LOL! I don’t ;^)
LOL! I don’t ;^)
Oh, I’m definitely aware that you appreciate and understand the value of depictions of the nude, the sexual — after all, you follow my tumbleblogging of provocative imagery! I figured from the start that it was an intellectual exercise we were engaging in. And a fun one it was. It’s still good to play a little Devil’s Advocate and hash out the issues.
Thank you for the compliments! They are appreciated. I do try to make at least some sense when I write. ;^)
Art is, indeed, imbued with all manner of meaning and messages. In fact, it’s integral to the creation of the piece: the creator had to convey something to the viewer.
Were our favorite blonde bare, with a plain toy, the purpose and meaning of her nudity would probably change, but would be no less valid. That meaning could be manifold. For example, it could be that of capturing a moment of vulnerability. It could be conveying the appeal of the voyeurism that we all possess. Or it could be simply that nakedness (both physically and metaphorically) is our native state, nothing to be ashamed of, and something to be treasured. The purpose could simply be to titillate. Or it could be to celebrate the joy of sex. It could be to encourage the sexual liberation of women. It could be many, many things, again none any less valid than another.
The idea that there is no symbolism in the appearance of a naked, unadorned woman with a vibrator is a fallacy, and a pernicious one at that. Such a view assumes that there is no inherent beauty, no deeper meaning to the human form or condition, or portrayal of human behavior and emotion, other than that which comes in fully-clothed or ironic presentation.
The general public, again, would be applying a litmus test to the art, which shortchanges meaning outside of the obvious, or surface appearance.
Mr. Koons exhibit didn’t lack symbolism. It was simply lost on those who disapproved of the work. <shrug/> The art-or-porn question — to me — specifically and inherently posits that the the depiction of sexuality can only be taken at a very shallow face value.
There is ALWAYS more. The question is not whether the artist intended more, but whether the public at large can, or is willing to, see more.