View Camera Magazine

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 22:36:36 -0700, Tom Phillips <nospam777 DeleteThis @aol.com>
wrote:

 >
 >
 >rafe bustin wrote:
  >>
  >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 23:06:06 -0500, joe smigiel
  >> <jsmigiel DeleteThis @net-link.nOt> wrote:
  >>
   >> >rafe bustin wrote:
   >> >> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 01:08:04 GMT, Gregory Blank
   >> >> <bugstopped_ DeleteThis @gregblankphoto.com> wrote:
   >> >>
   >> >>>Maybe they will grow up beyond the need to be so base and pathetically
   >> >>>interested in the human functions that have existed for millions of
   >> >>>years. Perhaps by constant "exposure" maybe the dim recesses of these
   >> >>>human drives will be enlightened and realize art of form can be non
   >> >>>sexual in its execution. Then again every great society that has come
   >> >>>and gone has gone through this type of era just prior to its final
   >> >>>decline. Only time will tell.
   >> >>
   >> >> Pfft. We are humans. The human body is
   >> >> certainly fit subject for art. Sexuality
   >> >> is one of the driving forces of life.
   >> >> What would be the point of denying or
   >> >> ignoring that?
   >> >>
   >> >
   >> >Power.
  >>
  >> Touche.
  >>
  >> Still, I find Gregory's comment absurd
  >> and itself pathetic.
  >>
  >> Absurd to suppose that Michelangelo's David
  >> is somehow an expression of something "base" --
  >> or a sign of a decadent civilization. Quite
  >> the opposite, in fact.
 >
 >I don't think Greg was talking about Michelangelo's
 >David, but people obsessed with feces and urine
 >as "art"? Which brings us to this pissing match,
 >equally as silly and anal. If I remember Ron was
 >somewhat amused by all the fuss over one little
 >exhibited nude.


No, Gregory specifically suggests a preference
for art that is "non sexual in its execution."

OK, I guess Michelangelo's David isn't the best
example. Even so, Gregory's preoccupation with
"base ... human functions" strikes me as
somewhat puritanical.


rafe b.
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.terrapinphoto.com" target="_blank">http://www.terrapinphoto.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: View Camera Magazine 

rafe bustin wrote:
 >
 > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 22:36:36 -0700, Tom Phillips <nospam777.RemoveThis@aol.com>
 > wrote:
 >
  > >
  > >
  > >rafe bustin wrote:
   > >>
   > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 23:06:06 -0500, joe smigiel
   > >> <jsmigiel.RemoveThis@net-link.nOt> wrote:
   > >>
   > >> >rafe bustin wrote:
   > >> >> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 01:08:04 GMT, Gregory Blank
   > >> >> <bugstopped_.RemoveThis@gregblankphoto.com> wrote:
   > >> >>
   > >> >>>Maybe they will grow up beyond the need to be so base and pathetically
   > >> >>>interested in the human functions that have existed for millions of
   > >> >>>years. Perhaps by constant "exposure" maybe the dim recesses of these
   > >> >>>human drives will be enlightened and realize art of form can be non
   > >> >>>sexual in its execution. Then again every great society that has come
   > >> >>>and gone has gone through this type of era just prior to its final
   > >> >>>decline. Only time will tell.
   > >> >>
   > >> >> Pfft. We are humans. The human body is
   > >> >> certainly fit subject for art. Sexuality
   > >> >> is one of the driving forces of life.
   > >> >> What would be the point of denying or
   > >> >> ignoring that?
   > >> >>
   > >> >
   > >> >Power.
   > >>
   > >> Touche.
   > >>
   > >> Still, I find Gregory's comment absurd
   > >> and itself pathetic.
   > >>
   > >> Absurd to suppose that Michelangelo's David
   > >> is somehow an expression of something "base" --
   > >> or a sign of a decadent civilization. Quite
   > >> the opposite, in fact.
  > >
  > >I don't think Greg was talking about Michelangelo's
  > >David, but people obsessed with feces and urine
  > >as "art"? Which brings us to this pissing match,
  > >equally as silly and anal. If I remember Ron was
  > >somewhat amused by all the fuss over one little
  > >exhibited nude.
 >
 > No, Gregory specifically suggests a preference
 > for art that is "non sexual in its execution."

Well, I personally think the best nudes are
those that are nonsexual. I mean, Weston's
classic nudes were sensual, brillant, yet
nonsexual. Weston didn't explore it in a
vulgar puerile way...

 > OK, I guess Michelangelo's David isn't the best
 > example. Even so, Gregory's preoccupation with
 > "base ... human functions" strikes me as
 > somewhat puritanical.

I didn't read it that way. OTOH people (artists)
obsessed with their anal functions seems a rather
low artistic standard. I knew an art student who
scanned his penis and thought that was good art.
Hope he cleaned the scanner afterwards

Course all this is getting OT. Ron Wohlauer did some
interesting LF nudes. He did one of nude women and a
Nazi flag. I asked him what it meant, and he simply
said he wasn't sure; he just had the idea. So maybe
it's left up to the viewer. In a puritanical society
(which the US definitely is) almost anything "nude"
bothers us as a society and people see what they want
to see.


 > rafe b.
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.terrapinphoto.com</font" target="_blank">http://www.terrapinphoto.com</font</a>><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: View Camera Magazine 

In article <jnplv05mp19gaiicisl313lulmddncdg6u.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
rafe bustin <rafeb.DeleteThis@speakeasy.net> wrote:


  > > Maybe they will grow up beyond the need to be so base and pathetically
  > >interested in the human functions that have existed for millions of
  > >years. Perhaps by constant "exposure" maybe the dim recesses of these
  > >human drives will be enlightened and realize art of form can be non
  > >sexual in its execution. Then again every great society that has come
  > >and gone has gone through this type of era just prior to its final
  > >decline. Only time will tell.
 >
 >
 > Pfft. We are humans. The human body is
 > certainly fit subject for art. Sexuality
 > is one of the driving forces of life.
 > What would be the point of denying or
 > ignoring that?

Pfft,... yourself.

Sexual pleasure is a perk of life not a driving force, sexuality
and procreation is a driving force its true. Do you not understand the
difference? Some people do not and that was my point, so maybe that was
missed by you.

--
LF Website @ <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank" target="_blank">http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank</a>

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: View Camera Magazine 

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 04:22:17 GMT, Gregory Blank
<bugstopped_ DeleteThis @gregblankphoto.com> wrote:

 >In article <jnplv05mp19gaiicisl313lulmddncdg6u DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
 > rafe bustin <rafeb DeleteThis @speakeasy.net> wrote:
 >
 >
   >> > Maybe they will grow up beyond the need to be so base and pathetically
   >> >interested in the human functions that have existed for millions of
   >> >years. Perhaps by constant "exposure" maybe the dim recesses of these
   >> >human drives will be enlightened and realize art of form can be non
   >> >sexual in its execution. Then again every great society that has come
   >> >and gone has gone through this type of era just prior to its final
   >> >decline. Only time will tell.
  >>
  >>
  >> Pfft. We are humans. The human body is
  >> certainly fit subject for art. Sexuality
  >> is one of the driving forces of life.
  >> What would be the point of denying or
  >> ignoring that?
 >
 >Pfft,... yourself.
 >
 >Sexual pleasure is a perk of life not a driving force, sexuality
 >and procreation is a driving force its true. Do you not understand the
 >difference? Some people do not and that was my point, so maybe that was
 >missed by you.


In what way does this relate to your earlier
statement (which I quoted and responded to?)

It seems you wish to separate sexuality from
pleasure? What is your point?

Your earlier statement simply comes off as
priggish. You seem to suggest that sexually
explicit art is somehow related to the
decline of "great societies." I find that
notion absurd.


rafe b.
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.terrapinphoto.com" target="_blank">http://www.terrapinphoto.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: View Camera Magazine 

In article <41FB0BAE.4070606 DeleteThis @net-link.nOt>,
joe smigiel <jsmigiel DeleteThis @net-link.nOt> wrote:

 > rafe bustin wrote:
  > > On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 01:08:04 GMT, Gregory Blank
  > > <bugstopped_ DeleteThis @gregblankphoto.com> wrote:
  > >
  > >
  > >
   > >>Maybe they will grow up beyond the need to be so base and pathetically
   > >>interested in the human functions that have existed for millions of
   > >>years. Perhaps by constant "exposure" maybe the dim recesses of these
   > >>human drives will be enlightened and realize art of form can be non
   > >>sexual in its execution. Then again every great society that has come
   > >>and gone has gone through this type of era just prior to its final
   > >>decline. Only time will tell.
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > > Pfft. We are humans. The human body is
  > > certainly fit subject for art. Sexuality
  > > is one of the driving forces of life.
  > > What would be the point of denying or
  > > ignoring that?
  > >
 >
 > Power.

Knowledge.

--
LF Website @ <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank" target="_blank">http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank</a>

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: View Camera Magazine 

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 04:25:22 GMT, Gregory Blank
<bugstopped_.TakeThisOut@gregblankphoto.com> wrote:

 >In article <41FB0BAE.4070606.TakeThisOut@net-link.nOt>,
 > joe smigiel <jsmigiel.TakeThisOut@net-link.nOt> wrote:
 >
  >> rafe bustin wrote:
   >> > On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 01:08:04 GMT, Gregory Blank
   >> > <bugstopped_.TakeThisOut@gregblankphoto.com> wrote:
   >> >
   >> >
   >> >
   >> >>Maybe they will grow up beyond the need to be so base and pathetically
   >> >>interested in the human functions that have existed for millions of
   >> >>years. Perhaps by constant "exposure" maybe the dim recesses of these
   >> >>human drives will be enlightened and realize art of form can be non
   >> >>sexual in its execution. Then again every great society that has come
   >> >>and gone has gone through this type of era just prior to its final
   >> >>decline. Only time will tell.
   >> >
   >> >
   >> >
   >> > Pfft. We are humans. The human body is
   >> > certainly fit subject for art. Sexuality
   >> > is one of the driving forces of life.
   >> > What would be the point of denying or
   >> > ignoring that?
   >> >
  >>
  >> Power.
 >
 >Knowledge.


Denial of sex makes you wiser? WTF?


rafe b.
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.terrapinphoto.com" target="_blank">http://www.terrapinphoto.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: View Camera Magazine 

In article <7m4mv0dgt29tdf75bb2ue92gmh537pjdor.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>,
rafe bustin <rafeb.TakeThisOut@speakeasy.net> wrote:
 >
 > Touche.
 >
 > Still, I find Gregory's comment absurd
 > and itself pathetic.
 >
 > Absurd to suppose that Michelangelo's David
 > is somehow an expression of something "base" --
 > or a sign of a decadent civilization. Quite
 > the opposite, in fact.

You ass.

--
LF Website @ <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank" target="_blank">http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank</a>

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: View Camera Magazine 

On 1/28/2005 8:29 PM Gregory Blank spake thus:

 > In article <7m4mv0dgt29tdf75bb2ue92gmh537pjdor DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
 > rafe bustin <rafeb DeleteThis @speakeasy.net> wrote:
  >>
  >> Touche.
  >>
  >> Still, I find Gregory's comment absurd
  >> and itself pathetic.
  >>
  >> Absurd to suppose that Michelangelo's David
  >> is somehow an expression of something "base" --
  >> or a sign of a decadent civilization. Quite
  >> the opposite, in fact.
 >
 > You ass.

Oh, so you're an ass man, huh? Would have figured you for more of a tit man.

(Apropos the topic under discussion, of course.)

Oh, I'm sorry: your an ass man.


--
Today's bullshit job description:

• Collaborate to produce operational procedures for the systems management
of the production Information Technology infrastructure.

- from an actual job listing on Craigslist (http://www.craigslist.org)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: View Camera Magazine 

In article <41FB16DD.60805 RemoveThis @but.us.chickens>,
David Nebenzahl <nobody RemoveThis @but.us.chickens> wrote:

 >
 > Oh, so you're an ass man, huh? Would have figured you for more of a tit man.
 >
 > (Apropos the topic under discussion, of course.)
 >
 > Oh, I'm sorry: your an ass man.

Hey piece of dirt back in my kill file.

--
LF Website @ <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank" target="_blank">http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank</a>

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: View Camera Magazine 

"rafe bustin" <rafeb DeleteThis @speakeasy.net>

 > Denial of sex makes you wiser? WTF?

As a former young seminarian, I can tell you that denial is as blinding as
it's opponent. <!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: View Camera Magazine 

In article <ktbmv0dfc9fgj7b9fn856qjk65i8rnierl.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
rafe bustin <rafeb.DeleteThis@speakeasy.net> wrote:

 > On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 04:22:17 GMT, Gregory Blank
 > <bugstopped_.DeleteThis@gregblankphoto.com> wrote:
 >
  > >In article <jnplv05mp19gaiicisl313lulmddncdg6u.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
  > > rafe bustin <rafeb.DeleteThis@speakeasy.net> wrote:
  > >
  > >
   > >> > Maybe they will grow up beyond the need to be so base and pathetically
   > >> >interested in the human functions that have existed for millions of
   > >> >years. Perhaps by constant "exposure" maybe the dim recesses of these
   > >> >human drives will be enlightened and realize art of form can be non
   > >> >sexual in its execution. Then again every great society that has come
   > >> >and gone has gone through this type of era just prior to its final
   > >> >decline. Only time will tell.
   > >>
   > >>
   > >> Pfft. We are humans. The human body is
   > >> certainly fit subject for art. Sexuality
   > >> is one of the driving forces of life.
   > >> What would be the point of denying or
   > >> ignoring that?
  > >
  > >Pfft,... yourself.
  > >
  > >Sexual pleasure is a perk of life not a driving force, sexuality
  > >and procreation is a driving force its true. Do you not understand the
  > >difference? Some people do not and that was my point, so maybe that was
  > >missed by you.
 >
 >
 > In what way does this relate to your earlier
 > statement (which I quoted and responded to?)

So the point I was making, you did miss.

 >
 > It seems you wish to separate sexuality from
 > pleasure? What is your point?

I don't wish anything of the sort. Just making the
point and observation that when sexuality becomes an obsessive
preoccupation, whether it be one's own urges or societies in general
that makes that society less productive.
 >
 > Your earlier statement simply comes off as
 > priggish. You seem to suggest that sexually
 > explicit art is somehow related to the
 > decline of "great societies." I find that
 > notion absurd.

You think that was my inclusive personal observation,...lol....Like I
said only time will tell.

--
LF Website @ <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank" target="_blank">http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank</a>

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: View Camera Magazine 

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:52:38 GMT, Gregory Blank
<bugstopped_.TakeThisOut@gregblankphoto.com> wrote:


 >I don't wish anything of the sort. Just making the
 >point and observation that when sexuality becomes an obsessive
 >preoccupation, whether it be one's own urges or societies in general
 >that makes that society less productive.


So you value productivity (GDP) over sexuality?

Profits over pleasure?

I'd call that a misplaced priority.

I think your concerns (at least about the USA)
are misplaced.

Are we talking about Janet's breast at half-time?

'Cuz if you are you're conflating issues. That
little show had everything to do with the
great and wondrous "free market" at its best
(and worst.)

Are we talking about "Piss Christ?" Disgusting
as it appears, that's pure art in the sense
of being totally divorced from profit and
the almighty dollar.

In a nutshell, most of the "cultural depravity"
that you see in the USA is part and parcel of
the glorious "free market." Sex, violence and
shock value grease the wheels of consumption.


rafe b.
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.terrapinphoto.com" target="_blank">http://www.terrapinphoto.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: View Camera Magazine 

On 1/29/2005 6:05 AM rafe bustin spake thus:

 > In a nutshell, most of the "cultural depravity"
 > that you see in the USA is part and parcel of
 > the glorious "free market." Sex, violence and
 > shock value grease the wheels of consumption.

Yes, these are the horns of the dilemma upon which Amerika's free-marketeers
have impaled themselves. The same almighty-dollar-über-alles ones who also
happen to have a completely contradictory Puritanical streak. Hey, you can't
have it both ways, folks.


--
Today's bullshit job description:

• Collaborate to produce operational procedures for the systems management
of the production Information Technology infrastructure.

- from an actual job listing on Craigslist (http://www.craigslist.org)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: View Camera Magazine