'The challenge when photographing sex is the very blurry and highly subjective line between creating a beautiful image and succumbing to someone else’s judgmental definition of pornography. When is it art? When is it not art? I think the only reasonable answer is a beautiful image regardless of subject matter that delivers an engaging and poetic composition, a delicate dance of light, shadows, contours, angles; an image that captures an emotional moment in an ongoing story; an image that inspires mystery, questions and any kind of emotional reaction.'
'Cum in your eye? Not art. Cum lacing it’s way across the undulating contours of muscularity. Art. Porn is an image, moving or still with the sole intent to sexually arouse the viewer. Or so we are told. Michelangelo’s flaccid David is an artistic masterpiece. Michelangelo’s David fully erect would be porn. Bullshit. Art expresses the emotion and mystery of life and death, of good and evil, of flaccid and tumescent. Perhaps the only true definition of porn is an unfortunate and amateurish slop of lousy composition, harsh lighting and an overworked cliche.'
No comments:
Post a Comment