|Louis Smith's 'Holly'|
The pornography comment though...really?? Jones believes that Holly '...creates a tension between art and pornography...there's something sleazy about it all...' Recently, I've become aware of a lot of people commenting on nudes or sensuality in art as pornography. A lot of the people that seems to be making these comments are males- maybe a coincidence? I don't know, but I'll stick my neck out so far as to say that the people terming a beautiful painting of a nude such as this as porn, is probably due to the fact that they associate the naked body with sex. To me this painting is sensual, her body is beautiful, her vulnerability, the contrast of her soft luminescent skin against the dark, ominous, threatening rocks is epic and romantic in the 19th century sense. Is this because I'm a heterosexual woman? Afterall, audiences view art as individuals, not as a collective with shared backgrounds and beliefs. I don't see it as overtly sexual, its a bit sexy I suppose, but I see it as sensual, kitsch, retrospective and very powerful. Jones believes that 'the urge to dismiss it as kitsch may be a defence mechanism, to avoid confronting its uninhibited sexuality'. Yes, it's sexy in a sensual way. But it's also just very kitsch! Perhaps the urge to dismiss it as porn says more about his perception of the naked body.
|Matthew Schofields 'Six Decades', Oil on Panel, 102 x 737 mm.|
I guess I'll have to start whispering loudly.