From: SG.MML@isumvs.iastate.edu (M. Loughin)
Subject: Re: Pornography and Playboy
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:32:08 GMT

In article <9207240347.AA02215@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM>,
dgil@IPSAINT.IPSA.REUTER.COM (Gillett, David) writes:
>
>     Marie -- if I understand you aright, when you were sculpting you no longer
>saw the posing model as a person; in that altered state of consciousness, you
>saw them as an object with an "interesting" (in a fairly Platonic sense) shape.
>It seems to me that artistic nudes require, in order to be called "Art",
>objectification that goes far beyond anything that happens with pornography!
>(If anything, pornography is troublesome not because it objectifies, but
>because it blurs the distinction between personification and objectification.
>Photography is generally problematical, because it is hyperrealistic.)

I was aware of how my statement sounded as I wrote it, and wondered
if someone would bother to comment, but I didn't feel like expanding
on it at the time.  Here is the expanded version:

When I am in the act of sculpting, I don't see the whole model.  I
see the particular shape on which I am currently working -- that
space between elbow and body, that line that runs down the back,
etc..  However, the end goal is to capture what that person looks
like, and if you're really good, you capture that person's current
emotion and personality.  If you are making an actual "piece of
art" (something I don't claim to have done, yet :->), you pose
the model in such a way as to tell a story, express an emotion,
or express an idea.  So, although I am objectifying the model
while I am working (although I do stop to talk to him/her once
in a while -- they get bored),  I'm hoping that the end result
will tell the audience something about that person, or about
a person represented by the model.  In other words, I'm
hoping to bring the person to life in clay.

Pornography (photography), on the other hand, isn't trying to
tell you anything about the subject, other than "this is an
object of desire."  (Unless you count, "my name is Buffy, and
I like chocolate, champaign, and moonlit beaches." ;->).

>     I'm not sure what you mean by "self-conscious", since you seem to use it
>as a noun and I'm only familiar with it as an adjective (with a meaning that
>isn't appropriate here...).

I'm not sure where this comes from -- don't have the original post.

>     But I *think* that your argument comes back basically to the "convenient
>myth" that men aren't responsibile because they can't control themselves.  To
>which I say:

I never ever said this.  I don't believe it either.  I only said
that I have less respect for the models (male or female).  If I
implied that I think men have no self-control, I apologize.

>     (b) If men aren't responsible, then it makes perfect sense to blame the
>         women who "make" them lose control; to blame models for pornography,
>         just as you have learned to do.  You didn't invent this system, but
>         your attitude -- as far as I think I understand it -- perpetuates it.
>

I don't think you fully understand my attitude.  The reason I
lose respect for the model is because posing for such a magazine
is like shooting yourself in the foot.  If you want to be treated
as a whole person, then don't present yourself as an object.
Except that the model is shooting the collective gender in the
foot, not just himself/herself.

>     As far as controlling influences, rather than reactions:  it can be done,
>but it's a lot of effort.  And, at least at present, the most immediately
>obvious effect is utter alienation from the culture of one's neighbors, family,
>and friends.  That's not, necessarily, a bad thing, but it's not hard to
>understand why most people find the effort hard to sustain.

What do you mean by "controlling influences", and why would that
alienate you from anyone?

>                                      Mentor the Sage

--Marie
Newsgroups: alt.callahans