"Sex. In America an obsession. In other parts of the world a fact"

"Sex. In America an obsession. In other parts of the world a fact."

-- Marlene Dietrich

I am breaking one of my new rules for this blog.  I am straying away from art and photography and am going to write about freedom of speech and sexual health.  All of this came from hearing a story on first amendment issues on NPR and then reading a photo/video essay at Slate.com on the differences between the United States and Europe concerning teen condom education and advertisements.

PART 1

Video Game Ad at Ground Zero, NYC - 2010

Here is the story.   The Supreme Court is considering a California law that bans the sale of violent video games to those under 18.  The proponents use the argument that these games are dangerous and should follow the same restrictions as pornography.  The opponents (primarily video game makers) claim this is an infringement of free speech.  Many cite the court's decision earlier this year allowing the sale of crushing videos (where animals are tortured, fought, or crushed to death) as potential precedence.

What the fuck is wrong with this country?  In that last paragraph we basically equated pornography may equal violent video games but is more offensive and damaging than animal snuff films?  I understand two of the issues deal with selling adult content to minors and the third concerns free speech of creating a type of speech that is controversial (and unforgivable in my mind).  If the supreme court decides that violent video games can be sold to minors then they are giving the indirect message of sex is worse than virtual graphic killing and/or the sale of products depicting the ultimate animal cruelty.

I support the bans on selling pornography AND violent video games to minors.  Both bans are easy to get around with the internet and permissive/absent parenting, but at least there is some legal protection.  While the pornography laws have become draconian and suppresses free speech through the evolution of 2257, the original intent has validity.

Once again America has stated, violence is good, sex is bad.


PART 2

Please read and watch the essay on safe sex/condom promotions aimed toward European and American teens.  It is an eye opener.  Here is the link.

I find the European ads (especially the Netherlands) very interesting, humorous, effective, and refreshing in how they accept teen sexuality.  While not promoting it, they want to educate the teen lovers  of what to do when the moment arises.  The two most interesting bits are on slides 12 and 15.  On slide 12 they interview Dutch and American teens about the perception of carrying condoms for both young men and women.  On slide 15, you can see a video I watch regularly to inspire me to use condoms.  I know not all kids are like that and I know that boy needs love too, but I remember being that brat and never want to be responsible for that brat either.

Ok, back to regular programming. In my next post I will write about something photographic or artistic.  Ciao.


More of my writing on these issues.


Stuff about 2257. 

Legs - A celebration - and a new (to me) way to publish my photos

Piernas (Andrea on the hood of my old truck)

 Last Friday I saw a great photo essay by Magnum Photos on the theme of Legs at slate.com.    I remembered Joe making a movie using images of Dr. L and another model and knew I wanted to experiment. This inspired me to try and make a movie out of my photos as well.  Along the way of creating the movie, I discovered a few challenges and some rewards as well.

I went through all my digital or scanned photos and chose some that I believe the legs are the key ingredient to the image.  After some editing and post production work in Lightroom, I was ready to make a movie.

At first I used the online movie-making service at animoto.com.  While this service is free for 30 second videos, longer videos cost a little bit.  I opted to get the one year membership and made a few movies.  It is a very easy tool.  You upload the photos, choose background music from their free library, set a few parameters and then their program does all the work.  In the end you get a slick video with little work.  The downsides are the music selection is limited, you can not put in custom text/credit screens, and their is very little customization.  The video at the very bottom was my first attempt.

After playing in that, I used iMovie on my Mac.  It allows for much more customization and editing.  I could also choose any song from my iTunes library, which I did.   After a good bit of time of editing and putting in transitions and text screens, I made the movie you see here.

I thought loading it would be the easy part.  First I tried blogger's video upload.  While convenient, the output player was way too small.  I then created a youtube account and uploaded it there with very tight privacy settings (unsearchable and not published publicly).  I have a few concerns about posting this video there, but I doubt I will keep it there for long.

This is my second attempt at making this type of video.  I see room for improvement, but I am happy with it as a beginner's effort.  Any feedback is welcome.  So, without further ado, here it is - Piernas Bonitas (Nice Legs).

vimeo version

Piernas Bonitas from Karl B on Vimeo.

blogger version

Piernas - Candace

Owning Up - Part 1

Montana Evening - 050910-1

This is the excellent foppery of the world: that when we are sick in fortune -- often the surfeits of our own behavior -- we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, and stars, as if we were villains on necessity, fools by heavenly compulsion, knaves, thieves, and treachers by spherical predominance, drunkards, liars, and adulterers by an enforced obedience of planetary influence. An admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition on the charge of a star!   

King Lear (Act One Scene 2) - William Shakespeare

Funny how so many of us can't take responsibility for our own actions and messes resulting from them.  We always have to blame it on the poor scapegoat.

"...when we are sick in fortune -- often the surfeits of our own behavior -- we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, and stars..."

The German Parliament even has a fictitious member they created to blame all unpopular decisions on.  His name is Jakob Maria Mierscheid.  Accountability is not worth much anymore I guess. 

Montana Evening - 050910-2

Men do it, women do it.  Gays and straights do it.  All ethnicities do it.  All religions have people of the cloth who do it.  Republicans do it as well as the Democrats do it.  Rich and poor people do it.  The banks are doing it, but the loan borrowers also do it too.  I've done it and am sure I will do it again.  I am also certain everybody else has blamed everything but themselves for something they did or did not do.

Maybe it is a survival instinct, but it is like the boy who falsely cried "wolf" too many times.  Your credibility drops a little at first when you do it and goes into a death spiral if you continue doing it.

Speaking in Another's Voice or Even My Own

LH - 040810 - C

Who gets to write or create other forms of art outside of their own demographic groups?  Can I write a story about a woman, or an Asian immigrant, or a any other person other than a white male?

A dozen years ago my wife and I read She's Come Undone by Wally Lamb.  It is a first-person story of woman from childhood through mid-life.  My wife asked, "Why do male authors writing through a female character always focus so much on their period?"

I thought about it and offered up that men often process visual and physical information and the period is a physical female characteristic.  It is also something we have no first-hand knowledge about so it is a curiosity we want to explore through writing.  These authors often go into detail about the physical manifestations of female arousal as well by including descriptions of wetness and nipple hardness.  I am guessing it is again the physical things we see, but have not experienced.  Few male authors go into the feelings behind these physical items and events.

My wife responded that focusing on these events from a man's view lowers the credibility of the author's writing and character development.  I agreed.

Kathryn Stockett's book, The Help,  takes place in the South during the civil rights movement.  Many of the characters are black housemaids and domestic servants.  Most critics and readers praise the book, but some feel that a white woman can not and should not write in and for the voice of the black woman since she is not of that background and is at best waxing nostalgic and worst writing in a condescending or patronizing way about these issues.

LH - 040810 -DeSC

Dr. L wrote an interesting movie review of The Hurt Locker which is the Oscar winning story of a US ordinance disposal group in the Iraq.  In her review she wrote about how the female director's telling of the story made this movie unique:

"Bigelow handles this grim subject matter with a woman's sensitivity and attention to the smallest details. The story is told by the images - a fly on the eyelashes of a sniper, the defiant faces of people in the street, a peddler of pornographic DVDs set up in a marketplace next to a butcher displaying sides of meat, bright wires spread out like a spiderweb to a ring of deadly explosives. "

and

"I will argue that only a woman's eye could have given us this film"

I've read criticism of The Hurt Locker from ordinance disposal veterans and soldiers stating the themes were sensationalized, hokey, preachy, or off mark.  Some of these criticisms may stem from having to make an entertaining movie and some due to the political views and focus of the director and story.  Should a woman tell the story of men in war?  If yes, why is that acceptable?



So, with all of these opinions and criticisms, when is it acceptable to write or create art in a non-native voice?  Even if the quality of the product is lauded, some may feel it is not right since the creator can not correctly produce work since she/he is not part of that community. 

I find this challenge to acceptance very challenging in my art  due to being a white male.  When I tried to create something from a different voice, I received the criticism listed above.  When I created something from my own voice that has erotic or nude content, I've been challenged that my work exhibits the (white) male's gaze.  It is part of the dominant culture's work, so it is not new and  perpetuate white male dominance in culture or even repress the voices and objectify other groups.

LH - 040810 -BW

In a recent discussion/portfolio review, a female artist showed her work consisting of an erotic nature.  Some of her work was similar to mine and other male photographers work I've seen.    I showed some of my photos of Candace and received reviews and criticism.  I am open to how others view my work because art is a subjective personal experience.  I appreciated the interpretations.  I had to ask though, why is Victoria's photos of similar themes accepted differently than mine?  The answer was because I am a man and my motivation and message was different than hers due to my gender (which I do not argue against).  That is probably true, but why is my art criticized as being of less value?  No direct answer was given, but being part of the dominant cultural voice (white male), my work is not innovative for my background and hers is.

Can I create art that comes from my artistic voice even though that voice is of an unpopular majority member?  I was told if I continue with these streams of art during an MFA program, I would be challenged and have a difficult educational journey.  I could create art with environmental, economic, bends with little problem since they tend to be gender/race free.  I could try creating erotic art with a queer theme, but would be challenged since I am not gay.  My acceptable themes appear to be much narrower than other groups' since the history of white men have spoken enough about them.

So what?  Maybe it is time to create the "unacceptable."  Isn't that part of the purpose of art is to push what is acceptable or even break it?  If a woman wants to make a war movie, she should go for it and create the best she can.  If I want to create art that is either outside of who I am or deeply inside my identity, I can do it because that is the art I need to make.  It may not have an audience now, or never that appreciates it, but that is not my purpose for creating it.  Sometimes art is naive and needs to grow up to be relevant.  Sometimes it is the world that needs to grow up and stop limiting thoughts of old issues in order to appreciate the art.

Boundaries, Definitions, Intersections...

 Leila and Hana

Over the weekend I watched a movie that pushed the boundaries of erotica, pornography, and definition titled, 9 Songs.  It is a short movie about a young couple in England and their sex life through their relationship and over the course of 9 songs.   Both the sex scenes and the icy Antarctic landscape are beautifully filmed.

The scenes grow increasingly erotic, graphic, and by one point shows full penetration and male ejaculation.  Is it pornographic, hardcore, erotica, art?  Can it be all of these?  Can art be pornographic or pornography be art?

This is not the first time these questions have been asked. Bob Guccione's Caligula and John Cameron Mitchell's Shortbus pushed these same issues to the question.  Can graphic, actual sex captured through various media rise up to be art? 

Dr. L recently wrote in her blog:

Anyone who has watched porn films, even classics like "Behind the Green Door," will notice the complete lack of authentic emotion. So, for me, high emotion vs. the lack of convincing emotion separates erotica from pornography.

The balancing act, the success or failure to stop just short of going too far, determines whether it is erotica or pornography.

In a comment to her post, I wrote:

That goes back to the classic line that I am going to poorly paraphrase, "I can't define what pornography is, but I know it when I see it." I think this boundary between erotica and pornography varies from person to person and between cultures.

I like your concept of needing real emotion between the people in the photo/video to help make it erotica. I hadn't thought of that, but I think that hits the nail on the head.

When I saw Mr. and Mrs. Smith, staring the ever sexy Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, I could tell there was a real passion between them. Even though it was a tongue-in-cheek movie, their emotions and desire for each other made it white-hot for me. It was real.

After seeing 9 Songs, I've decided that it is (for me) pornography, erotica and it maybe even has artistic merit.  The characters have a complex, caring relationship and their sex is not the usual cliche crap you find in standard commercial porn.  It feels like you are watching two people connect physically and emotionally. 

For me it is the intent of the piece that makes it erotic, pornographic, artistic or all of these and more.  If the creator's intent is to go beyond just shock, awe, and titillation, and to try to put an artistic statement on it, then it is difficult to dismiss as just porn.  I don't see all pornography as being without merit or purposes other than  masturbatory eye candy.  It can be art and erotica.

Since seeing my first Playboys, Penthouses and occasional Hustlers, through the porn videos of the 90's and the boom of porn on the internet, I've seen lots of porn.  During all those experiences, I've seen some pornography that I feel is art.  I believe some of the images I captured of Leila and Hana are pornographic.  I also consider them artistic and erotic.  One of the reasons I feel they are more than porn was my, and their, intent.  I wanted to capture graphic moments that when seen together in a series shows not only the tender and caring relationship of these two women, but also the intense physical way they celebrated it.

Some believe, including me, that subtlety and leaving things to the imagination can be more erotic than explicit depictions.  I also believe  sometimes we need to see the "whole monty."  This is true whether it is sex, war, poverty, domestic violence, and other real life issues.  If we did not see the bodies of victims killed in the name civil rights, fascism, communism, genocide, crime, drugs and other atrocities, we would not have been moved to act.  The same goes for poverty and other tough topics.  They pushed our comfort and made us think of how to react.

All of this makes me believe that what most, including myself, consider pornography can also be acceptable art and important to be created. Is sex that taboo and should we only be limited to accepting violent graphic imagery as art?

Nudophobia - another story

 The Quiet Times

I read an interesting article over at What We Saw Today about the conservative fear of nude art aptly named by Dr. L as "nudophobia."   It made me think of my own experiences exhibiting nude photos.


As I've mentioned in past articles, I had a business.  It was half high-end hair salon and half art gallery.  I was in charge of the art gallery, one of my partners who was a stylist managed the salon, and her boyfriend/other partner managed the business end.

Every month we would switch out the art and have an artist's reception.  In February, we decided to have a mixed media show (paintings, sculptures, glass work and photos) of nudes to coincide with Valentine's day.  None were explicit, some were erotic and all were good art.

I posted three of my nudes and sold one and traded one.  A number of the other artists sold pieces as well.  It was the second best money making exhibit for our little gallery.  The customers liked it, the stylists liked it and I never heard a complaint.  We decided we would do the same thing next year.

A few months later, the local artists community organization sponsored their annual event called "open studios."  Every participating artist put one piece up at the organization's gallery as a token of their work and then held a show at their own studio.  My business offered to host three artists plus myself since we did not have studios to exhibit in.  Two of us had nude works along with non-nudes to show.  I was in charge of hanging all the work which took seven hours.

Lines to Her Heart

The next day I came in and all the nude works were down and a few pieces were haphazardly shifted so that the whole flow of the exhibit was ruined.  I was fucking furious.  I went to my partners and asked,"What the fuck did you do?"

The stylist partner said a couple of the other stylists complained about the nudes and she felt they were not appropriate pieces.  I countered with the fact that the nudes were less risque than the ones we had at the Valentine's exhibit and they had no problems with them.  She then said, "Yeah, but that was a special Valentine's show.  This show is supposed to be about the local art community.  We don't want to offend our staff and customers."  I asked who complained and she would not tell me.

I was so mad at her for undoing my area of ownership and responsibility  at her whim.  I never told her how to run the salon,  how dare she change my work without consulting with me first.  I told her all that.  She said  she had to work there all day and did not want to have to deal with comments.  What comments?  At that moment, I knew the partnership was mortally wounded.  I told her that I relinquished all artistic choice for future shows and would only hang work and sell art.  She said that wasn't fair.

Just typing all this makes me mad about it again.  This time though it makes me mad that the belief by her and others was nude art is only acceptable around a holiday that celebrates erotic love.  Once again, nudity equals sex.

Look at the photo I posted of Candace Nirvana yesterday titled Holding the Moment.  Candace is beautiful.  She is nude.  That photo is not erotic.  It is actually tough for me to look at and I love it for that.  I feel pain when I see it.

Dali and Nirvana 4

With all that bitching out now, I have to share a glimmer of hope.  I've talked about the photography classes I took at the local public community college.  In the studio course, a number of photographers experimented working with nude models.  I had the honor of having the photo of Candace below titled Dali and Nirvana 4 hung in the department's gallery and then in the college library's gallery, where it is currently exhibited.  I am proud to have my name and the title on a little card stuck under it.  I am proud of that little college and its acceptance of nudity and art.


Photo note - I feel this photo from the Dali and Nirvana series is erotic and is art.  I doubt my former partner would have wanted that one hanging in our business either.  The nude photos I wanted to exhibit, but were removed, are the two above - Lines to Her Heart, and The Quiet Times.

Part 1 - The Rights of the Model Part 2 - The Rights of Subjects?

 My Little Lady

Very interesting series of posts written by Dr. L and Alex over at What We Saw Today concerning the rights of the model and the acknowledgment they deserve.  While I think both parties need to be fairly acknowledged, will this push move beyond models?

Part 1 

Without the hard work and gifts of the models I've worked with, my photos would be nothing.  I greatly appreciate them and give them the credit I can.  Along with paying their modeling fees, I also send them a cd with the images I find good enough for their own promotional use.  If I ever make a great amount of money off of an image, I will share a fair portion with the model since we made the art

As I wrote in my comments to one of the posts, 

"While sharing the credit for the contributions of both the model and photographer to the final piece is crucial, it must also be decided upon before the art is created. Both sides need to stop making assumptions on where the credit of the creativity belongs. It is important to decide these issues in the planning discussions before the first click of the camera shutter."

Two of the models I've worked with have specified in writing in the model release they want to know where I will exhibit, post or publish any images of the images they appear in.  Neither stated they would limit the usage of the images, just wanted awareness of their placement.  I've always honored their requests because it was the right thing to do and was in the contract.  One thing I suggest to all models and photographers is to make these decisions before the shoot, not after.  To be honest, I would be upset if a model wanted to add restricting or additional rights sharing clauses after the photo shoot.  That is why I will from now on send future models I work with my model release before the session so we can negotiate language changes.

Alex made an interesting comment about painting versus photographing a model.

Let's go back to the world of photography. Most nude photographers regard themselves as artists, and indeed they are, but photography is a very different art form from painting or sculpting. It really relies heavily on the active participation of another person, the model - unless of course the photographer only shoots landscapes or objects or is a street photographer, shooting subjects rather than models.

The input of the model is much more significantly tangible in an art photograph than it is in a painting. The photographic model has every right to be acknowledged, i.e., named. And yes, s/he should be entitled to share the copyright of the image and have rights to its reproduction. All sorts of restrictions can be put in place, of course, so that the image is not further processed or manipulated by anyone else once it is finalised, but share of copyright simply means that the authorship is shared.

There is a part of this I agree with concerning the art model's role in creating the image.  To paraphrase my statement above, my photographs with models would be empty without them and have no meaning or purpose.  They added crucial and very necessary contributions to the shared creation of those pieces

I am not sure how I feel about some of the subtle subtext in this statement that I am reading into it. This statement makes me think that Alex has a different opinion on the artistic contribution, creativity and role of the photographer in creating an image compared to a painter or sculptor.  I could photograph a nude and make a beautiful print of it or I could create a painting from the image, yet it feels like I am judged more as an artist by picking up the brush, not loading the image into the enlarger.  Maybe I am being defensive, but I feel the battle for recognition of photographer as artist is still not over.  Is it because of the ultra-realism of photography? 

I have a question about the rights of models who work with painters and sculptors.  What if a painter created a piece that was nothing like the model posed for, but was a graphic sexually explicit crotch shot painting with the model's face clearly visible and identifiable.  Does the model have a right to recourse?  I think the painter broke the trust of the relationship, but since the artist created a visual moment that did not exist, what can the model do?


Part 2

"... It really relies heavily on the active participation of another person, the model - unless of course the photographer only shoots landscapes or objects or is a street photographer, shooting subjects rather than models."  Alex from What We Saw Today

With the recent technology enabling everybody to take photos, people are taking more snaps of everything, everywhere, at all times.  Will subjects (or the owners of) soon be demanding profits and rights for the images?

I found this page at the National Park Service website about photography permits for professional photographers.  I can understand wanting a permit system if the park will have to provide extra personnel and/or will need to clean up or fix things after a photo shoot.  I am troubled that I  need to get the permit even if I am not requiring any more park resources compared to amateur photographers.  What is interesting that painters do not need these permits.

The most disturbing line (to me) at the website is:

In addition, the National Park Service has been directed by Congress to collect a fee to provide a fair return to the United States for the use of park lands.

I may be getting paranoid and probably will need to move back to Montana and live in the middle of nowhere worrying about black helicopters, but I am starting to think everybody is going to want a cut on anything produced by anybody.  Will there be a time when I will either have to pay a fee to San Francisco for photographing the Golden Gate Bridge, Alcatraz, or Coit Tower because I may make money with them?  Will I have to pay Yosemite National Park royalties on images of Half Dome that I sell?

At this point I have to ask, will painters, poets, sculptors, musicians, mixed media artists have to go through the same hoops?

Percieving Art - a really long one... beware

 

Katie 022110 - Negative Neighbor 1

After reading a very elequont and well written articles by Dr. L. over at What We Saw Today about the future of art, I got to thinking about the relationship between perceiving art personally and how we learn as individuals.   We all perceive things differently and that affects how appreciate create and learn.  How will our ability to perceive art in the future define what art will become? 

One learning theory emphasizes the different types of learners and trying to meet their needs. According to Howard Gardner, people learn best through one or more methods of interaction with the subject.  Gardner came up with a list of eight multiple intelligences with a couple more to consider as additional avenues.  The big eight are:

1. Bodily- kinesthetic - learning better by involving muscular movement (e.g. getting up and moving around into the learning experience), and are generally good at physical activities such as sports or dance.
2. Interpersonal -  people who have a high interpersonal intelligence tend to be extroverts, characterized by their sensitivity to others' moods, feelings, temperaments and motivations, and their ability to cooperate in order to work as part of a group.
3. Verbal - linguistic - People with high verbal-linguistic intelligence display a facility with words and languages. They are typically good at reading, writing, telling stories and memorizing words along with dates. They tend to learn best by reading, taking notes, listening to lectures, and discussion and debate. They are also frequently skilled at explaining, teaching and oration or persuasive speaking.
4. Logical - mathematical - While it is often assumed that those with this intelligence naturally excel in mathematics, chess, computer programming and other logical or numerical activities, a more accurate definition places emphasis on traditional mathematical ability and more reasoning capabilities, abstract patterns of recognition, scientific thinking and investigation, and the ability to perform complex calculations.
5. Interpersonal - People with intrapersonal intelligence are intuitive and typically introverted. They are skillful at deciphering their own feelings and motivations.
6. Visual - spatial - People with strong visual-spatial intelligence are typically very good at visualizing and mentally manipulating objects. They have a strong visual memory and are often artistically inclined.
7. Musical - Those who have a high level of musical-rhythmic intelligence display greater sensitivity to sounds, rhythms, tones, and music. They normally have good pitch and are able to sing, play musical instruments, and compose music. Since there is a strong auditory component to this intelligence, those who are strongest in it may learn best via lecture.
8. Naturalistic - This area has to do with nurturing and relating information to one's natural environment.  Those with it are said to have greater sensitivity to nature and their place within it, the ability to nurture and grow things, and greater ease in caring for, taming and interacting with animals. They may also be able to discern changes in weather or similar fluctuations in their natural surroundings. They are also good at recognizing and classifying different species. They must connect a new experience with prior knowledge to truly learn something new.

 -Wikipedia

I would say I perceive things best using my visual - spatial and musical intelligences with a touch of the naturalistic as well.  I also recognize times when the other ones work for me, but these are my key ways I perceive and create things. 

Katie 022110 - Negative Neighbor 2

 

How we perceive art is as deeply personal as how we experience food, sex, attraction, revulsion, and any other life experience, different strokes for different folks.  Can you tell me what blue looks like?  You can list examples of blue things, elaborate on how it makes you feel, and even tell me which wavelengths in the visual spectrum are assigned to the blue hues.  Thankfully art is easier to discuss how we perceive it, but I know your explanation of your perceptions of art contain only a small amount of what you experienced, felt, and interpreted into them.

The visual-still arts are the most concrete to describe and elaborate on.  You can spend time with the piece to interpret it for your own consumption.  Your eyes can gaze on each part as long as needed.  If you can touch it, then you can touch it as long as needed as well.  For some art, a second is only needed, for other art, a lifetime.  What I appreciate about this form is that I can come back to it and digest bits of the piece or the whole thing as I need to.   This type of art has a very slow temporal life, limited by the length of the show, life of the viewer, or the decomposition, fading, or erosion of the piece.  Last month I saw the Pantheon in Rome.  It will probably be there the next time I see it.  It will be around after me and has been around for thousands of years before me.

Performance/moving art with a visual component is the next most concrete.  You are absorbing sight, sound, movement, action and other sensations to form your own version of the narrative.  With all this though, it is temporal.  The dancer's move, the actor's line, and the dialogue are gone after they are performed.  Only our memory (or a rewind button) allows us to experience it again.  During that instant though, our visual and auditory worlds have to be open to receive all the information we are going to get.  We are living in the temporal existence of the piece.

Music is the most abstract, for me.  I play music, love it and try to have it around me all the time.  It has some similarities to visual moving/performance art.  The temporal existence is a challenge since it lasts only as long as the note is held.  When the music stops, the perceiving time is done.  We are left only with our memories and feelings created by the music to create an interpretation.  A challenge unique to music and other auditory arts is the lack of all senses involved other than hearing.  I can't use anything other than my ears to capture what happened.

I love both listening and playing this piece - the tuba line is the best at  5:17 to 6:48 - I  get chills hearing and playing that part.


Another challenge with instrumental music (and dance) is the lack of words.  Everything exists in a temporal moment and demands the audience to truly make their own interpretation of the moment.  Music with lyrics may be abstract, but by listening to the words and how they flow with the music, I can get a deeper sense of the creator's message.

Flamenco music and dance flow with a passion that always stirs my heart, loin and spirit.  It can be inspire and heartbreaking all at once.


With all the above said, I have to go back to Dr. L's post.

Art is real. Its essence cannot be conveyed by pixels. The story of its time and place and purpose and moment resides in its physical package, the medium.

and

This is serious business if we come to accept a virtual gallery as a primary venue to show any kind of art. Nad's words "quickly forgotten" tell us all we need to know. We are not talking about just the end of literature. We are talking about the end.

I can see her point, but don't feel it is as widespread or absolute as may be feared.  If all art becomes an online gallery, it will be the death of art.  That wont happen though.  Viewing live sports events on location is still a preferred experience over watching it live on TV.  The televised version is probably closer to the action than the person in the stands, but experiencing it live is truly a richer experience.  Overall, I think people will always prefer the real thing to the recorded/digital version.

I think the impact of the internet on art, and any other form of communication and information, is similar to the printing press and the first recorded sounds.  Before printed words, all books were hand-written and most stories were passed down through oral traditions.  Before recorded sound, all music was experienced by live performers.  The temporal moment made it a cherished treat.  Within one minute, I can listen to pretty much any audio thing I want because of the ease of the internet.  While I may enjoy hearing Bach or Bachman Turner Overdrive through my computer speakers, listening to the real thing live is much better.  Seeing Ansel Adams Moonrise Over Hernandez on my screen reminds me of when I saw a real print of it, but since I don't have $40,000 to buy one, the virtual experience is better than none.

In considering the future of art, we always need to look at the technologies available to the artist.  Early photography was not considered art.  To make it more artistic, the pictorial photographer tried to emulate painted art.

Pictorialism largely subscribed to the idea that art photography needed to emulate the painting and etching of the time. Most of these pictures were black & white or sepia-toned. Among the methods used were soft focus, special filters and lens coatings, heavy manipulation in the darkroom, and exotic printing processes

Wikipedia

Along came Edward Weston, Ansel Adams, and many other photographers stating, "bullshit" to the idea that photography had to emulate other arts of the time.  They defined a new genre of art that emphasized contrast, tonality, and clarity of image.  They created the concept or philosophy of the fine art print. In a previous post I wrote about a digital photography pioneer who challenging the concept that the traditional fine print is truly the only fine art photograph.  In the future, we may look back at the fine prints created by film photographers as garish, over-saturated, and with too much contrast.  Who sees true black in the real world?

It took some time and now photography is widely accepted and appreciated as an art form.  Very few cutting-edge artists exploring new media will have their art considered seriously in their lifetime.  This is the challenge of the new artists who is inventing the new art.

In the future, there will be new types of art that solely live in the digital world.  They may have no tactile, permanent existence. They will only be exhibited, performed, and created in the digital world of electrons and pixels.  We will only be able to absorb it through the machine that it lives in and puts it out onto the device we use to interact with it.  That same device may be what we use for communication, making lists, and doing our taxes.  Like music, they may be temporal and live only within one sense.   It may become something like a holographic universe that we absorb virtually through a connection to a computer.  Imagine if you could create a piece of art that a person could truly enter and be surrounded by to experience it.

Candace Nirvana 022110

All of this does not mean the death of art as we know it.  As Dr. L stated:

In the beginning was NOT the word, despite what we've been told. In the beginning was the image - those we saw before our eyes, and those we filed inside our heads.

Humans have been transferring images to walls for thousands of years.  We have been banging things together to create music and dance to a rhythm.  The piano, while made with better materials and engineering, is basically the same as the first pianofortes from centuries ago.  Every time a new form of art or technology/technique in art is created, we must make one of five choices, ignore it, accept it, accept parts of it and use it with the old methods, alter it for something even newer, or try to destroy it for all others.  There is some music I can barely consider music, so I ignore it or avoid it.  I've accepted using a digital camera.  I want to try making silver prints from digital negatives.  I would love to try taking digital photographs of my thoughts someday and push the format further.  I will always speak out about art that promotes hatred and persecution like many speak out about the nude art we create as dangerous.

In conclusion, humans will always need to create art and to experience it in whatever way is best for the individual.  Some will be tactile, or aural, or visual, or a mix of all the senses and types of intelligence.  Some will be using methods we can not fathom yet and others will be using the oldest techniques of art, a simple smudge on a flat surface.  Art is not going to die from new methods of exhibitions.  If it dies, it will be from others suppressing the artist's ability to make it.

A New(s) Cause

Photographer Unknown

America is in a shouting match and now there is a new screaming cheerleader. From the New York Times.

Sarah Palin to Contribute to Fox News.
Former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska has signed on as a contributor to the Fox News Channel.

This is not a post to rant about Ms. Palin or Fox News. This is a free country and as much as their views go against mine, they have a right to spew them. This post is about my supporting the news outlets I find of value.

The conservatives have Fox, Rush Limbaugh and many other broadcast or cable outlets. They also have numerous print and online offerings as well. Through these outlets, they are able to effectively get out their core message through simplistic sound bytes and yelling to their core audience and those sitting on the fence on many issues. By being the loudest and most entertaining, many viewers absorb and believe what they say. They come to believe that these are credible news outlets. As Ms. Palin said:

“I am thrilled to be joining the great talent and management team at Fox News. It’s wonderful to be part of a place that so values fair and balanced news,”

The progressives have the small radio group of Air America, which can be as vitriolic as Limbaugh and crowd. They like to do the shout down as well. I guess MSNBC also has a left lean and is an interesting sparring partner for FOX News. There are many left-leaning online and print outlets that are potential resources.

The problem though is that so many of these outlets take the issues the conservatives are raging on and fight back. That may be of value, but so much news is getting neglected by both sides.

Our country is getting too distracted by all the yelling and losing sight of the facts. The conservatives are the best at finding one little point and then blowing it out of proportion as a major speaking point. If someone disagrees, they are yelled down and labeled as "unpatriotic." I can also say the same things about the yelling liberal media as well, except the label is probably, "fascist." Why are we allowing ourselves to be distracted by the grain of sand issue at the cost of ignoring the whole damn beach?

Personally, I try to avoid these sources for that reason. I need more news, less viewpoints from pundits. Online, I like to read SLATE. It, and its sister sites, cover everything from news, culture, science, entertainment and politics. I also get a chance to read Doonesbury as well. They have a good news aggregator that collects the headlines to other news sources with links to the stories. My main source of news though is National Public Radio.

My local station is the San Francisco flagship KQED which provides both PBS (television) and NPR, radio. Through listening to NPR during my commute, I feel I am getting a liberally slanted news source that cares about the news. They do offer some analysis and opinions, but mainly news. I also appreciate how they also broadcast the BBC news so I can get a little bit more of a global view.

I am a pretty smart guy. I know I don't know everything, but I do know I need to learn more before forming my own opinions about things. Too many people listen to the pundits as news, not the news then the pundits, as their information resources. We need to learn the facts and sadly we aren't.

"..."

Many may feel that this ignorance of issues does not affect them. It does. While so many are happy to watch Simon Cowel anoint the next idol we must worship, things are getting done by those who follow the news and use our distraction against us. So much of the sick stuff in the Patriot Act is buried in the language. The same goes for 2257 and other forms of censorship. Look at other personal rights issues and you can see so much happened "under the radar", but hey, Taylor Swift and Lady Gaga are singing next.

This is why I just became a financial supporter of KQED. If I don't support what I ... err... support, then my words are meaningless. I just read Dr. L's post about the need for print media and how Carrie Leigh's Nude magazine is succeeding. I plan to subscribe to that as well. Information is not always free, I am proud to support it through work or money where I can. I suggest you do the same. If you find content that feeds your needs for information, support it so it does not disappear under all the yelling from the mainstream.

What is too far and or too soon? Part 2

Iteration 7
Photo by Karl

In a previous post I asked how does society and culture define when a subject is too far "over the line" or is "too soon" after a major event. In these two posts, I am not giving an answer since I am an individual, not the society. I could tell you what I think is too far or too soon, but you can disagree.

I wrote this lengthy post the same day I wrote part 1 from this series. David from Speaking Truth gave a response the next day that applies to both days' posts. Dave wrote:

Your question: "What is too far, or too soon?" is as vague a question as, What is art and what is porn?, or What is art and what is crap?
Each of us has a set idea in our heads.
One must go back to the basics. If it is created by someone to spark an interest, be that a good or bad interest, it becomes art. I don't seperate art from porn. I have my own ideas about what I consider porn, but is also art. So I take things, whether I like them or not as being art. But there is poor art as well. Art does not cease to be because it was done poorly, it just makes it bad art. And as an artist I feel that other artists have the right to create anything they want. There should be no limits set on what is too far as long as others are not hurt in the process. If you want to create an image of a woman being raped (and she is not actually being raped) go for it. It is not hurting anyone. If some person thinks it is terrible, they don't have to look at it.
Too soon?
Well, you can't hurt Michael Jackson's reputation so I say there can't be too soon with that one. That may have been a poor example, but once again the creator of a joke is somewhat of an artist also and why should that person be put under restrictions. There were more jokes around my hometown about Michael Jackson years before he was dead than there is now, so why should we have a moment of silence just because he died?
If you are going to say it is too soon, or too far, you are putting a restriction on something based on what someone else thinks is too soon or too far and that makes no sense to me. If you want to put a self restriction on your work as the artist based on your own feelings, then pick what is comfortable for you.
And to hell with what others think.

Some groups would say my photo of Candace is too extreme because of the nudity. They may also say the photo of Leila and Hana kissing is wrong because it shows homosexual content. We wont even go into what they may think of the more graphic photos of Leila and Hana.

Leila and Hana - The Kiss
Photos by Karl

Others may find these photos no where near any line and not edgy at all. This other group may even think it is tame, cliche and boring. They may think that the edge of erotic art is what most consider porn and/or BDSM and other "extreme" activities.

Getting There
Photo by Karl
(Note, photo take in May, 2004, well before March, 2009)

Which of these two groups are right? From where you stand, you don't think you are "in the extreme." You may know you stand away from the crowd, but you feel your beliefs are correct. Most groups believe the others are the ones that are over the line or are wrong.

Almost There
Photo by Karl
(Note, photo take in May, 2004, well before March, 2009)

I've shown my erotic nudes and artistic nudes to various people. I've been praised by many for both and have been looked down upon by a few as well. I wont get into what each group believed about my photos or their motivation for their beliefs. That alone could take pages of analysis. What is important is both groups believe they are right.

There
Photo by Karl
(Note, photo take in May, 2004, well before March, 2009)

Now, how do we, as a society decide what is right or wrong. I know that overall, most citizens of the world will agree on the same boundaries. Murder, rape, child abuse, starvation, genocide, and child slavery are easy examples. What is difficult is defining an overall consensus for everyone as a group. In my opinion, that overall consensus on gray issues is impossible.

I work and live in the San Francisco area. In my office, there are three gays and lesbians that are married to their partners. There are many other openly gay employees. While I can't speak for everyone in the 100+ group of employees, most people are supportive and are happy or don't really think about it. How would those same couples be viewed in an office in Bakersfield, CA? How about Billings, MT, New York City or Tallahassee, Fl?

I used to hunt when I was a teenager. Even though I haven't hunted in almost twenty years, I do believe in the environmental need for it and understand how it is a part of the culture I grew up in. The few times I've shared these views with the people around here, they seem to feel uncomfortable and awkward at the least and upset in more extreme cases. I guess the reason they feel that way may be due to the lack of exposure to the culture I grew up in. If they grew up where it is common to be a hunter, they may be more comfortable with it due to a familiarity with it.

Just Two
Does it stop being porn if it is in black and white?
Photo by Karl

This familiarity maybe a key to my question, how do we define too far or too soon? The SF area may be more accepting about gay/lesbian culture because we are exposed to it regularly and it is becoming an accepted part of our geographical culture. The same is true about hunting and my Montana upbringing, familiarity helps things become normal.

Ok, that is just peachy. Through building familiarity we can build tolerance. What if we build a tolerance to pollution or racism or other social ills because it is part of our culture and is familiar, is that wrong? Yes. Through this, you can see how both the supporters and opposition to nude photos and other "edgy" art can feel their way of life is threatened. I am not saying it is right, just that you may be able to see why they feel threatened.

I feel threatened by the heavy hand of 2257, the Patriot Act, and many other scary laws. I feel those are threatening what I am familiar with and feel is acceptable. To the supporters of those views, they feel the opposite threat.

Now for the final question for this series? What is either one of the purposes or the purpose of art? Part of the post modern art movement emphasizes that the content is more important than the artistic or technical qualities of the art. With this belief, Robert Frank showed us the alienation and loneliness of the USA through his book, The Americans. Andy Warhol created art that made us look at the everyday mundane things like a soup can and by twisting our perception of it, change how we view these things. Diane Arbus, definitely not one of my favorites, showed us that portraits of people did not have to be pretty. She made us feel awkward looking at her photos. Her art evoked emotions from us by emphasizing the subject and the message, not how beautiful the print is. I could write about the beautiful and agonizing work of Salgado, the inflaming works by Mappelthorpe and Andres Serrano, but you get the point. Isn't one of the main purposes of art to push our boundaries?

"When People look at my pictures I want them to feel the way they do when they want to read a line of a poem twice." - Robert Frank

So, to come back full circle, what is too far or too soon? If I am an artist and I want to push the viewer's boundaries, how far can I go? I guess I can always find some niche group that will accept my photos and praise them (or despise them), but to make a big change, I have to be willing to take heat and derisive comments when showing my photos beyond the culture I am familiar with. As David said:

If you want to put a self restriction on your work as the artist based on your own feelings, then pick what is comfortable for you.
And to hell with what others think.

So, I am starting to think about where I want my art to go. In the future, not all of them will be pretty or easy to look at. Maybe I am feeling a post modern need to get messages out rather than beauty.

I like it when somebody looks at my art and it makes them think. I bet most artists like that.

What is too far and or too soon? Part 1

Learn Me

Photo by Igor Amelkovich

I recently saw a series of photos showing erotic, sensual romantic love, passionate erotic sex, aggressive controlling sex, and violent domestic abuse with possible rape. Many agreed the content in the last photo illustrated the horrors of domestic violence.

In another venue, I saw someone joking about Michael Jackson's death. That person was chastised by the audience members shouting, "Too soon!"

At what point does culture decide that something is appropriate or has stepped over the line? In the same way, how does culture decide that enough time has passed that we can look at an event more objectively and maybe even with humor?

In a recent photography class, we had an assignment to photograph veterans. During the critique, we all gushed over how stoic, anguished, powerful, heroic, and great each photo was. Some of the subjects were in current service, others older and retired. There were men and women of different races and ages. We all gushed.

At one point the instructor, a Vietnam War veteran, asked, "Is it because of the subject matter that we can not criticize the photos?" He had a point. Were we afraid to criticize the quality of the image, the subject, the composition, and other aspects because we may fear it would reflect our inner beliefs about veterans? Are veterans so revered that we must soften our attitudes out of deference to their sacrifice and service?

Their was an episode of Seinfeld where Jerry and his girlfriend could never find time alone. The only time they could was while at a movie. They made out during Schindler's List. The girlfriend's family found out and were disgusted by the lack of respect for the movie. For a show about nothing, they brought up an interesting point about freedom of thought and speech. Can the holocaust, September 11th, or any other tragedy be joked about? If yes, when, how, why, and by whom?

Now, let us talk about sex. What is too far? We know the old statement about porn, "I know it when I see it." Some see erotica and art, others see porn. I may be a freak, but I've seen erotica that was not art and porn that was.

Her Favorite
Photo by Igor Amelkovich

In a relationship, what is defined as right for the couple may be defined as "too much" or "too far" by culture. Which is right? At what point is bondage abusive? What if I put a blindfold on my lover and then kissed, massaged, tickled, and pleasured her with my mouth? What if I did that same thing but she was blind folded and softly tied up with silk bows? What if I pinned her arms under my hands? What if they were leather straps? What if I was pinching? What if she wanted and desired this? At what point does the transfer of power in a relationship, sexual or not, constitute abuse? Let us ask the same questions if the roles were reversed and I was the submissive one? Is it OK if the submissive is male?

Kinbaku
Photo by L0chai

This then brings up the question, why does the submissive partner want to be treated like this? What is his/her history? If their was prior abuse, does that make it absolutely wrong to act on it? If there was no abuse, just curiosity and desire, does that make it right?

Let us look at the roles of the stripper and the client. Men going to a strip club are seen as "dogs" at the worst and "shallow" at the least. Bachelor parties with strippers are looked down upon, but are understood as a "traditional objectification of women" right of passage. Married guys going once, or continually to strip clubs are leches and unfaithful.

How about the reverse? What are the perceptions of women seeing male strippers? How about the bachelorette party? Married women going to see the Chippendale dancers? Some say it is wrong and disgusting. Others celebrate that women can finally celebrate their sexuality and desires. It brings equality to the misogynistic history of the men going to see strippers. At that point though, isn't it misanthropic?

Restrained
Photo by D Photos

I am a libertarian on most of these issues. What floats your equally accepted and desired boats is your business. That is true for most things, but I have to take issue when we delve into the reasons we desire such things. At that point, when is it OK to go too far or when is it too soon or soon enough to go into taboo areas?

Up Time
Photo by Dee Selaris

I've posted a gamut of photos here, one mine, most not. Some may seem tame and some may be defined as violent or abusive. At which point did they cross the line? I know I have my own definitions for that line, but how do we as a society decide where to put that line?

That Time
Photo by Karl

Word, man... word.

Faint "Fucker"
Photo by SB

Here is an interesting article about "why it is so hard to put sex in the dictionary." Warning, the article is very graphic.

It is amazing how powerful words are. I can pummel, bludgeon, incinerate, exsanguinate, mutilate, flog, hang, draw and quarter, impale, shoot, and overall kill people with words that are readily defined in dictionaries. If I was gay, I could not "sixty-nine" though since that is a "blend of fellatio and cunnilingus."

This is further proof that prudes would rather know more about killing than sex. I guess sex is too dangerous for them to know about compared to decapitating.

" "
Photo by SB

Paternalistic Utopia

Currents (BW)
Photo by SB

Please read this article first about New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's attempts to regulate everything.

http://www.slate.com/id/2228722/


I found this paragraph very interesting:

"The underlying left-right divide is not about whether government has the right to promote private virtue but, rather, about what kind of virtue it should promote. Republicans demand paternalistic policies that uphold morality or social order. In Indiana, where I recently spent my vacation, you can pick up fireworks or a handgun anywhere, but good luck buying a six-pack on Sunday. Democrats, by contrast, deploy paternalism for health and safety reasons, yielding a different set of absurdities. In California, pot is on the verge of becoming more permissible than cigarettes. Both left and right take pleasure in mildly persecuting those who fail to meet their civic ideals."

That is pretty scary stuff. One side is ruining sex, the other side food. Both sides want to "protect" us, but for very different reasons.

The conservatives want to limit us from polluting their children and their ways of life with ours. They judge right and wrong based on Christian moral issues. The left judge right and wrong based on harm to others and the environment. (That is an over simplification of both sides, but I am not in the mood to write a thesis on it.)

I supported the banning of smoking in restaurants and bars. I also supported San Francisco's attempts to ban plastic grocery bags in all stores. Some of these liberal "protections" are going a bit far though. At what point do I become a baby that others have judged as incompetent to take care of my self?

The conservative limitations scare me more than the liberal ones. Their limitations hold back freedom of expression. I can express anything within their view of acceptable speech and be praised for it. If I create a "patriotic" video with imagery of flags, tanks, smart bombs, waves of grain, enemy bodies, ultimate fighting, NASCAR and put it to a Tim McGraw song, I am a patriot and anyone who speaks foul of it "hates America, gawdammit!" If I respectfully create and exhibit a photo of two guys kissing, I am "one with Satan's Legions." I was actually told that last week for supporting a lesbian friend's coming out to her ultra religiously conservative family, no shit.

I think this is just another part of the loss of civilization. We are losing our ability to trust people (within realistic realms) to do the right thing. We don't trust them to start using energy efficient light bulbs, and they don't trust me to keep my "smut" away from naive eyes. No wonder both sides are moving away from common ground with these "us vs. them" attitudes.