Friday, January 28, 2005


Yeah, that's what I thought?

a) it sounds like one of those crazy ENQUIRER headlines.
b) someone is being a bit of a jobsworth over on DeviantArt - re: my latest uploaded photomontage SKIN.

I did considerately put the disclaimer that it contains ADULT material. And Deviant Art do slap a large-size banner all over the thing saying ADULT CONTENT ADVISORY or something, so...

It's a good debating point - what is inappropriate nudity for an adult audience? And why? Who the fuck says so?

I look (again) at the image and I see a vertical line of photomanipulated and blended together breasts. In the centre of the image I see a close-up of a genital coupling (actually the male is embedded quite deeply into the female). It's all been generously retouched, split, mirrored, repalettised, repainted, morphed and blended together so that it would be very hard to trace the source images (which were freely available on the 'net). Such is the creative manipulation of this 'porn' that it's even hard to call it NUDITY any more than any item used in a new context can still retain its old identity (flash frame memory of Magritte's "Ce n'est pas une pipe" or Duchamp's "Fountain" (a white urinal, recently voted the most influential work of art among the art world's elite). "Nudity" implies a nude person, maybe seated or standing within an environment of some sort - but SKIN abstractifies the human surface to a glossy patchwork of the purely decorative.

You could say it had inappropriate erotic content in that by separating out these elements from the subject it has totally denuded the porn from its erotic intention and branded flesh as nothing more than a frameable commodity. I wonder if art should be categorised as something you can't get turned on by? A better way to ask the question is why should porn be considered something to turn you on? Why should being turned on be right or wrong? Being turned on (biologically) means you wanna share your sperm with a female of the species - or are we all forgetting that?

Fine. You wanna report SKIN? Then report all those wealthy rap stars who 'sample' refrains, lyrics or melodies from other artist's songs to enhance their own shouting matches. I'm all for that. Justice for all OR damnation of all creativity - but don't sit on the fence, eh, or target one instance of using flesh as an art form.


Lee Pletzers said...

Actually, I thought that any image which is deformed and altered in such a way that it no longer resemples the original, then copyright no longer belongs to it as it is a new image.

Congrats on the poetry book.

Prudes are everywhere.

Mike Philbin said...

Yup, only a genius would be able to discover where those highly-doctored images originated from - copyright has been massacred.

eh eh eh