|
Porn in advertising | posted by Dan  Shai clothing has a promotional website that features videos of attractive, young people wearing Shai clothing, which is nothing new. Attractive, young people wearing brand name clothes is pretty much the standard form of advertising for clothing companies. The only thing that makes the videos on this website different is that they are X-rated. Yup, it's porn, money shot and everything. Here's a link to the site if you're interested (warning: adult content, nsfw, 18+ only). It has three videos: gay male, straight, and lesbian. I watched all three, and I must say, as one who has experience in video production and as one who watches his fair share of porn, I think these videos are extremely well produced, especially for porn. In my opinion, the production value of these videos flies way above that of even what is considered to be well produced porn. A lot of creativity and talent went into the production of these videos, which is more than you can say for most porn. To me, this is merely another example of how our culture is in the process of balancing sex and violence in popular media. Violence has obviously held a monopoly in our cultural consciousness for a long, long time, for various reasons (which is a huge topic in itself). But it seems that this current moment in history is ripe for a balancing of these two forces, sex and violence. What do you think? (via) Guidelines for Comments & Questions Comments and questions signed "anonymous" are strongly discouraged; please provide a URL to your blog or website, and at least a name so we can refer to you in subsequent discussion. All comments and questions should be related to the topic or topics raised in this podcast or blog entry. Personal insults of any kind are not permitted and posts containing insults will be deleted. By Hannah | 6/28/2006 An interesting observation! Our entertainment inheritance from the ancient Romans; there was one Emperor who would only watch a play if the sex in it was real. Frankly, I haven't much tolerance for those intolerant to sex and violence in the media. There are not proven links to that and social deviancy, and without it, where are we to get our catharsis, our purging of these desires? In my humble, unsubstantiated opinion, without sex and violence in the arts, we can only hope for more social deviancy. Of course, the trick is bringing it to life artfully. This is probably where most of my mixed feelings in regards to porn come in. The bad dialogue, the corny situations. C'mon! Plus, questionable morals in the production (i.e. behind the scenes) of the whole thing...Aye, there's the rub. By Paul S. | 6/28/2006 um, whoah. that's almost as high-quality as http://www.ifeelmyself.com By Dan | 6/28/2006 I've heard Steven Johnson, author of Everything Bad is Good for You (Paul's current reading), comment about how violence and crime in the youth actually declined after the video game Grand Theft Auto got popular. I think that the drives to fuck and kill are a part of the human experience, and the attempts to suppress those drives and make them go away will never really work. I believe that engaging thoses drives in safe ways, such as through video games and movies, is a healthy thing, in moderation. I agree that porn is currently of pretty low quality, but I also think that this is a temporary thing that is already changing. There are many sex educators out there that believe that porn should be an integral part of sex education, and there are pornographers who agree. In other words, pornographers are beginning to take responsibility for their product and to see their work as a positive force in the world. Sex education in the schools of America today is so utterly pathetic it makes me want to cry. I say bravo to the pornographers who believe in what they do and have a vision for the future of our culture. As for why porn is so cheesy, I have a few opinions on this. It has been said that the production value of porn is comparable to that of daytime soap operas. I would say it's even worse than that. There's no funding in porn like there is in Hollywood. So, good acting, script writing, etc is as rare as rare gets. For the most part, the big porn corporations make porn for the same reason that McDonalds makes cheeseburgers. People are hungry/horny, and these companies are feeding that desire in the cheapest way possible. Art isn't even considered as long as profits are steady. As for the questionable ethics involved, I think that this is a problem for the same reason that alcohol is more poisonous during prohibition than when it's legal. Pornography itself is largely seen as an inherently immoral thing. So with that blanket condemnation on the whole porn industry and culture, pornographers are free to do whatever immoral things they want without any further condemnations because they are, in the eyes of mainstream culture, already immoral. Bringing porn into the mainstream would allow for moral norms to become a stronger force in porn, the same way that making alcohol legal allows for more regulation and safety. By Dan | 6/28/2006 yes, ifeelmyself.com is a great site. By MD | 6/28/2006 Couple comments. Firstly, this is a very interesting topic with many angles; glad that we are having it. On the school issue. My feeling is that nearly everything in the public schools today is taught in a sub-standard way. Sex education, to the extent that it is taught, is no different than the teaching of other subjects. It suffers from the same problems. Hannah and I are strongly considering homeschooling our daughter. Which of course really means learning in many places in the world, not just at home. Or, put another way, "non-government schooling". To my mind, I think sex education fits better in a flexible environment, and taken gradually in age-appropriate ways. The government at any level is pretty bad when it comes to delicate educational subjects such as sex; amongst parents and friends it is better respected and, well, cautiously approached. After all, it IS a delicate topic (rightly so, in my view). I'm not sure that porn isn't already mainstream. I mean, it is very popular, porn website are amongst the site with the largest number of hits; porn magazines remain in large circulation. So I'm not sure what is left for the porn industry to do to be mainstream except for government intervention/regulation. Is this what the porn industry needs? Is this what we want gov't dollars and energy to be devoted to? I don't know the answers, I'm just posing questions that arise logically. Finally, from an artistic point of view, it is interesting to witness how the narrative arc of many artforms in long form (literature, music, theatre, for example) so mirrors the rise and fall arc of sexual foreplay and climax. Of course there is titillation involved with porn, and I'm no prude. BUT, I find "narrative porn as art" to be an unsatisfying aesthetic experience. (Sexuality in literature, sculpture, and elsewhere is an entirely different mater). It isn't about bad scripts, bad dialogue, bad characters. No, I'm unsatisfied because of the obviousness of the porn movies I've seen (ok, it's been a little while). If the mystery of most if not all art involves a mystery that has roots in sexuality, then porn for its own sake is, I guess, to literalist for me. By Hannah | 6/28/2006 Dan: I hear dat! But, I also gotta say that what makes sex so great is it's mystery. And, well, porn is just so blunt that while at first I might be titilated, then I quickly grow bored. Like; "Okay, there it is. Good for you guys." (I know, I know...I could be entering in to a whole big discussion of feminine and masculine expressions of intimacy and sexuality). The other thing is that any story comes to a screeching halt when the actual act occurs. This is interesting to me on a couple of levels. On the one hand; is having a story a necessity? Obviously not what these advertisers had in mind, since these folks had no character, but were essentially anonymous. Not only that, but other art creations (a novel, a film, a piece of music, etc) can also have a build up, peak, and falling action (pun intended) that mirrors that of the sex act. I'm not quite sure what that means for porn and story...but there's gotta be something in there. By MD | 6/28/2006 Well, Hannah and I think similiarly, I guess. We were actually commenting at the same time, which (in many sexual traditions) is the holy grail, so to speak. :) By Jean | 6/28/2006 I recently read a short article about artist Larry Clark's Impaled, (part of seven short films in a porn-art series called "Destricted," which I haven't seen.) But according the article, Clark's thesis has to do with the fact that people born post 1980 have radically different sexual mores and customs than folks born in an era when porn was not so readily available via the internet. I'm not sure I'd agree with the term "radically" different, but there's certainly a difference, in expectations, grooming habits and so on, as the 10 young men interviewed early on in the film reveal. In the film, one of these young men goes on to have sex with a porn actress btw. At any rate, as the trend continues with accesible porn becoming more and more acceptable to future generations, then yeah, advertising, mainstream movies and television will all follow suit, as we're already seeing. I guess it's how it is handled - I recently watched the movie Bee Season (which I don't recommend.) It is rated PG-13, and there is a sexual intercourse scene between the two parents - they're even fully clothed - and yet, I thought, no, this doesn't belong in this film, whereas more blatant sexual scenes from the HBO series Rome were entirely appropriate. As far as sex ed is concerned, one thing I do know - although I certainly learned a few things watching or reading porn, people who learn their sexual moves mainly from watching porn don't make very good lovers. Especially for young men - as most porn is designed primarily for their visual and fantasy gratification - for example a lot of men see and then want unbridled anal sex, like they see in a porn flick, but when it comes to real act, they have NO IDEA how to really do it. And as far as how to truly arouse, explore, and satisfy a woman's body and mind - that's still entirely uncharted territory in the porn medium, and will probably remain that way, as porn is for men. Women read romance novels - that's their porn. I hate to be so gender biased, but for the most part that's true. By Dan | 6/28/2006 I have a whole slew of responses that I want to give, which I will try to work into a follow-up post. I'm so happy that we're talking about this! But I want to give a quick response to one of Jean's comments. "And as far as how to truly arouse, explore, and satisfy a woman's body and mind - that's still entirely uncharted territory in the porn medium, and will probably remain that way, as porn is for men." While I agree somewhat with the first half of this sentence, I disagree entirely with the second half, and I even think it's a bit cynical. It implies that men have no interest in women's arousal or satisfaction, which is simply not true. In fact I think the main reason men watch porn is to see women at least pretend to be aroused and satisfied. I have so much more I want to say about this, but I'll save it for that follow-up post. By victoria | 6/28/2006 Wow, quite a cool discussion going on here, if a bit incestuous. I know we have non-staff readers out there! Jump in! The bed's round, uh, I mean the water's warm. Jean, yes yes yes, oh, yes! (Was that out loud?) Seriously, you're right about men and the availability of porn's impact on, well, standards. One of the things I can't help noticing is the impact of hyper editing in general. Is our attention span now so pathetically low we have to see, not only camera angles changed every 2 seconds, but actual positions as well? Sadly, yes. There are men, who think that's how to go about it in real life. There is also the rather uncreative 'plot.' You do me, now I'll do you, now we'll go at it like rabbits. How boring, and sadly, yes to that as well. When men get the majority of their how to info from porn, the best the woman can do is put on the same 'oh, uh huh, baby' face as the actresses and then let her calls be answered by her voice mail. Men assume that women want to have orgasms, and that's true(!), but successfully getting off does not necessarily equal great sex. Porn does not communicate that to men. Relating to a partner does, but guys, whose knowledge is based on porn have a more difficult time grasping that. They not only project their ideal that merely getting off equals great sex onto their women partners, they unconsciously use porn as some kind of visual proof to back it up. Sex education is in schools is about what happens when you have sex, what the parts are for and what the consequences might be. It was never intended to be about how to have sex, which is really sad. Most religions/wisdom traditions have some kind of guide to go about it, even the prudish Muslims. We of the Puritan/Catholic cultures just have porn on the sly. Pathetic. There is no range of emotions, no palette of colors from which to choose, no passion, no connection of even pure lust, just a formula, which is all that is taught in schools but from the biological side, and for that we are told, "wait". On other notes, I know I'm not the only one around here old enough to remember when female porn stars, as well as mere mortals, were allowed to have some pubic hair. What is up with that? Bad for video, so rip we all go? I swear the biggest difference in this culture between men and women is that men are smart enough not to let hot wax get all over their genitals. But seriously, folks, when teaching design and composition, I stress making all the parts relate and making the various components integral to the piece to give the impression of intentionality. The obligatory sex scene stuck in somewhere, whether covert or outright steamy fails to do this. There is usually a failure to commit creativity. I'm all for putting it in (sorry), but like any other bit that goes in a piece of art, it must be intrinsic to the whole. The advertising in this case, while funny and possibly catchy in that they pull no punches about the sex being first and the product second, did not make me want to buy the clothes nor create brand recognition, so the ad fails in my view. Frankly, I wouldn't be caught dead or half naked in any of that stuff. Are those skirts still in? They are so 2004 (and dreadful back then). I will at least applaud the men's wearing condoms! Breathless, Samantha Uh, I mean Victoria By victoria | 6/29/2006 Oh, and did anyone notice the chick in the straight video was also in the woman+woman video but with a different name in the credits? One of the women's name was Sophie Moon. Should this be translated as Wise Ass? Yes, I am insanely observant. That's why I get the big bucks. ;-) By Jean | 6/29/2006 Dan, I don't mean to be cynical, just matter of fact. Have you ever read a romance novel? Do you understand why that is women's porn? Sure, men love to look at women sexually aroused and lit up, even when they're just acting it out, which is why visual porn is mainly for men. I'm not saying women can't or don't enjoy erotic/sexual imagry, nor truly enjoy basic animal fucking - but in the final analysis, I guarantee most woman aren't completely getting off if they aren't emotionally coming when they physically come, and usually that can only happen in a trusting relationship - and usually that's when she'll truly "light" up. In the end, it ain't only about the sexual technique and arousal (although having a competent lover in bed can help with the trust issue.) I don't know what else to tell you, go read a few "fast food" romance novels (which can get fairly steamy, but overall have production values - by that I mean writing - about as bad as most male porn,) to see the "formula" that turns women on. Maybe someday we'll find a way to merge men and women's porn to everybody's satisfaction, but I'm not holding my breath. Oh, and yeah, I agree with V - the clothes in those ads were so horrendous you almost couldn't wait for everyone to get their clothes off just so you wouldn't have to see the clothes anymore. By Dan | 6/29/2006 I'm not sure I really buy that women aren't as visually stimulated as men. It kinda seems like a cop out, like women don't want to admit that they like it (not even to themselves) because that would somehow compromise their emotional security. I don't know, maybe it's a generational thing (meaning maybe I'm just a stupid kid who watches too much porn and doesn't really know women). I know that a lot of the women who do like to watch porn prefer gay male porn to straight porn, which I find interesting, especially considering the emotional security issue. Seeing men both give and receive, without a woman in the picture to identify with, allows the woman to be aroused without having any emotional investment, meaning there's no chance of her getting emotionally hurt. I think a big reason why women might not particularly like porn (at least not as much as men) is because the women in porn are portrayed as sluts. Actually, they aren't even necessarily portrayed as anything, but it is just kind of assumed that women who have sex like that are sluts. In our society, there's no emotional security for sluts. Guys fuck them with no emotional connection, then toss them aside like dirty laundry. Sluts are considered bad people, immoral, and undeserving of love. Women invest a lot of energy into making sure that they don't appear like sluts (while still appearing attractive; tricky, tricky). In other words, women spend a lot of energy asserting their own value as a person. It is only in the context of a trusting relationship, where the woman knows that her partner truly sees her and doesn't view her as a slut, that she can let her hair down, so to speak, and be as sexual as she wants to be without having to worry about being damned or rejected for it. Imagine if women were actually valued for their sexuality, or their "slutty-ness", the way men are valued for their sexual potentcy, instead of judged and condemned for it. What a world that would be. I think that the reason that the romance novel might be more appealing to women (but I've never read one, so I don't really know what I'm talking about) is because in a novel, you can set up all the factors necessary so that the woman knows she's truly being seen for who she is and she's not being used. And with any written story, there are tons of gaps that the imagination fills in with whatever it wants. There's a lot of room to project your ideals. But images leave nothing to the imagination. The book is always better than the movie, right? So if you look at an image of a man, it's more difficult to trust him right away than it is to trust the man you read about in a book, because with the man in the book, his voice sounds exactly the way you want it, and his body language is exactly the way you want it, and nearly everything about him is exactly the way you want it, because your mind makes most of it up. I don't know. I'm pretty much just talking out of my ass with this stuff. I'm certainly not a woman (although this superhero test does say that I'm supergirl), so I can't speak for women. I don't even know if I can speak for men (after all, I am supergirl). Anyway, all I'm sayin' is that I don't really know what I'm sayin', so take my opinions lightly. And Jean, if you have any recommendations for a good novel to read, I'd love to know what they are. By Dan | 6/29/2006 oh, and here's a quote from Violet Blue, a sex educator and porn enthusiast, that supports my view: "Today women are watching porn in increasing numbers, and to my mind it's a happy sign of a much-needed change in women's sexual roles. In our culture, women simply aren't exposed to as much explicit sexual imagery as men are, but this is all changing. One of the major obstacles that we women face in determining our own healthy vehicles for sexuality is the widely held notion that women don't respond to sexual imagery as men do- a notion that is absolutely untrue." By ~C4Chaos | 6/29/2006 dang! i almost dropped my red bull while watching. first, Dan is right. this is high-quality work. "coming" (pun intended) from the aesthetic side, it's very very well executed. but it's very slow from where i'm at. so i was only able to watch the women++women ;) however, i disagree that this "balances" anything. in fact, i think this only adds to further commodification of sex (and apparel). abercrombie & fitch looked like a catalogue for the prude. curing violence with horniness doesn't work, especially since they come from lower levels of development (e.g. urges, lower chakras). making money and profiting by titillating the lower senses is NOT GOOD BUSINESS, but only business as usual. my two cents. ~C (for Chakras of the lower senses) By Bob D. | 6/29/2006 Wow. The Woodshed's been open for what, a week, and already we're talking porn. Sweet. A few weeks ago my wife found some extra time to read a romance novel, and I'll be darned if she wasn't jumping my bones every few minutes. Needless to say, I promptly went out and bought her the rest of the series. I have mixed feelings about porn, mainly because I wonder whether the actors are being exploited. The thought will often occur to me, usually right as the guy shoots his goo all over the woman's face, that the woman is probably a drug addict who is desperate and doing whatever she can for another fix. Also, like one of you said, I quickly get bored with porn, and I often wonder what a porn movie produced by a woman ( a healthy, deep, integrated woman) would look like. I think it would be cool if filmmakers were able to successfully connect explicit sexuality with great character development and plot. I've never come upon (heh heh) a porn flick I would watch with my wife, although I believe it's possible to integrate the romance novel vibe with explicit nudity and sexuality. Can any women (or men) out there recommend a movie that satisfies on both levels? It's interesting to reflect on how porn has influenced our sexuality. I can remember when I was nineteen or twenty feeling like I just had the best sex of my life. I remember telling myself, "I was like a porn star last night." I remembered it, and experienced it, like I was watching it all on a TV screen. It was an egoic orgasm, as I was finally able to live up to the porn-star ideal (lasting a long time, changing positions numerous times, etc.). What was really sad is that I hardly felt the orgasm physically. The e-gasm was the sole source of satisfaction. I wonder if we're seeing the same thing happen now with the Reality TV craze. I work with teenagers in a drug rehab center, and I swear sometimes they act as if they're on camera and all of America is watching. --Bob By victoria | 6/29/2006 Id like to clear up the visual stimulation mystery. Whether women are stimulated visually or not stimulated by porn is a ridiculously either/or question. (Reminds me of another limited argument still going around the web with some of us.) Of course, women are visually stimulated! I see a fab pair of shoulders walk by, and like most women (see diet coke commercials), I can forget my name for a minute, but I get really bored with porn really fast. (Somewhere right after the title hits the screen.) Unfortunately, what is provided in most porn isn't all that and a bag of chips, visually speaking. Yes, there's a good looking guy, but he's watching a woman, NOT lit up, but acting at being turned on. These women usually possess no radience of the feminine. There is a huge difference. It's all in terms of and for the benefit of the men, even when the scene is between 2 women. I know men often feel a bit less than watching these endowed he-men, but women nearly always get smacked with a whole body fear of inadequacy by chicks with ever perky add ons, who look like they need to eat a brownie and a burger or 2. There is too much of an inner conflict of how we measure up on the whole (even by women, who do look like that) not just one body part. Perhaps that's why many women prefer gay male porn. No one too threatening to conjure up what they fear their mates will be thinking of when with them. Dan, that was really great stuff about the 'slut' issue. The only thing I would add is that the portrayal of the slut (the woman, who, gasp, enjoys sex!) is that she is extremely limited. She's just the industry's vague opposite to the dominant accepted expression of the feminine in Western culture: the madonna. The expression of the feminine involves SO MUCH MORE, including the depth of what Carrie, uh, I mean Jean, calls whore energy. There's a whole huge spectrum, unspoken of or culturally mandated, and it's time we saw it as all good: light, dark, and in between. It's not about visual stimulation with women. It's about porn being for those, who identify with emptiness. Porn is about (and for) release. That's why the obligatory come shots and no need whatsoever for plot, dialog, scenery, or anything else we normally associate with experiencing film. It's a formula designed for formulaic, cut to the chase masturbation. Women are usually identified with fullness. That's what women, who can take the dreadful writing in romance novels, get out of reading them. We want to be seen, to shine. We want to feel brimming over with love, lust, desire, and passion. We are more likely to identify with life force than the release and relief from it. That's what guys can't learn from watching porn, and that's what they need to understand if they want a woman to light up. I'm not sure there will ever be porn designed for all. The agendas would be divergent. Fab discussion, guys! Thanks for starting it, Dan. Rommel, you watched the girl on girl video first? Why am I not surprised? It's ok. So did every other straight guy, I'm betting. ;-) Sam By Jean | 6/29/2006 I appreciate this ongoing conversation because it's helping me think about a topic I might write about in a future Polysemy issue, or I might just blog about it here - the topic being the underlying feminine mythic structure of the romance story, which I think doesn't get the respect it deserves. At any rate, I'm not sure if there can ever be a true merger of the fast food romance and porn formats because of the vastly different inner complusions they're satisfying. Porn is satisfying for men exactly because it depicts that lack of emotional connection or commitment - as Leonard Shlain in Sex, Time, and Power discusses it (on V's recommended list, btw,) most porn depicts women who are, as Dan put it, sluts or nymphos, or in bondage situations, or even rape situations - and funamentally these are all situations where a man does not have to ask permission for sex. Oi, finally a break from the endless courtship and negotiation, and what-do-I-have-to-do-to-get-her-to-have-sex- with-me games. And as porn's popularity attests to, many men clearly need this release, and it's also the reason prostitution is not going away anytime soon. If you read a romance novel, as V says, you will see a far far different inner need/agenda for most women. Like I said, those books can get downright graphically sexual - but it's in an entirely different context, and one that's not ultimately in keeping with the male agenda with porn. The romance novel industry is not quite as profitable as the porn industry, but it's booming nonetheless. Those books fly out the doors at libraries. And Dan, as far as a romance novel suggestion - at that fast food level it really is pretty much like porn - if you've read (seen) one you've read them all. I suspect if you tried to merge the two formats you'd end up with both men and women who were not ultimately satisfied on some deep level. Yes, more women watch porn now and it can be visually stimulating (although I have to say I didn't find these advertisements very stimulating on any level.) These days a lot of young women are very influenced by porn in regards to their grooming and what they know how to do to sexually satisfy a man - and I'm not saying that's completely bad. Goddess knows, I'm ALL for women reclaiming and truly owning their bodies and sexual awareness, and Power in this area. Women are the BOMB, and they should be able to own that like nothing else. Not to mention that sex should be fun! But porn doesn't really show a women how to be empowered. A women is kidding herself if she thinks her sexual fulfillment is ultimately divorced from her emotions. And you know, women will watch porn, but how many men are willing to read or watch romances to educate themselves re women's fantasies and desires? And oh yes, the double standard still applies in life - men fantasize that they want a slut, but in the end they don't really respect her if she doesn't play the courtship game. In many ways I think men respect prostitutes more than sluts, because at least with a prostitute you have a transaction - payment is rendered for the sex, whereas a "slut" is just giving it away, and that doesn't ultimately compute in a man's instinctual world where some form of payment has to be made for the sex, whether with money, house, commitment, or so on, not to mention the whole ego stroking game of I made her laugh, I'm great in bed, I won her over stuff. One of the interesting things I saw at the library when we had no restrictions on porn, was after awhile men would get bored with just watching images (and masturbating,) and get into chat rooms, so they could have some sort of actual interaction - the fact is, every man is a predator who's trying to win. And yeah, women having to walk that line of dressing and behaving attractively while not giving away the store is her part of the game. It's a fascinating dynamic that plays out of very deep instincts, which most people don't bother to bring to consciousness. If someone can find a way to make the "porn" that satisfies both sexes then bully for them. But I have a feeling it won't really be porn at that point. Hey Dan, maybe that'll be your mission in life! Ok, pizza guy is here - if he's hot maybe I'll go create a little porn moment for myself... JUST KIDDING. By Jean | 6/29/2006 Dan, you poor kid - double whammied by me and Victoria. I just want you to know I appreciate your willingness to talk about these issues and try to see the female perspective. By ~C4Chaos | 6/29/2006 great discussions peeps. my only lament is that most of the comments seem to be avoiding the real topic of this post: porn in advertising. pornography is a whole new different topic and we can tangent into infinity regarding morality, sexuality, spirituality, etc... the real question that i think we should be discussing (and arguing constructively) here in detail are: is there a place for pornography in advertising? why? how? is it morally compassionate to do so? what are the means of introducing porn into advertising? what are its ends? i'm far from being a prude person. i was probably watching porn already even before Dan was born, but let's not get carried away by discussing and justifying pornagraphy for it's own sake. advertising already "has its evils" enough, how does the addition of porn into adverstising fair on our moral standards? i'll echo the lament of Bob D: "I have mixed feelings about porn, mainly because I wonder whether the actors are being exploited. The thought will often occur to me, usually right as the guy shoots his goo all over the woman's face, that the woman is probably a drug addict who is desperate and doing whatever she can for another fix." for those who are pro porn, check out the PBS feature American Porn, and include that in your perspectives. my two cents. ~C By | 6/29/2006 Thanks Dan for this great thread- FYI: Here is a great example of women making porn with plot etc(although not my taste- still based in lower, lustier energy but still cool to see something different) http://www.joannasangels.com/ By MD | 6/30/2006 Roger Ebert, reviewing Bunuel's classic 1967 film "Belle de Jour": "It is possibly the best-known erotic film of modern times, perhaps the best. That's because it understands eroticism from the inside-out--understands how it exists not in sweat and skin, but in the imagination". Which echoes one of my previous points about porn on the screen having to do with porn's inherent literalness. The crucial point: any screen image (television or film) in order to rise above the level of hack has to become a metaphor. It must stand for something else. The problem faced by screen porn (as well as artists early in their career) is the lack of artful metaphor. In theory, visual porn might work as a drama of archetypal metaphors (involving divine, ravished energies, or masochism, or a number of things). Most doesn't; it is literally what it is. Thus porn in advertising faces a hurdle from the start: to evoke something beyond its mere knocking boots-ness. I might add that the "something beyond" speaks to the value of studying archetypes in art, religion, and culture, through the ages. Jean's entry/thread about the Chair elsewhere on The Woodshed is one such example. By Hannah | 6/30/2006 The Aesthetic Smackdown. So, just to toss this into the mix, y'know, for fun, if I had watched these three pieces and, say, it was in one of my school workshop environments, here is what I'd ask the filmmaker: Who are these people and why should we care about them? Or, if you're going non-narrative, what are you trying to tell us besides what we see on the screen (see Matt's literalness comment)? There doesn't seem to be any subtext. Why did you light it this way? And what did you mean to convey with the lighting? Why do all three pieces have the same soundtrack? How about art-direction? What was your choice, since it looks fairly minimal to me? There's more, but just something to chew on, in terms of looking for 'artistic merit' as they say... By Hannah | 6/30/2006 Oh, and one more thing: Can you talk about your choices in editing? Why are you showing us fast, jumpy cuts of something that we'll see moments later? What's with the reverse motion hair flipping? By Dan | 6/30/2006 ok, this discussion seems to be splitting off into several different threads. I'm going to try to write a few more posts on this, each addressing different aspects of this discussion, and we can continue the discussion under those posts. cool? By Justin Fox | 7/03/2006 Hi all, I'm the person who posted the Shai site on Sex in Art (which I run with my partner Carrie). I'm so glad that intellectual discussions like this exist on the web. Fantastic post Dan(I really enjoyed reading it). In my opinion, spot on about the walls/barriers coming down (or at least getting very blurred!). Everyone has a camera these days and an internet connection... I love it how many share their intimate moments with the world. I love how it's becoming the "norm". It's like some sort of new un-named movement. I hope that with Sex in Art, we generate more visitors like yourselves (as opposed to pimply faced teens who are just looking for porn to masterbate to). Sexy Regards Justin Fox http://www.sexinart.net By leela | 7/03/2006 Hello! Great sharing here! I could write for days on the topic, but what Dan was saying about "sluts" grabbed my attention. I have found it quite liberation to form an emotional connection with a partner who loved me as a person and could still hold a space for me to be what most would perceive as "slutty." I can't speak for all women, but for me there was a sort of claiming back of my primal sexuality that occurred when I was able to begin to explore more of my darker desires. I still hold back out of fear of how I will be perceived, and sometimes out of what could be common sense because I think it’s very important to know what your motivations are if you are going to delve into places of primal fear, pain and ravishment. It’s amazing how much energy, passion and pain can be pent up in our bodies. I love that integral dialogue around these subjects is taking place. Great blog folks! PS Dan, I MISS YOU! Do you still have my e-mail addy?
Post a Comment | Back to The Woodshed
|
|
Subscribe via iTunes
RSS