Strippers are artists

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Just curious - are you also of the mind that nude photography or renderings of children can also be art?

Yes, they can be. Which is not the same as saying one needs to approve of it.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by BeBro
Sure. Why not? Do you think any nude stuff has to be pr0n?

First of all, I didn't express an opinion on the matter. But the vast majority of nudes really don't amount to anything more than pornography. Just ask the guerilla girls:

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Just curious - are you also of the mind that nude photography or renderings of children can also be art?

It can be. Take a look at all the naked ceribs in Renaissance art. They're all kids. And the Norton Simon Museum has a great one of a naked baby Jesus standing on Joseph's lap.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Bill3000


I don't think that's an appropriate analogy. An appropriate analogy would be whether or not pornography as a whole is art or not.

That's basically what I was attempting to ask in connecting the two.

And ultimately, it depends on the intent of the pictography, no?

Intent is an iffy thing, but I general agree with you. As long as something serves solely to ojectify and fetishise women as sex objects, it is pornography. And it really is not justifiable to call pronography art, in my opinion. But this will just bring us to a discussion of "just what is art, anyways?" which is hopeless.

[Bill3000]

First of all, I didn't express an opinion on the matter. But the vast majority of nudes really don't amount to anything more than pornography. Just ask the guerilla girls:

"The vast majority" isn't a good quantifier at all. And regarding the guerilla girls... That says absolutely nothing about whether or not the Modern Art sections are pornography or not. Heck, it's a simple fact that the female body is often considered more aethsically pleasing than the male body. That says nothing about whether or not it is pornography. I can guarentee you that the art pieces in that musuem are not intended to have people masturbate furiously while looking at said art.

Intent is an iffy thing, but I general agree with you. As long as something serves solely to ojectify and fetishise women as sex objects, it is pornography. And it really is not justifiable to call pronography art, in my opinion. But this will just bring us to a discussion of "just what is art, anyways?" which is hopeless.

Yeah, I know it's hopless. I find it best to define pornography as non-artistic as well, but as said before, what makes it non-artistic is the intent of the photo. And, uh, pornography has nothing to do with women as sex objects. Men can be sex objects as well. Pornography is about the intent of the piece to inspire sexual feelings in the person.

[General Ludd]

Jeez, I asked Cort Haus, not any one of you.

[Zkribbler]

As Elaine said on Seinfield:

"The body of a woman is a thing of beauty. But a man's body is utilitarian. It's like a Jeep."

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Bill3000

"The vast majority" isn't a good quantifier at all. And regarding the guerilla girls... That says absolutely nothing about whether or not the Modern Art sections are pornography or not. Heck, it's a simple fact that the female body is often considered more aethsically pleasing than the male body. That says nothing about whether or not it is pornography.

What it says is that to get into the gallery, you almolst have to be male. And that of the nudes painted, almost all of them are of women. Meaning, almost all nudes are of women seen through the male gaze. This does not indicate that the female form is aesthetically pleasing to most people, it means that most nudes are painted by chauvenist artists who get their jollies painting nude women, and that this objectification of women as a sex object or "beauty model" is further reinforced by the fact that less than 5% of the artists represented are female - indicating a belief the women are not cabable of making art, rather, they are only fit to be a subject of the male artist.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Just curious - are you also of the mind that nude photography or renderings of children can also be art?

Yuk, no. While sex and art can be linked, I never associate children and sex, the notion is repulsive.

[LordShiva]

But surely this is art

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by LordShiva
But surely this is art

Ban him, ban him!

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by General Ludd
This does not indicate that the female form is aesthetically pleasing to most people, it means that most nudes are painted by chauvenist artists who get their jollies painting nude women, and that this objectification of women as a sex object or "beauty model" is further reinforced by the fact that less than 5% of the artists represented are female - indicating a belief the women are not cabable of making art, rather, they are only fit to be a subject of the male artist.

Oh come on, who goes into the art gallery for watching "sex objects"? You can have that, and much more obvious stuff easier, cheaper and faster elsewhere, as polytubb....errrmm....internet users may know.

[Cort Haus]

@LS : Fair enough, but that's not the sort of art I had in mind. The art of a stripper/dancer is a sexual one, so it wouldn't be relevant to children. In fact there's nothing very sexy about classical nudes of any age, come to that.

A crap stripper is just a girl taking her clothes off. A good stripper is basically a good dancer who is taking her clothes off.

I haven't been to a strip joint for years, but I recall the acts like bands rather than sex objects. The good ones had the power to entertain and captivate, as they put on a show. The bad were out of time or cheesy or moved badly - like people who can't play their instruments properly.

[Wezil]

I have fond memories of a stripper named 'Anna Banana'. She was a true artist.

[LordShiva]

My first inclination, on hearing that a stripper's name includes the word "banana," is to stay far, far away