically one could also take his words at face value. besides, porn and art have been together for milennia. i think ultimately pornographers are just terrible artists, with rare exceptions like just jaecquin or kern himself.
im rambling on a bad internet connection in a non-air-conditioned room at midday. probably makes for bad reasoning.
anyway, have fun.
|
Paedophiles only taint the enjoyment you'll feel by watching kids clumsily undress themselves if you are already a person attracted to them in a sexual way. Context in art is something that isn't as demanded as before but it's there and only waiting for a roll call. I don't think there is a lack of it, it's just much harder work to explain it because distraction and whinging seem to dominate the
modus operandi of human interaction for most people these days. My foot hurts, my dog hurts, something hurts not too far away for me.