His models all have a sense of realism about them.
Imperfections and all, they are very sexy men -- potent, three-dimensional.
They exhibit many of the common flaws of our era -- over-plucking/shaving and odd tattoos.
But we have to take the rough with the, er, smooth, after all...
I'd better shut up now.
More soon.
7 comments:
What's your definition of pornographer/porn then? These pictures aren't remotely sexual are they?
"Not remotely sexual"?
Are you made of stone?!?!
Perhaps not remotely sexual isn't entirely true (as it is attractive naked flesh) but I would put it more on a par with Page 3 which I wouldn't call porn either. Page 3 is perhaps arguably more sexual as the poses tend to be provacative whereas he looks very relaxed and naturalistic. Isn't porn more something you would wank off to? If anything this is surely more close to art (depending on personal taste). Personally I wouldn't call it erotic as it doesn't really say sex to me, more perhaps a celebration of the human form with the sexual connotation which goes along with that. I wouldn't feel at all uncomfortable for a child to see this (but obviously I would porn).
I wonder if, perhaps, you're not thinking about this just a tad too deeply?
You are often quite serious in your blogs and have quite obviously thought about things deeply yet when responding to comments you are normaly quite flippant - why is that? No, in this context it probably doesn't matter but surely defining what 'porn' actually is, is quite important.
You are of course correct.
The rule I apply, utterly unfairly, is that it's my party and I'll cry if I want to...
Actually, being slightly less flippant for a moment, I'm no longer sure what porn is or whether it's useful to define it. I've banged-on before about the sexualisation of our society: it seems to me that if you have "real" sex and cum shots in a "mainstream" indie film like Shortbus, there really isn't much cultural space left for something that's designed to be solely pornographic.
A while back I tried to persuade the trustees of a supposedly radical foundation to fund someone (not me!) to do a study into these shifting boundary issues but, alas, they were unpersuadable. Or maybe I was rubbish at it. One or the other, anyway.
All of which means I am no closer to the answer.
Perhaps porn is something that only has wank merit and nothing else? I wouldn't call Shortbus porn although a large part of its appeal is it's very adult content but this is enjoyed and enhanced considerably in the context of the film. I wish more films had more sexual realism in them like Shortbus but unfortunately the fim doesn't seem to have opened the floodgates for that as some might have thought. Indeed there doesn't seem to have been anything much like it since which is a bit surprising. Society really can't be ready for it. Probably never will as I can't see what's holding it back now apart from proabably natural human coyness?
Post a Comment