http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2248 A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:38:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2248/comment-page-1#comment-9535 George Smith Mon, 10 Apr 2006 23:49:35 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2248#comment-9535 Tom, I'm going to have to disagree with you. You ask "when was the last time a pornographer sculpted pornography." The pose, not the medium, is the question here. When was the last time you saw a woman -- whether giving childbirgh or not -- grasping a bearskin rug by the ears with her pelvis arched in the air and her posterior thrust backwards? I bet that it was either (a) on a pornographic calendar; (b) in a pornographic magazine; (c) in a women's underwear advertisement; (d) on an album cover. There's one thing that all of these contexts have in common: sex. Now, the pose is not itself inherently vulgar, but it is, I would argue, in herently sexual and likely to arouse the male viewer, even if only in the sense of reminding him of sex. The focal point of that pose is the woman's genitalia, and so it is a very particular kind of sex -- not the kind where the embrace or the joining is significant, but rather the kind where the entrance is significant. I'm not going to go into more detail, but I think we all "get the picture." http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2248/comment-page-1#comment-9315 Tom Smith Sun, 02 Apr 2006 13:56:29 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2248#comment-9315 "what’s unartistic about a photograph?" I never said that photographs were unartistic. I'm simply saying that visual art is lame when it attempts to copy visual reality exactly, as a photograph does. "I never said it was a 'stupid piece of art.'" I never said that you did. "My criticism is pulling the pro-life movement into it; most pro-lfe groups promote respect for the child AND the mother. A male coworker of mine (not Catholic, pro-lfe, nor particularly religious at all) saw the picture and recoiled at its closeness to pornography. If this is a normal reaction, how is this artwork good for the pro-life movement?" Let me see if I'm reading you correctly. You say that, other than the fact that it depicts childbirth, the sculpture is "anything but pro-life" because it fails to promote respect for mothers due to its highly unrealistic birth posture and similarity to pornographic images? If that's indeed what you're saying, then I have a few points. Firstly, the fact that the image is foremost a depiction of childbirth outweighs any possible details. In looking at Michaelangelo's Last Judgment, for example, what's the most important part? Is it where Christ is seated? Is it the depiction of the boatmen of the river Styx? Is it the nudity of the characters in the painting? Or is it the fact that it's an image of the Last Judgment? I contend that the latter is the most important part. Similarly, in the image of Britney Spears, what is the most important part? Is it the position she's assumed? Is it the bearskin rug? Or is it the childbirth going on? I maintain that it's the childbirth that is the primary and dominant feature of the work, and that it outweighs the other features. Hence, the dominant feature is pro-life, giving us a net result of "pro-life." That all assumes, however, that the secondary features of the image, namely Ms. Spears' supposed pornographic posture, are truly not pro-life because they fail to respect women. I answer that the respect of mothers, though a laudable goal, is not inherent to the pro-life cause. The only essential goal of the pro-life movement is the stoppage of abortion. So, even if it was a piece of art which supported childbirth but argued against mothers, which it isn't, then it still wouldn't be against the pro-life cause. With regard to the pornographic nature of the image, I maintain that the sculpture can only be seen as pornographic by those who would see pornography anywhere -- when was the last time a pornographer *sculpted* pornography? "And the article states that the statue is 'an idealized depiction of Britney in delivery.' Which means to me that the artist, at least, thinks this should be the ideal situation of childbirth to strive for. Please explain how that is not true, because I don’t see how 'ideal' and 'idealized' are 'far different.'" Do you *really* think that the artist believes that women should give birth naked, alone, on a bearskin rug, and in a funny position? That's an insult to the intelligence of the artist. The meaning of "idealized" that the article uses might more appropriately be "romanticized."
I never said that photographs were unartistic. I'm simply saying that visual art is lame when it attempts to copy visual reality exactly, as a photograph does.

"I never said it was a 'stupid piece of art.'"

I never said that you did.

"My criticism is pulling the pro-life movement into it; most pro-lfe groups promote respect for the child AND the mother. A male coworker of mine (not Catholic, pro-lfe, nor particularly religious at all) saw the picture and recoiled at its closeness to pornography. If this is a normal reaction, how is this artwork good for the pro-life movement?"

Let me see if I'm reading you correctly. You say that, other than the fact that it depicts childbirth, the sculpture is "anything but pro-life" because it fails to promote respect for mothers due to its highly unrealistic birth posture and similarity to pornographic images?

If that's indeed what you're saying, then I have a few points. Firstly, the fact that the image is foremost a depiction of childbirth outweighs any possible details. In looking at Michaelangelo's Last Judgment, for example, what's the most important part? Is it where Christ is seated? Is it the depiction of the boatmen of the river Styx? Is it the nudity of the characters in the painting? Or is it the fact that it's an image of the Last Judgment? I contend that the latter is the most important part. Similarly, in the image of Britney Spears, what is the most important part? Is it the position she's assumed? Is it the bearskin rug? Or is it the childbirth going on? I maintain that it's the childbirth that is the primary and dominant feature of the work, and that it outweighs the other features. Hence, the dominant feature is pro-life, giving us a net result of "pro-life."

That all assumes, however, that the secondary features of the image, namely Ms. Spears' supposed pornographic posture, are truly not pro-life because they fail to respect women. I answer that the respect of mothers, though a laudable goal, is not inherent to the pro-life cause. The only essential goal of the pro-life movement is the stoppage of abortion. So, even if it was a piece of art which supported childbirth but argued against mothers, which it isn't, then it still wouldn't be against the pro-life cause. With regard to the pornographic nature of the image, I maintain that the sculpture can only be seen as pornographic by those who would see pornography anywhere — when was the last time a pornographer *sculpted* pornography?

"And the article states that the statue is 'an idealized depiction of Britney in delivery.' Which means to me that the artist, at least, thinks this should be the ideal situation of childbirth to strive for. Please explain how that is not true, because I don’t see how 'ideal' and 'idealized' are 'far different.'"

Do you *really* think that the artist believes that women should give birth naked, alone, on a bearskin rug, and in a funny position? That's an insult to the intelligence of the artist. The meaning of "idealized" that the article uses might more appropriately be "romanticized."]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2248/comment-page-1#comment-9313 Tom Smith Sun, 02 Apr 2006 12:04:39 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2248#comment-9313 pwn3d! u r s0 l33t.
u r s0 l33t.]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2248/comment-page-1#comment-9288 Funky Dung Sat, 01 Apr 2006 13:10:30 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2248#comment-9288 Look at your calendar, Turbo. ;) ]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2248/comment-page-1#comment-9287 Tom Smith Sat, 01 Apr 2006 13:09:47 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2248#comment-9287 there's some kinda weird virus-thing going on here. . . all the comments are now appearing edited with a bunch of funny accents. . . I have no idea what the heck anyone is saying. Is anyone else seeing this? http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2248/comment-page-1#comment-9286 Tom Smith Sat, 01 Apr 2006 13:08:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2248#comment-9286 that was weird. . . how did my comment get all irished up? http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2248/comment-page-1#comment-9249 Stuff Thu, 30 Mar 2006 23:43:03 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2248#comment-9249 Tom, I never said it was a "stupid piece of art." My sister struggles to support herself as an artist, and I never criticized the statue as art. My criticism is pulling the pro-life movement into it; most pro-lfe groups promote respect for the child AND the mother. A male coworker of mine (not Catholic, pro-lfe, nor particularly religious at all) saw the picture and recoiled at its closeness to pornography. If this is a normal reaction, how is this artwork good for the pro-life movement? And the article states that the statue is "an idealized depiction of Britney in delivery." Which means to me that the artist, at least, thinks this should be the ideal situation of childbirth to strive for. Please explain how that is not true, because I don't see how "ideal" and "idealized" are "far different." I never said it was a "stupid piece of art." My sister struggles to support herself as an artist, and I never criticized the statue as art. My criticism is pulling the pro-life movement into it; most pro-lfe groups promote respect for the child AND the mother. A male coworker of mine (not Catholic, pro-lfe, nor particularly religious at all) saw the picture and recoiled at its closeness to pornography. If this is a normal reaction, how is this artwork good for the pro-life movement?

And the article states that the statue is "an idealized depiction of Britney in delivery." Which means to me that the artist, at least, thinks this should be the ideal situation of childbirth to strive for. Please explain how that is not true, because I don't see how "ideal" and "idealized" are "far different."]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2248/comment-page-1#comment-9239 Funky Dung Thu, 30 Mar 2006 18:26:27 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2248#comment-9239 Umm...Tom, what's unartistic about a photograph? http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2248/comment-page-1#comment-9215 Tom Smith Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:47:31 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2248#comment-9215 One of the few interesting tidbits I've learned in the cultural anthropology classes I've had to take is that the position assumed in childbirth is not the same across cultures -- I seem to remember that the most common arrangement is actually a standing position. Stuff, While you may find this a stupid piece of art, as I do, how is it specifically not pro-life? It's art, not a political manifesto. Also, since when is art inherently realistic and ideal? (By the way, the article never stated that this was an ideal depiction of childbirth. It used the word "idealized," which is far different.) Images that attempt to reproduce reality exactly are not art. Art is a visual representation of a verity, not a photograph.
Stuff,

While you may find this a stupid piece of art, as I do, how is it specifically not pro-life? It's art, not a political manifesto. Also, since when is art inherently realistic and ideal? (By the way, the article never stated that this was an ideal depiction of childbirth. It used the word "idealized," which is far different.) Images that attempt to reproduce reality exactly are not art. Art is a visual representation of a verity, not a photograph.]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2248/comment-page-1#comment-9147 Elena Sun, 26 Mar 2006 16:05:25 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2248#comment-9147 Britney Spears had a Cesarean section. It was an elective C-section because Britney was afraid of childbirth. Apparently her mother had told her it was one of the worst experiences of her life and Britney wanted to avoid that. So actually this whole thing is kind of stupid! BTW, when I was attempting to deliver my first daughter at home, her cord prolapsed through. I had to get on my hands and knees with my butt in the air to keep her head from compressing the umbilical cord and depriving her of oxygen. THAT is what this reminds ME of... Britney with a cord prolapse!
BTW, when I was attempting to deliver my first daughter at home, her cord prolapsed through. I had to get on my hands and knees with my butt in the air to keep her head from compressing the umbilical cord and depriving her of oxygen. THAT is what this reminds ME of… Britney with a cord prolapse!]]>