twiss@stolaf.UUCP (Thomas S. Twiss) (08/16/84)
Jeff Winslow quotes a counterexample to show that porn is not just the display of certain body parts and that such display degrades the model. (By the way, if this is old, pardon moi, we seem to ahve had a mail backup). Jeff, the photography certainly does show body parts. But the difference (I am assuming without having seen the exhibit) is in the delivery and intent. The photography show was probably done as an artist's study of the human body to see how it works, how parts are individually and collectively u
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (08/18/84)
A statement was made here recently that one of the most "degrading" things about soft porn were close-ups of certain body parts. The idea being that this would make men think of women as merely pieces of flesh rather than human beings. A pretty theory, but... Recently at the portland Art museum there was a showing by a photographer who is a woman (marsha Brown, I believe the name is). A large number of the photographs were torsos or smaller parts of women's bodies (none of them particularly erotic - but see below). If the theory is correct, these would also be degrading, but somehow I have a feeling that the photographer would mightily resent such a suggestion. Counterexample, perhaps? now, personally I don't find such photographs particularly erotic, even when they are meant to be, so it's an academic argument to me. Comments? Jeff Winslow