Group Work and Blog (for casual presentation in next class): Select one of the works and/or artists below to research on the Internet, on television, in film, in magazines, or in other media. Please note that some of these images might be considered particularly shocking or disturbing (they are marked with asterisk*). 1) Describe the work briefly and explain the ideas you believe are intended. 2) Describe your personal reactions to the work. 3) Discuss ways in which the work is exploitative and/or non-exploitative and why. How do you define exploitation? Would you consider some of the images to be “pornographic”? How do you define pornography? We will discuss some of them in class. Remember to include images in your blogging.
1) Sally Mann’s photographs of her children
2) Shelby Lee Adams’ images of Appalachian families*
3) Vanessa Beecroft’s performances
4) Robert Mapplethorpe’s X Portfolio images ***
(contains homoerotic and sado-masochistic imagery)
5) Jessica Loseby’s shockwave piece entitled Textual Tango
6) Nudism: Lutz, Florida, is the nudist capital of the U.S., with several luxury resorts such as Caliente and Paradise Lakes. Travel Naturally is a nudist magazine.
6) The Intruder (web site by Natalie Bookchin)
7) Introduction to the television show Crossing Jordan (A&E).
8) A true crime show that examines “evidence” (your choice)
9) News photos with graphic depictions of the body (your choice)
10) A video game that focuses on the body (your choice)
11) A film that features the body graphically (your choice)
12) An ad that features the body prominently
13) Pornographic images that do not feature nudity compared to those that do. (Discuss how you are determining what is “pornographic” and provide examples.) ***
14) Imagery of violence to the body that you consider to be exploitative, contrasted with violent images you consider to be non-exploitative (Discuss the contexts of these images and how you see them as different)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
http://shelby-lee-adams-napier.blogspot.com/
ReplyDelete"The Hog Killing '90"
I believe that the picture "The Hog Killing 90" is meant to illustrate the concept of family. After some research on the photographers website, I learned that the photographer bought the hog and worked with the people in the photograph to cook the hog in their "traditional mountain manner" way; furthermore, after the picture was taken the families split the meat from the hog, which supplied each family with food for "approximately three months."
My initial personal reaction to the photograph was that it was an older image of people who needed to hunt to survive. However, after I visited the photographer's website, I realized that the images were recent as it was taken in the year 1990. I believe the image is non-exploitative because it is simply illustrating how two families can be brought together through a common purpose; furthermore, the photographer also notes that "Everyone was happy with this arrangement, the photograph and a video copy of event."
http://styletease.typepad.co.uk/.a/6a0115712662e7970c0120a567db2a970b-800wi
ReplyDeleteThis image is of three young girls, two looking like normal young girls, the one in the middle is naked and has earrings and would considered as “dolled up”
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_9ykNvoqFEBo/SwNTj5IiTJI/AAAAAAAAAP4/YitSFo5e1Pk/s1600/sally_mann_immediate_family_1.jpg
This image is of a young girl with a cigarette in her hand. Not something you’d expect to see a child doing.
Sally Mann’s work consists of shocking photographs, most of her three children. In some of the photos I looked at, and the ones I attached to this blog, they are of her daughters doing and acting much older than they really are. Taking these photographs it seems like Mann is trying to get a message across. Today in society toddlers to teenagers are being portrayed as adults when they are not. There are products being targeted for young adults when they should not be. Sally Mann’s children are beautiful, and these photographs show it. I think her work is great and interesting. People are going to want to look at it and it takes your imagination to another place. Without knowing much about Sally Mann’s work, one would think that the images are disturbing and child pornography. I disagree. Her work is art and is strictly that. She takes pictures of her own children and I believe she is trying to show what reality is doing to the young society. I define pornography as images or videos of things that should only be viewed by adults for their own personal reasons. Exploitation is doing or using something or someone in a cruel manner. Sally Mann’s work is not pornography.
Paige Landry
The movie I chose to discuss is Steven Shainberg’s Secretary. I personally enjoy this film because I love both Maggie Gyllenhaal and James Spader as actors, and the Bondage and Discipline, Sadism and Masochism (BDSM) subculture is very interesting and mysterious. The movie not only can be viewed for entertainment purposes, but also as an educational tool into the BDSM world, that the majority of society might not know or understand about this furtive lifestyle. This movie, I feel, is not exploitative towards the BDSM community because the movie presents a BDSM couple, who fall in love and thrive in society. The movie also educated audiences, while the main character, Lee Holloway, is learning about the fundamentals and characteristics of BDSM. I would not consider the sexually explicit material in this film to be pornographic because the film’s purpose is to tell a love story of a BDSM couple, and in that, educate and raise awareness of the BDSM community. I define exploitation as taking advantage of someone or something for your own personal gain. I define pornography as sexually explicit images or media that sole prerogative, or purpose is to make money in the pornographic industry.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzPFMfPPzs0
For this blog I've chosen to discuss the HBO series True Blood. True Blood is based off of novels by Charlaine Harris. The series is a much more adult version of the Twilight saga. Personally, I like True Blood much more because of its entertainment value. The series contains sex, drugs, mythical creatures, mystery, and of course drama.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone has seen the show they know that the sex and drug scenes (vampire blood is a hallucinogen and has other powers in the series) can be somewhat intense. So the question is are these scenes exploitative and somewhat like pornography? The answer is yes.
Some of the sex scenes are erotic and aggressive. Also, the vampire usually bites its partner. The creators of the film also show almost everything of its actors. Not only does the series show sex scenes with vampires, but they also show scenes featuring humans, some also being very aggressive. In one episode, the main character's brother believes he has killed a woman during sex by accidentally choking her. The series is exploitative because the scenes are a somewhat cleaner version of pornography. But, sex sells and millions of people watch the series including myself, so HBO must be doing something right. The show is a "good kind" of exploitation, if that can be possible.
I chose the images of Robert Mapplethorpe’s X Portfolio. These pictures contain homoerotic and sado-masochistic imagery. There is one picture (although this may be a bit graphic) of a male butt sticking what seems like a dildo inside and there is another one of a man going down on a woman. I definitely think these are pornographic images because the only time you would see something like this, is in porn. Personally, I do not think some of his images are works of art. I think they are a bit graphic for the public eye. However, that does not qualify for all of his pieces. Some pictures are of just the nude female body, which I think is more art than that of the sexual acts portrayed. The work that includes dildos and the man going down on a woman are exploitative because it does not relate to the art of “making love”, which God had intended. It takes sex to a striking and abusive matter, which defeats the purpose of its meaning. Yet, the work that consists of a nude female, using no props, is non-exploitative because it shows the grace of a woman’s body. There are no sexual actions being done to her therefore no tools tearing the portrayed meaning.
ReplyDeletehttp://phomul.canalblog.com/DSCN9499.jpg
http://transcriptions.english.ucsb.edu/archive/topics/censorship/RMmarty2.jpg
Vanessa Beecroft VB64
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wearegages.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/vb64_1.jpg
I chose to research Vanessa Beecroft's performances. I found them both interesting and expressive. The link here connects to her photo VB64. Although the women are nude in the photo I do not feel it is pornographic or exploitive in anyway. Each woman is positioned in a different pose whether it be lying sitting or standing, and is painted in a chalky looking paint resembling a statue. Each pose is representative of a different feeling or emotion; happy, sad, relaxed, perplexed, submissive etc. My personal reaction to the piece consisted of intrigue and curiousity. Some of the woman in the most relaxed and peaceful positions have spots without paint representing the fact that woman are constantly being exposed and seen in a sexual manner even when they are not intending to be sexual. This particular piece, along with Beecroft's other work are not exploitive in any way. They are portraying the human body in an art form, there are no sexual acts or seductive poses displayed throughout the film. Although some women appear vulnerable or seductive in the piece it is still not meant in a vulgar manner it is simply expressing human emotion.
Pornography is meant to be arouse someone and portrays sexual acts as nothing but physical pleasure involving no emotion. Both women and men are voluntarily put on display in order to please the audience.
Exploitation is similar to pornography in the fact that it is meant to please the audience, the difference is the people displayed in the images are not voluntarily exposing themselves or the situations in which they are partaking in.
http://ferdyonfilms.com/True%20Pic.jpg
ReplyDeleteIn this photo by Shelby Lee Adams, a man is pictured standing next to an open casket with a deceased woman lying inside of it. He has a strange expression on his face; he looks as if he were a child being reprimanded, but he is a grown man. He looks as if he does not belong at a funeral; his clothes are light colored and not appropriate to mourn somebody’s death. He is very out of place.
My initial reaction to this photo was that it was unethical—I do not believe the dead should be photographed. I think it is very odd and do not understand the purpose or artistic value of this photo.
I believe this photograph to be very exploitive. I define exploitive as showing something in a cruel or unusual manner; something that is “twisted”. It is not pornography. To me, pornography can be defined as something private, but not necessarily bad or corrupt.
Kristy Candela
http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_113308_215377_shelbylee-adams.jpg
ReplyDeleteI chose this picture from Shelby Lee Adams. This picture seems to be depicting a family, but does not seem to be an ideal family. How the people are portrayed are at their worst. The one kid is squatted down on next to who seems to be her father and the other person is on his other side sitting next to him holding his hand very intimately. Then there is someone behind all of them who appears to be in movement because of the fact that the figure is blurry. The guy in the middle looks far from his best, he has a dirtyyy white t-shirt on and a huge beer belly with long untamed sidburns coming down the side of his face.
This picture I consider to be exploitative. Exploiting something means to capture anything on film or in pictures, that would be showing the world something in a vindictive, abnormal, or brutal manner. This image is exploiting these people and their lives. Clearly they are not part of the 'norm' in our society and this photo is exposing who they really are to the whole world. And once it is captured on film or in photos they can be distributed to the whole world. So people who would not know the kind of people who live in that area, they now know. These photos are exploiting them, their lifestlye, and where they come from. I define pornography as something that is very sexual and very widespread. Pornography and exploiting things/people are different, i believe that pornography is not as bad as exploitative images that are not in the porn industry, because the images that come from the porn industry are all done willingly and normally do not get much scutiny.
I chose to discuss the movie FUR: An imagery Portrait of Diane Arbus (2006). Diane Arbus, a American Photographer who was known for her strange, disturbing images.
ReplyDeleteThe movie is about a woman (Diane Arbus) who abandons her wealthy lifestyle, husband and two daughters, because she is frustrated and lonely. When her neighbor from upstairs (Lionel Sweeney) moved in, a mysterious man with hypertrichosis disease, she got curious. One night she went to visit him to take his photo and instead found herself drawn to him. After a couple of visits feels a great attraction for him and he introduces her to his world, the world of freaks and marginalized people.
The movie started with Diane Arbus at a nudist resort and at first I was caught off guard because to me it was abnormal for people to just walk around and cut the grass with no clothes on. I think she felt frustrated and lonely in the movie because she didn’t belong and the world she was living in and that’s why when she met Lionel she was curious because he was different. In Lionel’s world there was couples people dancing nude at a house party, a women who does everything with her feet because she has no arms, giants, dwarves, and transvestites. She felt like she belongs there because she thought she was different from her family because she like getting naked outside, she liked old people, and little boys. Eventhough Lionel was cover with hair she liked that he was different.
I think the movie show how our society exploit the people in Lionel’s world because we think they are abnormal. It also shows how someone can look “normal” and feel like they belong in Lionel’s world.
Exploitation to me is to view someone or something differently.
No I didn’t consider anything in the movie pornographic
Pornographic to me is hard core sexual photos or videos.
I decided to look at the new wave of horror films that have been recently released. I’m focusing on Hostel Part II, directed by Eli Roth. The first Hostel dealt with males, the second deals with females and there’s a big difference between watching a guy get tortured, and watching a girl get it. Eli Roth’s goal of these films is to get under his audiences’ skin. He wants to take the blood and gore to a new level, and he succeeds by a mile. My personal reaction to these films is that they are amazing. It may make me seem like a sick person, but I’m a huge horror movie buff, and if anyone is taking them to the next level, I’m on board.
ReplyDeleteHostel Part II is definitely not an exploitative film. Everyone knows exactly what type of movie it is, and if you aren’t into these types of films, you don’t go to the theater, end of discussion. However, many people believe that films cause violence (which is another ridiculous argument) but they view this film as exploitation of women, violence, and try to analyze all the hidden meanings within the film. It has nothing to do with that. This film is pure entertainment for horror movie fans, end of story. Women have been getting killed off in horror movies just as much as guys have; it doesn't mean that the filmmakers are out to hate women.
I define exploitation as using something, whether it be a film, or image, in an unjust or cruel manner. This film has one particular scene where an actress is hung upside down over an in-ground bath. Another female enters, completely disrobes, and starts slashing at the victims back so that her blood pours all over her body. It’s one of the sickest and most gruesome deaths in recent history, but achieves the goal of leaving audiences with a chill in their bones.
I absolutely do not think this film is pornographic. If there were people having sex with each other in every other scene, yeah, it’s a porno. This is a horror movie. Those against these films have given a name for these films, and call it ‘torture porn.’ I find that ridiculous; this is a horror movie. If you go back to the 80s when horror movies first started coming out, it was a battle of which one was going to put the most blood in. Nothing has changed.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/photo/2010-haiti/index.html#/1
ReplyDeleteI chose a picture of a young child after the earthquake of Haiti. The child is being looked at by a docotor. The child has some bandages on his head just over his left eye. The child is also missing a part of his left arm from the shoulder down. The intended ideas is that there was a great tragedy in Haiti and the people of Haiti need any kind of help that can given.
My reaction to this picutre was pity and sadness. A young child is suffering and is already handicapped and it was not his fault. It is sad because there are probably countless of stories like this and people that are suffering like this child.
This work is non exploitative since it shows the suffering of a Nation. i define exploitative as taken advantage of a situatiion regardless of who gets hurt and having no remorse with the outcome. This image is not pornagraphic either since i think pornography is the intent to show the human body in a sexual way using poses that are vulgar and do not conform to society norms.
In the movie The Lover directed by Jean Jacques Annaud, the story line and the sexually explicit nature of the film help to portray a controversial affair between a young French girl and a wealthy older Chinese man. The idea of a 15 year-old girl having sexual relations with a man more than twice her age, has long been a taboo subject. When the story took place in 1929, their love affair was seen to many outsiders as unspeakable. Even in today’s society their relationship would be ostracized, however the way the story is depicted allows the viewers to have a different perspective than the norm. From their introduction on the ferry ride, to their full-blown affair, there is a sense of understanding and openness. The understanding that they can never be together allows them to be free from any constricting emotions and enables them to be simply “lovers.” There is an openness that can only be achieved from a relationship with many social limits but knows no boundaries in the confined courters of the tiny room that provides shelter for their affair.
ReplyDeleteDuring their time spent hidden in the one bedroom apartment in the sleazy district of Siagon, their affair blossoms into one of sexual exploration and emotional simplicity. There are several nude scenes in which the two are engaging in sexual acts. I chose the word nude instead of naked to emphasize the lack of objectification. The two are not being filmed in a way that suggests any viewer gratification instead they are being portrayed in a natural state. While the girl is much younger than what is normally socially accepted to be engaging in sexual acts, there is still an overwhelming sense of willingness from both parties. Some may categorize these scenes as pornography, although I do not think they were intended to cause any sexual excitement among viewers. The scenes were depicting an affair between young girl and an older man and shedding light on their relationship. This does not mean some may still view it as sexually explicit, however the viewer is left to assign their own meaning behind the story.
The interesting concept behind the movie was the role reversal that takes place. The perception of an affair like this is normally that the young girl is being taken advantage of and in this film it is quite the contrary. The girl clearly states during their first meeting she does not like Chinese men. Throughout the rest of the film she makes it known that she is only using him for his money, while he begins to fall in love with her. This contradicts the ideology of the man being the exploiter and reverses the role to the young girl taking advantage of him.
The idea of their affair may be simply forbidden to some yet completely accepted by others. Beliefs and ideas make up the core premise behind what is accepted and what is considered taboo. In the film, The Lover, Jean Jacques Annaud pushes the limits of what is socially accepted and explores the ramifications of the sexual desires in a forbidden affair.
http://www.imagearts.ryerson.ca/imagesandideas/pages/database/images/Mann_Sally_w01.jpg
ReplyDeleteIn this photograph, there are 3 young children. In the background of the photo there looks as if there is a young boy on stilts of some sort. Then there is a young girl looking like the age of 5 or 6 with her back to the camera on the right, and then the centerpiece of the photo is a young pretty girl that looks like she is about 9 holding a cigarette.
I think this photo is meant to give viewers a sense of shock when they first look at it. Naturally for anyone, seeing a 9 year old smoking a cigarette would be shocking to most. The funny part of this photograph is also that the other children don't seem to care, like it's not big deal. Also in the background of the boy on stilts, this gives the entire photograph a meaning like the kids do not care what they're up to and doing. The main girl in the front is also looking dead at the camera with a true sense of attitude. She is looking at the camera as if she wants to say "ya so what if i'm smoking, what's it to you?"
I like this photograph. I do on the other hand hope that this was just a pose of the young girl holding a cigarette and she's not actually smoking it but I like the attitude that the entire photograph gives to viewers. It is shocking but at the same time it isn't. The young girl in the front looks like a mini adult because she is very pretty with long blonde hair and looks a lot older, just in a childs body. I think this is why the photograph doesn't give off complete shock because once viewers really look at it she doesn't look like a child anymore.
This work could probably be considered exploitation. Since these are children, and are probably told what to do and what pose to be in since they are the photographers children, she is kind of using her kids. If on the other hand these were normal every day kids out and about and the artist just photographed them one day, that I would not consider exploitation because the artist would be photographing everyday art and life. In my opinion exploitation is basically taking advantage of someone or something without any consequences, or for their own benefit. This image is in no way pornographic at all, it has no intent to show off any parts of the human body.
When viewing Robert Mapplethorpe's photos I believe that he has done work in both artistic and pornographic ways. he has images of "props" penetrating the anus and he also has images of the male and female body, just as bodies being graceful, beautiful and sculpted which is more of a form of art. i believe that the pornographic images are exploited and i believe they are pornographic because they are sexually penetrating orifices in the human body with "alien" devices. That is a sexual thing, obviously. Where as the photos of the naked bodies are not pornographic because they are only bodies posing for art, nothing is happening to the bodies, no penetration is being portrayed, it's just the human body as a form of art itself.
ReplyDeletePornographic:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.chestercollege.edu/diessner/i_i/discussion_images/nea/Mapplethorpe/MAPPLETHORPE_SELF-PORTRAIT_FROM_X.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.chestercollege.edu/diessner/i_i/discussion_images/nea/Mapplethorpe/rm2.html&usg=__CJBwL0g_2BMADvcErpOUqIBwDVU=&h=451&w=450&sz=42&hl=en&start=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=xKMMdIgoEPdRCM:&tbnh=127&tbnw=127&prev=/images%3Fq%3DRobert%2BMapplethorpe%25E2%2580%2599s%2BX%2BPortfolio%2Bimages%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26tbs%3Disch:1
http://transcriptions.english.ucsb.edu/archive/topics/censorship/RMmarty2.jpg
Art-related, nonpornographic:
http://www.artknowledgenews.com/files2009a/Mapplethorpe_Derrick_Cross.jpg
http://www.brianappelart.com/images/articles/081214-sizzle-fizzle-2008-photography-auctions/385-127_001.jpg
For this assignments I chose the photo Fallen Child by Sally Mann. I do not not feel like it is exploitative at all and the message she is trying to portray in the picture is one that depicts the environment and the people of her rural town in Virginia during the late 1970s. The picture shows her daughter laying in grass with scratches and debris on her body with her face down and hair spread out over the ground. It also shot in black and white, I immediately receive a somber feeling when i look at this picture just based on the color. The fact that the girls face is down and she is naked and dirty laying on the ground also contributes to feeling I initially receive when i look at this picture as well.
ReplyDeleteI chose to discuss Sally Mann's photographs of her children. The pictures are in black and white and are actually photographed beautifully. I think Sally uses her children to depict the idea of people growing up much faster than they should. I remember my mom always telling me told slow down, and that I would regret growing up so fast when I was older. The image of the girl smoking a cigarette is extremely effective. I don't think it is porn, and I don't think it is necessarily exploitative, but its definitely interesting that she uses her own children to display this sort of rebellious, sexy look. I think the images of her kids without tops on are a little more edgy. Its a little strange to put all three of them together, girl and boys, and take topless photos of them. The fact that one of the girl is kind of covering her self up, feeling uncomfortable, makes the viewer feel uncomfortable for her. But I think this is the idea she is trying to get across. The fact that we exploit children in ways that we don't even realize. (Pagents, children models)
ReplyDeleteI chose to discuss the work of Shelby Lee Adams’ images of Appalachian families. The reaction I had to these photos was that they seemed very revealing of families in Appalachia. They showed the raw emotion and mindset of these rural families. This material might be shocking to someone because they are in awe of the Appalachian lifestyle. But instead of deeming these photos exploitative with a negative connotation, I think it should be recognized that this is in fact the way these people live. Shelby Lee Adams is not creating a false setting or false emotions. These are the lives of these people. Unfortunately some of Shelby's viewers have said his work is directly exploiting the Appalachian people in a bad way. I think this is a reaction of disbelief that someone would actually live like this, which then leads someone to think that it had to be staged or taken at certain times when the most rough aspects of this lifestyle shine through. When in fact it is the way they live throughout the day and all the time. A viewer might be angered at the fact that these people have been shown in such a decrepit way in comparison to a pampered New York lifestyle that encompasses a majority of his viewers. I think it is a reaction of amazement and disbelief of a lifestyle that leads people to question the integrity of his work. Shelby Lee Adams is a phenomenal photographer that was also born in Appalachia and is capable of revealing an incredible lifestyle that otherwise would have never been seen. A picture is exploitative in and of itself so therefore I don’t believe these pictures are exploiting these people any more than an Ansel Adams photograph is exploiting nature scenes.
ReplyDelete-Ryan Lowe-
I choose to discuss the work of Shelby Lee Adams ‘and the images he captures to showcase “Appalachia Today”. I choose these photos because when I viewed them they really captured and held onto my attention. I think the photos can be looked at as both exploitative and non-exploitative. Adams is able to showcase their lifestyles as well as educate people about a different way of living. There is a sort of peculiar way of thinking that takes over your mind when looking at these photos. In almost ever photo showing a child their face is very somber and hard looking. It makes you question weather these children are happy or not. At the same time, it will show an entire family standing around a butchered pig with smiles from ear to ear. The way these photos come off as exploitative is through the poses Shelby has people make and the symbolism these photos take on. One photo has a little girl looking through a broken door with a man in the background smiling deviantly at her. To the little girl in Appalachia it could be a beautiful photo but to the outside art world it represents some form of sexual predation and a feeling of helplessness. Since the people of Appalachia are not media friendly they cannot realize the way these picture are sometimes portrayed. Although there are certain things that lead us to think that the photos by Adams are exploitative we can’t forget that these are real people living this way. Since most people are not educated in the Appalachian culture its hard for the viewer to even know if what we think is exploitative would be considered exploitative by the people of Appalachia.
ReplyDeletephomul.canalblog.com/.../index.html
ReplyDeleteThe images I chose were those from Robert Mapplethorpe’s X Portfolio. When I first saw these images I was kind of disturbed, ok I was uncomfortably disturbed. However after staring at the images for a few minutes I became more comfortable with them. I feel as though he is capturing the body in poses that people aren’t use to seeing. Maybe he wants them to feel uncomfortable at first just so people can see that these positions or actions are ok. I do not find these images exploitive. I feel like the people in the pictures are comfortable with what they are doing. Nor do I find this to be pornography, to me pornography is something that is used to excite people whether it is through fetishes or arousals. Not only that but pornography is a business that sells sex, these images aren’t selling sex, they are presenting different poses and extremes to get a reaction out of people.