claybair on mon 23 sep 02
what is pornographic? Criteria?
Hey Craig....
May I assume that if you were to make a cast of your rear end that you would
be.............
making an ass of yourself????
Sorry.... I couldn't help myself.
What a hoot........ love the idea!->
Gayle Bair
Bainbridge Island, WA
http://claybair.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Clark
Getting this thread back in the direction of a more specific clay
related topic: In the catagory of ART, what type of image is pornographic?
Is there such a thing? What type of criteria would be used to make such a
determination? Who, or what, would make such a determination?
I made a series of "bottom pots" a number of years ago and may return to
doing so again soon. They were essentially vessels, the primary structure of
which, consisted of modeled and life cast rear ends. They were a hoot. Not
just in the making but also in reactions evoked.
Craig Dunn Clark
619 East 11 1/2 st
Houston, Texas 77008
(713)861-2083
mudman@hal-pc.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andi Bauer"
To:
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 9:38 AM
> Since when is the human body pornography??
> Andi in San Diego
>
> > Art is
> >no excuse for pornography.
> >Marilynn
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Andi Bauer
> 619-543-3758
>
> email: mailto:acody@ucsd.edu
Craig Clark on tue 24 sep 02
what is pornographic? Criteria? Making an ass of oneself
Gayle, I thought that someone might pick up on that straight
line.Ha-ha-ha.....Yes, if you were to look at the pieces literally I would
infact do, and did, precisely that. Have done the same on many occassions
without the benefit of a casting.
And yes, they were a kick, though somewhat sophmoric. Not my idea
though. I believe I saw similiar types of images in a book, or possibly
magazine (go ahead and run with that one) that I was purusing in art school.
Word of warning. If you plan on getting into the life casting biz be
CERTAIN to start out with small castings, remove ANY and ALL unneccessary
hair, and thoroughly coat any remaining hair with plenty of vaseline. If you
do not follow this minimal protocal you will regret it when the mold is
removed from either yourself or your models!
Craig Dunn Clark
619 East 11 1/2 st
Houston, Texas 77008
(713)861-2083
mudman@hal-pc.org
Craig Dunn Clark
619 East 11 1/2 st
Houston, Texas 77008
(713)861-2083
mudman@hal-pc.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "claybair"
To:
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: Specifically, in relation to ART, what is pornographic?
Criteria?
> Hey Craig....
> May I assume that if you were to make a cast of your rear end that you
would
> be.............
> making an ass of yourself????
> Sorry.... I couldn't help myself.
> What a hoot........ love the idea!->
> Gayle Bair
> Bainbridge Island, WA
> http://claybair.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Clark
>
> Getting this thread back in the direction of a more specific clay
> related topic: In the catagory of ART, what type of image is pornographic?
> Is there such a thing? What type of criteria would be used to make such a
> determination? Who, or what, would make such a determination?
> I made a series of "bottom pots" a number of years ago and may return
to
> doing so again soon. They were essentially vessels, the primary structure
of
> which, consisted of modeled and life cast rear ends. They were a hoot. Not
> just in the making but also in reactions evoked.
> Craig Dunn Clark
> 619 East 11 1/2 st
> Houston, Texas 77008
> (713)861-2083
> mudman@hal-pc.org
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andi Bauer"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 9:38 AM
>
>
> > Since when is the human body pornography??
> > Andi in San Diego
> >
> > > Art is
> > >no excuse for pornography.
> > >Marilynn
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Andi Bauer
> > 619-543-3758
> >
> > email: mailto:acody@ucsd.edu
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Craig Clark on tue 24 sep 02
what is pornographic? Cirtieria?
Phil, thannx for them thoughts. Took me three times through to get the
jist of what you were saying. Did you spend a number of years in pursuit and
aquisition of a philosophy degree by any chance or do you always talk that
way?
The purpose of the question is to beg a question as to the (a) relevance
or usefullness of the labeling or attempted definition of a subject as
"pornographic" and (b)to raise the issue of the political nature of the
question more to make a point about that which I see as being almost
hopelessly ambiguous than being either right or wrong.Though this does not
relieve me of the responsibility to work against those whose political
nature would work against my "apprehension" of subject matter that I deem
appropriate. In this case that would be against those whose likemindedness
with Marilyn would describe either the "lovers" sculpture of the site as
being pronographic in nature.
As to the labeling usage and/or definition of the word "pornographic" I
think that it is important to achieve at least a modicum of acceptance as to
what one is describing when one uses the word, or any word for that matter.
Hence the criteria question. I don't think that there could ever really be
any type of real consensus on this, at least not in a society of
non-programmed individuals who were given the opportunity to descirbe what
said criteria would or more importantly should be.Just a blueprint to at
least show that we are in the same building before we start talking about
rearranging the furniture.
Regardless, in the interest of communication and trying to stay away
from what you approriately described my own "Protection Rackets" I do
attempt to generate this very discussion whenever a real oppurtunity
presents itself, as is currently the case. This type of discussion helps me,
through the lens of others, identify and confront my own assumptions,
dieties, etc.
This is not merely a pleasant distraction for me. It is real. THere are
those who will foist their criteria off on the rest of us if given the
chance. The dialogue, however vague, surrounding these discussions may at
least help those who are more inclined toward what I would describe as
openness and acceptance to be more consiously aware of those who would play
censor. Indeed, we are currently embroiled in two of attemtpted censorship
here in Houston.
Our very own "protection racketeteer in chief, Mr, Tom Delay" is working
his hardest to bring about a government which adhears to his partiular, and
limited, version of Christianity saying all the while that the founders of
the country wanted it that way. He wouldn't know what a deist was if one
walked up and smacked him on top of his pointy head. Delay has, in my
opinion, a particularly selective and twisted version of Christian
Fundamentalism, and would like to see the rest of us governed in a similar
manner. Somewhat ironic coming from someone who in his heyday in the Texas
State Legislature was refered to as "Hot Tub TOM."
My protection racket would be those belief systems associated with a
belief in the neccessity of an open ended dialogue concerning those things
especially significant to the notion of the greater good/bad and what one
ought or ought not be able to do based upon those assumptions.
I tend to think that intervention in the public consumption of
art(literary, visual, musical or performance based), with adults as
consumers and possible censors, is detremental, at best,to what you refered
to as apprehension of a particular subject. THough in this case I could
defer to an alternate meaning and say that there is a good deal of
apprehension over the apprehension of certain subject matter and that there
are a buncha folks who would like to prevent it all together.
In the end my protection racket is one that is about the unencumbered
flow of imagery, ideas and information. This is essential, IMHO.
Craig Dunn Clark
619 East 11 1/2 st
Houston, Texas 77008
(713)861-2083
mudman@hal-pc.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Poburka"
To:
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: Specifically, in relation to ART, what is pornographic?
Cirtieria?
> Dear Craig, et all...
>
>
> I too have wondered as to just what the criteria may be, or
> if any 'criteria' need be made anyway.
>
> Seems to me there are things as which, to behold, may have
> to them, or for me, a pleasant or happy way about them.
> Other things as maybe are not so happy or pleasant to
> behold.
>
> In themselves, that does not mean there should, or may, not
> be some edifacation in the apprehension of them.
> Maybe there is ( for me) and then again...maybe not.
>
> I think the designation 'pornografic' is impertenent and
> ultimatey useless...at best, maybe a presumption as begs the
> point, if in deed there is even a point 'about' the
> austensible subject to beg.
>
> It is not as if it were a designation made 'to' the 'Boiling
> Point' or 'Freezing Point' of Water...or of distilled Water
> at a certain barometric pressure, as others may be pleased
> to repeat and 'prove' for themselves having such agreements
> and factors as may be repeated with accuracy and
> satisfaction.
>
> And too, as is often so with me...I am not sure I quite know
> just 'what' the 'subject' (really) is.
>
> The sense or aesthetic we may have to us, in us, as us, or
> for which we may have some use...through which to apprehend
> some image or some form or representation...may be more
> interesting and germain than the 'that' we may happen to
> apprehend.
>
> Supressions as in which one may have invested of their
> 'faith', disguised as they may tend to be in whatever
> pretexts or justifications or ordained or purported to be
> ordained by whatever austensible deities, potentates or
> other 'authority', and charged as they tend to overmuch be,
> with pent-up and misdirected emotion, in practice, become a
> distraction and a red herring, so far as they become the
> (covert) 'subject' and the subject does not really get to
> be...the 'thing' apprehended...the 'thing' in question...the
> 'image', the 'Artwork', the whatever...but rather the
> political or other internal mediacies as one may have
> allowed to be installed in them, as 'tell'
> what-is-what-is-not 'okay' to the relation WITH that
> mediacy.
>
> It may be difficult to espye, how reactions may relate 'to'
> the (actual) 'what' as is seen...the structure of the
> 'values' (or implicitly, the ''what' those 'values' serve,)
> as mediate the apprehension.
>
> Many people actualize what is defferential to the
> 'permissions' they had obtained....however 'so'...for their
> safety, or protection from the violence or threat of it,
> from others...or such as they felt rejected for....they
> shall usually reject in turn.
>
> This is the essence of the structure, the 'politics', of
> what, to my eye, assume the likeness and name...of
> 'Protection Rackets'.
>
> And the 'world'...is full of them, passing as manu things
> they are decidedly not.
>
>
>
> One may 'surf' areas of the 'internet', say, in which are
> availed, images as I happen not to find pleasant, romantic,
> happy nor defferential to my notions of Spiritual
> ascendancy, inspireing expressions of taste, Love, Grace,
> fun, good humour...etc...let us say I do not find them
> 'so'...
>
> I believe some of these should satisfy most people's notion
> of the profoundly unambiguous of 'pornographic'.
>
> Having looked into some of these things as may be the
> occupation or interests of other people, I have found that I
> do not find pleasure or edifcation in their apprehension,
> other than that I may understand some little bit what I knew
> allready...that there are many things as are not to my taste
> or happy interests, and as do not seem to 'go' where I am
> interested in going.
>
> And...that there are things as 'do'...do so...
>
> And...I may know the difference.
>
> I find that the people 'world' is a big place...and in it,
> are many domains as are 'about' different
> things....different arrangements of thnigs...different
> 'uses' for things...different relations to things...
>
> As a Child, and since, I am pleased to elect 'places' or
> involvements or such as I like, and to go around or through,
> or pass bye or maybe note but not make 'mine', perhaps not
> elect to even get near, of various places or things as I do
> not like.
>
> I also ask myself as to the 'why' I like or do not like
> something.
>
> I do well to view with suspicion...any 'charged' emotion I
> may find conjured or welling in me, in response to some
> experience or apprehension.
>
> Allways under it...should I care to trouble myself to
> look...is some dishonesty, fear, or 'protection racket' as I
> should be happier rid of...as in which I had invested some
> 'Faith'...to which I had agreed or subscribed, or taken on
> however so.
>
> I do not believe there need be any more to it...than that.
>
> Anyway...them's my thoughts on this matter...
>
> Phil
> Las Vegas
>
>
> (Ye said...)
>
> > Getting this thread back in the direction of a more
> specific clay
> related topic: In the catagory of ART, what type of image is
> pornographic?
> Is there such a thing? What type of criteria would be used
> to make such a
> determination? Who, or what, would make such a
> determination?
> I made a series of "bottom pots" a number of years ago
> and may return to
> doing so again soon. They were essentially vessels, the
> primary structure of
> which, consisted of modeled and life cast rear ends. They
> were a hoot. Not
> just in the making but also in reactions evoked.
> Craig Dunn Clark
> 619 East 11 1/2 st
> Houston, Texas 77008
> (713)861-2083
> mudman@hal-pc.org
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andi Bauer"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 9:38 AM
>
>
> > Since when is the human body pornography??
> > Andi in San Diego
> >
> > > Art is
> > >no excuse for pornography.
> > >Marilynn
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Andi Bauer
> > 619-543-3758
> >
> > email: mailto:acody@ucsd.edu
> >
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> ________________
> __
> > Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
> >
> > You may look at the archives for the list or change your
> subscription
> > settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
> >
> > Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached
> at
> melpots@pclink.com.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> __________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your
> subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots@pclink.com.
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
| |
|
