Quote:
Originally Posted by Olympus
In the Netherlands we have had discussions of art could be interpreted as (kiddy)porn.
|
Also of note: the Groninger Museum has about 2 rooms dedicated to photographs of people's faces, and an Arts student told me that another photographer was
considering capturing on film the expressions on women's (presumably, as our society seems somewhat biased there) faces as they were experiencing orgasm.
In fact, some of the expressions on the faces of the - often rather young-looking - females in that exhibition (gotta love the word) were rather suggestive anyway, something that struck me as odd/trite at the time, as their faces suggested they were around age 16, and as such "meant" to be "provocative". (or whatever apologist description of that inclination applies here)
And while I suppose it would be ahistorical/naïve to say that art wasn't about the female shape in the past, I do have to say that it annoys me tremendously how artists (claiming "artistic expression" rights, whatever those are) are using everything as a justification for producing porn (that is, i fail to see what would be the difference between a website like BeautifulAgony and this "topic" for an "exhibition" in a regular museum.)
There is nothing wrong with discoursing about the use of art (in fact, the only way to decide whether something is art rather than kitsch is through discourse), and talking about sex is reputedly therapeutic, or at least can take away fear about the subject (see your local library for the collected works of M. Foucault), it has to be possible to decide that some stuff is crap and shouldn't be subsidized or mandatorily bought by museums that are required by law to invest at least an x amount each year in "modern" art.. While Bieito might draw crowds to the opera, i'm not sure it really adds something useful to the Wirkungsgeschichte of the Seraglio to have him direct it.