I shall reiterate main points i picked out from the text for you, so you don't have to view it :
It is usual for most normal people to linger to some extent over the intermediate aim of looking that has a sexual tinge to it; indeed, this offers them a possibility of directing some proportion of their libido on to higher artistic aims. On the other hand, this pleasure in looking [scopophilia] becomes a perversion (a) if it is restricted exclusively to the genitals, or (b) if it is connected with the overriding of disgust (as in the case of voyeurs or people who look at excretory functions), or (c) if, instead of being preparatory to the normal sexual aim, it supplants it.
Sigmund Freud, "Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality," 1905
Perversion was implicit in modern art from the beginning, and remains a vital factor in it today. In fact, one can regard modern art as by and large the history of the representation of perversion. What makes it innovative -- "modern" -- is its perverseness, both in attitude and form. Curiosity about perversion, supposedly the most novel, adventurous sexuality, motivates many modern artists. Certainly some of the most famous, innovative works deal with perversion, more or less openly. They also tend to be structurally perverse, at least by traditional standards. And perverse in method, if automatism is any indication.
Beginning with Manet's Olympia, 1863 (for many the seminal modern picture) and jumping to Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, 1907 (another "breakthough"), and then to the dolls that Hans Bellmer made in the 1930s...
It's good to see women artists getting into the exhibitionistic act -- it leaves men off the feminist hook. But the fact of the matter is that the most celebrated voyeuristic work of the 20th century was made by a man.
The emotionally unsettling point of Manet's Olympia is that she's available to turn whatever perverse trick her male customer is willing to pay for -- all the "sensational" perverse tricks, as the big bouquet of different flowers he sent her suggests. She's an instrument of pleasure -- any kind of pleasure -- and her famous stare is less confrontational than matter of fact (one only has to compare her blank face with Mona Lisa's subtle smile to get the point), like her body, passively available for any and every kind sexual activity. That's one aspect of her perversity. The other has to do with her profound indifference, an indication of her emotional banality, not to say emptiness. One can't imagine what her inner life might be, or even if she has any. She's turned off completely. She's not even trying to attune to her customer. She's there only to satisfy his sexual needs, whatever they may be.
For with that difference obliterated, art becomes a perversion masquerading as a philosophical puzzle -- not to say ironical gamble against the odds of non-art -- which is why a good deal of contemporary art is of no interest to anyone except its narcissistic practitioners and aficionados, both persistently perverse and thus retardataire. Everyone else goes to the movies, where looking is openly voyeuristic and fetishizing, to satisfy their perverse impulses.
DONALD KUSPIT, professor of art history and philosophy at SUNY Stony Brook and A.D. White professor at large at Cornell University.
__________________
Last edited by furryman on Mar 19th, 2004 at 10:22 PM
"Some ideas can be perverted. So therefore an artist could use art to influence his perversions on the piece. Landscapes are art? Who made that rule? For me art is to create beauty for everyone to enjoy (BTW I just proved nudity IS beauty... if you disagree on that, you must have never been sexually attracted to anyone ). Does an artist really need to have landscapes to have art? I don't think so"
Also, I assure you many physical objects can be used in a perverted way
Also, I strongly believe that, perversion is NOT "inside" the painting but inside the viewer's mind If somebody looks at a naked woman and all he can do is fantasize, then is that the painting's fault, or the man's? According to you, Xenafan (BTW Xena was a highly enjoyable show... off topic ) nudity should not be exploited in any way.
So, there must be NO nudity in movies, advertisements, magazines, etc. Isn't that censorship? If art (and movies, ads etc) are supposed to represent REALITY, by leaving out nudity it's like implying it's not part of our lives... But it is, and a BIG part as well
Lastly, have you ever heard of this story with the woman and the artist? There was this (male) artist who had drawn a painting that represented a half-naked woman looking herself in the mirror. A general was standing behind her. So, a middle-aged lady was looking at the painting, approaches the artist and says: "This creation is a perversion. This woman is getting undressed for her lover, the general!"
So the artist replies: "Lady, YOU have a perverted mind... This general is her husband and the woman is not getting undressed... She's getting dressed"
__________________
shallow me, then spit me out
for hating you I blame myself
seeing you it kills me now
no, I don't cry on the outside anymore...
I wil reconsider my comments. You seem to be very well learn. your post is not bad. Still, i wish art didnt involve nudity so much. BTW- thanks! Im glad you liked Xena
i like your attitude Evy O. You seem to be a very well educated woman. Yes, there are some male artist paintings I dont like but that is just my opinion on them. Thank you! You are a very intelligent woman.
I also love Hercules, for me he is a good looking guy.
Nudity is a big part of our lives, I mean after all, we are all born in the nude.
Our bodies are the greatest form of art out there. The complexity of them and all the functions will never be replicated, why be ashamed of them.
Nudity is a large part of our culture today, magazine ads, movies, and television shows all incorporate it into their programs like evy said because sex sells. I mean really, have you seen some of the jean commercials out there? However sex and nudity in art are completely different in my opinion.
Nudity in art is completely different from pornography as stated before, it's the person viewing the piece that changes it, like evy's story, everyone takes things differently, so someone may become aroused by a painting of a naked woman, while someone else may be touched by the beauty and pureness of it.
Have you ever seen the sculpture of Venus De Milo or the other Greek sculptures located in one of world's most famous museums, the Louvre. Are these acceptable, some are not fully nude, however people viewing them may still be aroused. Should we destroy centuries of history because these sculptures are nude?
If you examine art from the early periods alot of it is to do with nudity and the human body, it's who we are as people. Aphrodite, the goddess of love is almost always half naked in paintings of her. So are many other gods portrayed in early art and sculptures.
I love viewing art, and I think that if the day ever comes where art is to be censored to the extreme, where not even a bit of flesh is to be seen, that would probably be the worst thing to happen. As long as it's done tastefully, as seen in some of the greatest works in the art world, it's completely acceptable.
Well I am against harsh violence and all, but I am very firm in my stand against censorship, unless like crimes against humanity, rape, or other such acts are depicted and it's very graphic and grotesque just for the point of making money To me that is wrong, but not nudity
Neither have I sadly, but I browsed their website and looked closely at Greek sculptures when I read that they have Venus De Milo, not to mention the ones of Apollo are very well done too
And Aphrodite
Well, Milos is a Greek island And that was one of the 7 world miracles (dunno if that term is correct, I'm just translating it from Greek )
What site did you visit?
__________________
shallow me, then spit me out
for hating you I blame myself
seeing you it kills me now
no, I don't cry on the outside anymore...
KMC Community Forums
Mar 19th, 2004 10:01 PM
:
). Does an artist really need to have landscapes to have art? I don't think so" 
If somebody looks at a naked woman and all he can do is fantasize, then is that the painting's fault, or the man's? According to you, Xenafan (BTW Xena was a highly enjoyable show... off topic 
) nudity should not be exploited in any way. 
To me that is wrong, but not nudity 
