posted by .thatskarobot on April 9th, 2008 12:05 AM

I truly think of the female form as a work of art.

posted by The Animus on April 9th, 2008 12:20 AM

I agree whole-heartedly with you on this, Lincoln. I kinda wondered if it was my childish ego that stopped me from appreciating the male body as well ("Don't be gay, fag!"). I'm starting to think that it's more objective than it seems, and that there's something inherently beautiful about a woman's body.
Now go make me my dinner, woman! :: grins ::

Also, impending waves of doom are impending.

posted by Lincøln on April 9th, 2008 12:23 AM

Don't get me wrong, I think the male body is amazing as well, and I'd like to see everybody in the world naked.
But the female form is just sleeker and better designed. Aesthetically speaking.

posted by The Animus on April 9th, 2008 3:44 AM

I just think the female body has so much more going for it, in terms of interpretation. This is probably just biased symbology, but males typically represent strength, and stability maybe, and.... Well, hmph. Albeit a product of society, the female body is much more adept at representing sexuality, comfort, fashion, beauty, sophistication, and alternative means of empowerment. I think that since the female body is so much more open for interpretation, people take it as they see fit, and thus garner respect for / attraction to it.
Plus, cocks are ugly.

posted by done on April 9th, 2008 4:39 AM

I find it very interesting that you talk about the female body like it would be an object.

How many points for that?

posted by Sparrows Fall on April 9th, 2008 6:26 AM

Aw, dammit Lincoln. Ditto babe hawaii.

posted by Lincøln on April 9th, 2008 9:16 AM

Well, I am talking about it like an object. I am completely objectifying the female body with this task. Maybe there'll be another task where I can explain why I love the mind of women and everything else, but this is a task from the University of Aesthematics and it's about appearance, product and technique. Were this an HC task, I'd have tackled it from a completely different perspective. But I'm here to show just the body as a work of art. I am separating the body from the rest of the woman, from the mind, the soul if you will. I'm metaphorically placing just the form on a museum wall. There is no soul in any of this except what you bring to the art from experience with the object. So the only life it has (like any piece of art) is the life that you, the viewer breathe into it.

I love women so much on so many levels, and this is just one of those levels. I am a proud feminist and think there is nothing wrong with objectifying a woman's body, or anything really. I'm right now working on objectifying my own desires. And I find nothing wrong with that. This is art people, not real life. We're supposed to look at things critically and objectively.

posted by done on April 9th, 2008 10:38 AM

When I read this very male dialog of you and the Animus I just found that there is the need for another perspective.
You shouldn't take this too serious. It's just a comment.

I'm no native speaker, so I might have got this wrong, but the word art is very related to the word artificial, so I always thought that art has to be something that is created and not given.

and:
I still somehow like this completion, because it has lot's of LOVE in it, but it's a difficult topic that YOU started. I would find it strange if this little discussion we have would not take place here and all the comments would just be about how amazing the female body can represent sexuality and fashion.

posted by Bex. on April 9th, 2008 12:01 PM

Y'know, Lincoln, I don't have a problem with objectification either, as long as i know, as i do in your case, that that's not the whole story. Desperately in love though I may be, i still love to look at my beloved like a piece of meat.

Here's what makes me a little itchy though:
THE Female body.
Now I know my body is one featured here, and your images do have some variety... But still, most of these images are of bodies that are unattainable by real women without surgery, corsets, and zero gravity. Its not every female body as you said. Its one kind. And a fake kind at that.
It just sucks to always be fed fed fed (by all of society, i don't hold you solely responsible) the idea that thats what i'm supposed to look like, that being an object of beauty is my purpose for existing.
Especially when i actually have saggy tits, cellulite, stretch marks, knobby knees, spider veins, saddle bags, ugly toes, armpit hair, scars, bruises, arthritis, crowsfeet, and wear enormous, tattered underwear and a hideaous sweat suit all day.
What about other female bodies? Are they not art? Are they not women? Old women? Middle-aged women? Clothed women? Fat women? Thin women with small boobs and hips? Pregnant women? Children? How narrow must our idea of female beauty be? I'm only 28 and I'm already often made to feel useless because my beauty is fading.


My body is one featured here and i still feel alienated from this idea of beauty. Its a good question you asked in the caption of my picture: "Does this still count?"

Is the only way a woman can become art if she also becomes sexualized?



Sorry for the rant, I just join this conversation because i trust that you understand where I'm coming from and certainly have no ill intentions and i'm interested to hear yours and others' responses.

posted by Lincøln on April 9th, 2008 12:17 PM

Hmm. That's interesting. I've had this argument in my head for quite some time. When I was caught by my step mother many many years ago with a stack of stolen Playboys, she got mad at me for looking at them, and added the one killer line that has stuck with me till today "And that's not what women look like anyway!" and it got me to thinking. The women in these magazines were real women, right? Sure, they were picked for their beauty, but still women. And they are attractive, so why not have them in magazines for others to enjoy? And I've been thinking about this question for twenty years now. And now that I'm a photographer and photograph nude women on occasion, I think about this. Every picture that I take I try to make the woman as beautiful as she can look. And all of my models thus far, all have stretch marks and scars and cellulite and all kinds of things that aren't typically "desireable". Should I accentuate or minimize these traits? I choose to minimize. And when I show the models the pictures you don't see here, they agree.

I don't know why people want to look their best, but they do. Everybody wants to look their best. If they didn't MAC would be out of business. As would Guess and Abercomie & Fitch and Revlon. But as long as humans have an ego in them, they're gonna wanna look their best. I see no problem as an artist perpetuating that.

And yes, I chose you and anna one to duplicate for this very reason, you are both real people with real bodies. As for the other models, I should show you some of the out-take shots. These are not what you would typically consider beautiful women. Yet I find them beautiful no matter what. And the photos I have posted, I feel make them look their most beautiful. I think that is a fine thing.

posted by Bex. on April 9th, 2008 12:49 PM

I don't want to be minimized!!
I don't want people to look politely the other way when I'm not being a perfect specimen of a narrow definition of beauty.
I don't want to be beautiful in spite of my armpit hair, age, size, etc. I want to be beautiful with it, because of it even.

My armpit hair and man-hands tell you way more about who i am than my thin waist. The things that make my body art to me include the ways my varicose veins cross each other on my thighs. They do not include the way I might look when I stand sway-backed, spread-eagle, pouting my lips, and gently stroking someone's labia for the gaze of a camera.
This kind of sexuality tells me more about how someone else would use my body than anything organic to who I am. And anyway, sexuality, even more empoweringly defined, should not be the end of the story on my beauty.

Why can't women "look our best" just as we are? Not edited, cropped, airbrushed, minimized, make-upped, lingeried, dieted, surgeried, styled, posed, photographed, and photoshopped?
MAC and Revlon shouldn't be allowed to dictate how we define beauty or how we define woman.

I think as artists our responsibility is to challenge the hegemonic concepts we're spoon-fed and create new possibilities for the meaning of beauty.

posted by Scarlett on April 9th, 2008 1:23 PM

Lincoln: I think it's interesting that you're drawing a distinction between beauty and sexual attractiveness (or at least I think you are). Presumably you're not sexually attracted to every woman's body (this would be a rather overwhelming existence), but you say you always find beauty in them. So on the one hand, while still very much locating the female in the corporeal, this mitigates Bex's criticism somewhat.

But I say "somewhat" because, really, is every woman beautiful to you? While I know you don't mean to condescend, this is such an over-generalization that it can't possibly be accurate. And if such a generalization were made based on racial rather than gendered characteristics, this would be more obviously problematic.

I CERTAINLY agree with you that "the female body" as an abstract ideal is beautiful; and furthermore that many, many, many actual female bodies are beautiful even/especially when they don't look like the ones in Playboy. And there is definitely something about "the female form" that makes it more appealing naked than "the male form" (in my opinion). But I guess I take issue with the notion that all females somehow essentially are/look the same. Oooh, just writing "are/look" made my heart go pitter-pat with nostalgia for my undergrad Sociology days...I'll stop myself here.

In summation: I heart boobies in general, but not all boobies in particular. :)

posted by Lincøln on April 9th, 2008 1:31 PM

Agreed Scarlett. With just about everything you say. There is a very very large distinction between beauty and sexual attractiveness. I have found maybe a dozen women sexually attractive in my life thus far, but have found every woman beautiful. And I was not being hyperbolic, I can find something beautiful in every woman. Or at least in every woman I have seen thus far in my life. Granted, I have seen a very very small percentage of possible women that exist and maybe I'll see one that I find nothing beautiful about someday, but for right now, all of them are beautiful to me.

posted by Bex. on April 9th, 2008 1:49 PM

posted by The Animus on April 9th, 2008 3:07 PM

Ms. Defiler is moving us in the right direction, I think. I didn't mean to open up a can of worms here. I was really comparing society's choice of the female body over the male body to represent the things I listed (notice that sexuality and beauty are listed separately). Granted, I don't think any one here really agrees to what they've done to that choice (by completely mutilating 'models' into unattainable forms by an average standard (and that, in itself, completely ignores the concept of diversity)).
So, to clear things up, I was really questioning society's basic preference (mine included) of the female form over the male form for things such as art (realistic or not -- hence the 'flower' picture, perhaps?).
Bex, you made a really good point about being real. You have to remember, though, that
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
It's perfectly alright if you don't want to conform to society's twisted ideals. I commend you for that. And though honestly, I don't have an eye to take in the beauty of every woman, in no way would I ever try to hold you (or any one) to those fucked up standards. So you can go ahead and take pictures of your rolls, your cankles, your uneven saggy tits, and I wouldn't think less of you. If its tasteful, it'd make beautiful art.

I was right about the waves. :: grins ::

posted by Sparrows Fall on April 9th, 2008 4:07 PM

I have about five different things to say, but I'm simplifying down to this for now.

Lincoln, you say:

There is a very very large distinction between beauty and sexual attractiveness. I have found maybe a dozen women sexually attractive in my life thus far, but have found every woman beautiful. And I was not being hyperbolic, I can find something beautiful in every woman.

So. Sexual attractiveness is one thing. Beauty is another. Implication being this praxis, since it is about greatest work of art in the history of humanity, is about beauty.

Yet earlier you said:

Don't get me wrong, I think the male body is amazing as well, and I'd like to see everybody in the world naked.
But I have no desire to touch a male body.

You are not sexually attracted to the male body. Rock on. But does that mean it is not beautiful?

It's hard to see how you can on one hand separate sexual attractiveness from pure beauty, and on the other explain that there are only women's bodies in the praxis because you don't want to touch a male body.

How does this not imply that the inclusion of these images (which are predominantly ones with heavily emphasized sexual characteristics) is driven not by their beauty, but by their sexualized nature?

posted by Lincøln on April 9th, 2008 4:10 PM

The throw-away line about not wanting to touch a male body is just a little insight into my phyche and has nothing to do with the task. And I shouldn't say "no desire" as I do have a small desire creep up on me from time to time (like that one time I met Brad Pitt, who by the way is the most beautiful human I have ever seen, but he's small and pretty like a girl, so...).

I was speaking objectively and aesthetically about women. And this task isn't Truth. It is my opinion. If I were a woman, or a gay man, perhaps I'd feel differently, but since I am neither of those (or maybe despite that fact) I think the female is a more beautiful piece of art, than is the male. Both are beautiful, but the female wins.

And I agree that women, drawn or displayed by men historically have far overshadowed men (displayed by women). But I'm not talking historically here, I'm talking personally. Personally, I find the woman's body (objectively) to be the greatest work of art in the history of humanity. Which you (SFØ) don't have to agree with, it is just my opinion. And I have thought about it a lot.

posted by Fonne Tayne on April 9th, 2008 4:53 PM

i'll leave it to SFØ Latium (ahem!) to explicate more completely on this one, but...


ART. [Middle English, from Old French, from Latin ars, art-; see ar- in Indo-European roots.]


ARTIFICIAL. [Middle English, from Old French, from Latin artificiālis, belonging to art, from artificium, craftsmanship; see artifice.]


interesting... i didn't realize they do have just the same root, and the most important usage actually comes from the "human-created" meaning of the word, rather than the "false" meaning. id est, often people say 'that's artificial,' meaning false and/or inferior to 'the real thing.'


for y'alls info, 'artificial' is otherwise known in...
Norwegian as: unaturlig
German as: künstlich

posted by Scienceguru on April 9th, 2008 6:04 PM

Well it is nice to see some adult sexuality on a site that often seems to be existing in the world of Peter Pan and Wendy, but that said ....

The perception that the female body is the greatest work of art in the world is a vision of those who desire them, and who have historically held the gavel, the pen, and the paintbrush. So women are not out of line in noting objectification: however friendly.

I will say that when het women share the perspective that they kind've enjoy male gay porn, (not all do, of course, just some) that often does not make many straight men incredibly happy.

I'd guess the women here are more or less responding the same way to objectified desire.

posted by Myrna Minx on April 9th, 2008 6:54 PM

I am fascinated by art and have chosen to make it the focus of my professional life. I am still in the fledgling stages, but offer this as a sort of humble qualification to the following statement.

The question, "what is art?" has a fantastic and hilarious ability to fluster freshman who are unaccustomed to examining anything other than Facebook. There are 2 facets to my personal definition, which also happen to be the 2 reasons for my perennial infatuation with the stuff:

1. The production of art is a uniquely human activity, and one that is not necessarily tied to our moral or rational powers (I should cite Kant here. As a little known fact he was none-too-shabby as an art historian).

2. It exists in our lives for no other purpose than to be seen. It is capable of conveying the imaginative life, among other things, but it is only when an object exists for no other purpose than to be seen that we really look at it.

Some of your reproductions feel like art, but the human body- male, female, and even transgender- doesn't qualify. My body might be a pleasure to behold, but so is a sunset. Call that art and you start to sound like a Christian fundamentalist.

POST SCRIPT EDIT:
Sometimes I fear I come off as overly-critical. So I collected these out of guilt.

ODALISQUES FOR YOU!


Titian. Venus of Urbino. 1538. A virtuous wife, signified by the inclusion of Fido, her modest gesture, and the fact that she's about to be dressed.


Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres. Le Grande Odalisque. 1814. A harem girl, signified by the inclusion of exotic objects. This can be read like a still life, the girl being just one more owned object. Note the opium pipe. This becomes more a portrait of the master than of the girl.


Eduard Manet. Olympia. 1863. A prostitute, signified by the black choker and the flowers from an obviously pleased "client." I like Manet because he reversed the dominating male gaze.

posted by Lank on April 9th, 2008 8:56 PM

I thought the task was to get/make replicas of one specific work of art. Am I right?

Anyway, as a straight man who's been selling gay porn for years, I have to second Ms. Defiler's points (and Sparrows', and Myrna's, and those of most others here). Human beings are hard-wired with sexual desires such that viewing other human bodies can fill us with elation and the desire to copulate. But yeah, not with everyone. Usually with only one gender. And a certain age group, and body type, etc. Nothing wrong with being sexually attracted to a specific type, just as there's nothing wrong with being gay. And lemme tell ya, there is a lot of objectification of male bodies in the world (not as much as of women's bodies) as far back as the Greeks and further, I'm sure.

I had a great moment years ago at work. I had stack of porn titles in front of me and a gay male co-worker sifted through them, commenting on how hot the guys were. He then hit a straight porn title with naked ladies on the cover (which I thought was hot) and he reacted like he had just seen a picture of a disembowelment. "EWWW!"

It's okay to celebrate what you find physically attractive in people (woo hoo nekkid lady butts!) It's also okay to celebrate the beauty of Nature or the Creator of your choice (woo hoo that jellyfish is gorgeous!)

But art is not necessarily beautiful. I'm not going to attempt to define art, but there's a reason why pornography is not art and it's not just the quality of the images. The Annie Liebovitz show currently at the Legion of Honor is very moving (go see it!) partly because she displays her classically "beautiful" flawless magazine-cover portraiture of celebrities alongside some very candid, flawed and very human shots of friends, family, un-famous folks, and even some of those same celebs. And some landscapes.

As far as objectification goes, that's a spiritual matter, IMHO. If you don't think of yourself as a thing, then you're within rights to disagree if you're called art. Because artworks are things.

No one really wants to feel unattractive. Displaying a specific body type and calling that "art" implicitly says that others are "not art", or "unworthy" somehow, whether or not that's how you feel. I could diatribe for hours on how individuals and and society are massively warped over the concept of physical beauty, but I've already written enough.

posted by Sparrows Fall on April 9th, 2008 8:59 PM

Okay, I agree that this is your praxis, and here I am mucking around in your comments section with my take on things. It is, as you say, your opinion, not Truth, and it's not like you're charging onto my computer screen forcing me to look at it. So I'm gonna try to back off this conversation, and quit, well, looking at it.

But I just want to say - and this may just be my personal take on things, and not an opinion shared by anyone else - I find it jarring to see women's bodies so emphatically referred to as works of art, and for that description to be used as the main support for your argument. It's a description that seems on the surface to be a tremendous compliment, but actually is not. Art has an artist - a creator. It is something made, whether through an actual act of creation or through definition ('found art', etc.).

There is one, very unsettling, take on this that works with the 'art' metaphor. Given the amount of plastic surgery and body modification done by models and porn stars today (not to mention the distortion often involved in drawing comic book women) to meet artificially elevated standards of attractiveness, it could be argued that 'art' is not an entirely inappropriate term. Those bodies are materials that have been acted upon - cut into or altered like paint or stone - to meet that standard. Carried to the extreme, this take on the female form ('perfected' in terms of sexual attractiveness, rather than, for example, strength), evaluated only as an object completely without personality and intelligence, produces Real Dolls.

I feel like this praxis was well-intended, that it is meant to be complimentary. But that doesn't mean there isn't a hell of a lot of nasty subtext in it.

Sorry Lincoln. I think of you as a really creative person with an original take on things. You've done amazing praxes in the past, and I've voted for several of them, and looked forward to seeing more. So reading this one was like unwrapping a good brand of chocolate and finding it riddled with maggots.

posted by Sparrows Fall on April 9th, 2008 9:01 PM

...and then Lank says it better than I can while I'm editing.

posted by JTony Loves Brains on April 9th, 2008 9:54 PM

You know I love you, Lincoln, but I've gotta call foul on this praxis.

There is so much to talk about here, so much I want to dive into and say, but I'll keep it to what I think is the most important thing here... did you complete the task according to the directions. I feel you did not.

This has made me have to do something I haven't done in years... re-define the term "Art" for myself. Since High School I have defined "Art" as simply whatever an Artist says it is. This begs the question, "What is an Artist." The answer, simply, "Someone who creates "Art".

But there's something I hadn't thought of. I don't think that you can point to another person and say "he" or "she is Art". I do not believe it is valid for one person to define another person so narrowly. A person can define themselves, or just their bodies, as Art, but for another person to do that is automatically invalid in my book. Equally so to sweepingly define an entire gender, race, or other section of humanity. It just isn't valid.

So, you're saying that female bodies are art, and I'm calling foul, because I do not think it is valid for you make that claim for them. It is beyond objectification, and it demeans all women, I think.

Now I have stated before I'm not a flagger, and I'm not starting here, but I really think that the praxis does not sufficiently meet the words of the task.

One other note. Lots of talk about separation of beauty and sexuality, but I want to point out that all of the images you chose, Lincoln, are highly sexualized (with perhaps 2 exceptions... bex, which is still nude, and the pen drawing, which I just don't understand), which tends to go against the claim of separation of the two. I know the discussion about the separation came after you chose your images, but I was curious why you chose ONLY sexual images.

Again, I love you Lincoln, but this proof doesn't cut it for me.

posted by Julian Muffinbot on April 9th, 2008 10:16 PM

Many others have made the points I want to make, but I also wanted to make another point that I think has been brought up but deserves to be highlighted.

(I'm not even getting into the whole "is the female body art?" thing. I mean, I don't think it is, but yeah. Regardless, there is plenty of art *depicting* bodies, of all genders, out there and I focus on that here.)

It just rubs me the wrong way to have the female body declared as the most beautiful art whereas the male body is not, and I say that as someone who is pretty much only attracted to women myself. It just too strongly plays into the fucked up social dynamic in which women's bodies are valued for their beauty, while men's bodies are valued for other things (their physical strength, is usually the unspoken assumption).

It reminds me of when I was a freshman in high school looking at yearbooks with my friends. All of my friends were straight (and I still thought I was, too) and we were counting how many girls in our class were hot, vs how many boys. Our calculated percentage of hot girls was ridiculously bigger.

For us to calculate those percentages in favor of our own gender was only possible because we were girls. No boy would have been caught dead telling his friends he found more boys hot than girls, even though it was fine for girls to find more girls hot than boys. We are socialized early on to believe that men are unable to judge one another's hotness, and if they ever do, it's automatically considered gay. Women who judge one another's hotness are NOT automatically, or even most of the time, labeled as lesbians. It's one of the forces behind the greater revulsion/horror at gay men, while lesbians are held up as more acceptable (as long as straight men get to watch/join in, of course). neither of which is a particularly great attitude. Personally, I'd like to see less revulsion/horror directed at everyone, and while i doubt straight mens' enjoyment of watching two women get it on is going anywhere, I'd love to see straight women's enjoyment of watching two men get it on come out of the fandom community and become as prevalent as its counterpart.

Hmm so back to my actual point... basically, the "women's bodies are more beautiful than men's bodies" thing is really not a helpful attitude and is doing nothing other than propping up the existing gender stereotypes that are bad for EVERYONE, regardless of gender. It keeps women's bodies objectified, it keeps men from being allowed a full range of expression of what they find beautiful, it props up revulsion and homophobia, etc.

posted by The Animus on April 9th, 2008 10:29 PM

It's all just water-cooler-talk from here on out, but hey, we all have our opinions.
So that means I'm not here to offend or change anyone's minds.
I agree that the images for the praxis are highly sexualized (but wait, what is sexual!? People have varying tastes, fetishes and perspectives -- ah, nevermind). However, I think it's unrealistic to ask any one, epic SF0 tasker or not, to present the infinite scope that is the human female (or the broad expansive topic of their bodies, for that matter).
Calling some one art doesn't narrowly define them at all. Think of it as adding a tag to a YouTube video. It's simply a faceted description of the video itself. It doesn't define the video, it's just one of the many possible parameters. If the female body is art, it also can be sexual, it can be ugly, it can be anything the interpreter wants it to be or sees it as. That 'art' tag doesn't make the female body less than what it is (unless you really don't like any art -- and again, that's subjective), so I don't find it objectifying or demeaning -- generally. Has that tag been added in a demeaning, 'womanizing' fashion before? Most definitely. Has Lincoln? I don't think so.

JTony talks about the artist a little bit, but is kinda sketchy when it comes to defining art. From what I understand, the artist can call themselves (and perhaps by extension anything they own) as art, but not 'things' belonging to other people, including those other people?
Realistically, any one can call anything art. I can go on about how an artist discerns what they create as art or failures or conventional structures or logical constructs, but I'm not going to.
Given that any one can put this 'art' tag on anything (or anyone), I personally try to find meaning in that tag by attempting to solve the artist's intention. It seems to me that it's the factor that separates the 'demeaning' art from the 'classy' art.
Now, applying that perspective to Lincoln's task: What was Lincoln's intention in reproducing this 'art' (across various media of which he had varying control)?
There's most likely different reasons for each picture, but the general gist, to me, was a positive one. It wasn't a "Look at these hot bitches!" -- it seemed really respectful and reverent to me. Thus, I think he completed his task.

posted by The Animus on April 9th, 2008 10:34 PM

Julian, for the record, I was the one that brought up (and open-questioned) that "women's bodies are more beautiful than men's bodies" thing, and I just didn't have answers to it. I don't think Lincoln upholds that view, so don't hold it against him.
I was looking for some bounce-back on the subject, so I appreciate it.

posted by JTony Loves Brains on April 9th, 2008 10:48 PM

Julian... I think that's why Robert Mappelthorpe was such a boogeyman to the right-wing agenda back in the 80's... I defy anyone to take a decent sampling of his work and sit down and really look at it and not call it beautiful. I find his depictions of men... although idealized in similar ways to the "perfect" beauty of women... simply magical.

posted by JTony Loves Brains on April 9th, 2008 10:50 PM

AAAHHHH! I just got the pen and ink picture... it is AnnaWon, like you said (I didn't connect it). Nicely done, too, now I've got my glasses on.

On further reflection I'd like to withdraw my questions about sexuality and beauty and Lincoln's choices. A good, logical argument can be made that several of the choices are not sexualized depictions and are only sexualized by their proximity to other items in the group.

posted by Lincøln on April 10th, 2008 12:24 AM

I think most people here have missed the point, and I know this because a lot of people have said that they disagree with me or my interpretation or ideas or whatever, but I agree with just about everybody here (I did disagree with Myrna Minx, but her edit makes me no longer disagree fully). I understand and feel the same way most of you feel. But you're mostly talking about a subject that has nothing to do with this task.

I don't think of women as objects any more than I think of monkeys as objects, but when contextualized as I have done here, by putting them in a frame and holding them up to you, makes them objects. And again, it's not the woman with her thoughts and ideas and attitude that is objectified, just the form. And that form is art. There are no women in this praxis. Ce n'est pas une femme. So is this demeaning to women? Are you somehow offended by these pieces? Why? You don't think they qualify as art? They're not artistic enough?

Is this art?

Is this?

Is this?

Is this?

Is this?

What's the difference?

posted by JTony Loves Brains on April 10th, 2008 12:49 AM

In terms of the task, Lincoln, I feel like you are trying to have it both ways. Your opening gambit states:

The greatest work of art in the history of humanity is without question the female human body.I find that every woman's body is beautiful. Truly a work of art.

You are not talking about depictions here, but about living, breathing, human bodies. The pipe, not the painting. You then bring out representations, depictions of that pipe, but the Art which the task is asking you to interact with through purchased or created replication you are stating is the female human form itself.

I take issue with the idea of calling a female human form, or The Female Human Form in the Socratic/Platonic sense, a work of art, as I believe it demeans the human inside that form. I take issue with saying a monkey is a work of art, (even a genetically engineered cyborg monkey, destined to ruin the coming ape/robot war by being the living representation of simian/cyborg union). Living things are just not art.

That said, I do leave room for things such as body modification/ body sculpting/ use of the body in works of art, but those are the self determinations of those who own those bodies to make them art. But I do not believe that an artist can make or claim another being as art without thier self determined will. Or if they can, it is highly unethical to the point, I think, of negating the value of the art.

I got what you were trying to do, Lincoln, I just disagree with it and I don't think it meets the criteria set forth.

posted by Scarlett on April 10th, 2008 1:08 AM

Well, Zm:

You are completely on-point that "artificial" shares its root with "art". Technically, it comes from artifex (one who makes art). Interestingly, an artifex fingit; that is, the verb associated with the actual creation of art is fingo, fingere, finxi, fictum (to fashion/mold). This verb is also associated with the creation of lies/manipulation of the truth, and is where we get the word "fiction".

And we do "fashion" our bodies, with or without plastic surgery. The body is a constant project, shaped by our activities or lack of them, our diets, our clothing, our depilating or letting grow. We are all our own artifices.

To weigh in on the men vs. women beauty thing: beauty, as has oft been said, is in the eye of the beholder. There is a difference between the Male and Female Form, and it's ok to prefer one to the other aesthetically. I'd rather have the Venus Pudens than the David in my atrium. I don't think that denies or disparages Male beauty.

posted by Lincøln on April 10th, 2008 1:21 AM

JTony, I mean the female human body as art. Not as person. As art. I mean the thing painters paint, the thing poems are written about, the thing scuptures are made for, I mean the thing that launched a thousand ships. I mean the form, not the person. Not the soul. I mean the art. Do you see the difference? Maybe you do and just don't agree, but I just feel you don't see that I mean the art. The form. If my wording is unclear or puzzling, know that I am refering to the art not the woman. I want to have my mind changed, but I think the vision is so myopic here that the point is being missed. This conversation reminds me a lot of scienceguru's first rant about ArcticZero where she was just missing the point. She was so upset with the military presence on the continent that she couldn't see the fun. I think everybody here can see that I don't mean to objectify the entire gender of woman, but rather the form. Because if you all think that by me taking a photograph of a nude woman and calling it art, that I am somehow demeaning women in general, then I just don't understand. Maybe you all need to feel heard and to show that you're all feminists and for equality and you hate women used to sell T-shirts by not wearing T-shirts or whatever this praxis has brought up in you about women being treated like objects outside of the confines of art. I don't know.

Well, whatever any of you think, I think I've made my point.

posted by Bex. on April 10th, 2008 2:41 AM

Dismissing the validity of historical and current societal implication, as well as everyone's personal experiences within that, and chalking this all up to "us all" being issue-laden, attention-seeking, and thick-headed shows a lack of understanding that is really disappointing.

Lincoln, you're an amazing tasker, but this makes me uncomfortable and honestly angry.
I don't think I am missing your point. I just don't think it's "fun."
And its not because I'm pmsing
and its not because my daddy mistreated me
and its not because Toulouse-Lautrec liked to paint panties
and its not because playboy airbrushes out labia
and its not because i don't love to look at naked female bodies
and its not because art is a long history of men holding the brush and women subject to the control and limitation of thier gaze.
Its because this task is not taking responsibility for its own representations, meanings, and power implications.
And it ignores the validity of those other factors. To pretend that this task can exist outside of them is erroneous.

And to think that you can show an collection of images about The Female Body without saying anything about women is also erroneous. Just because you think you are honoring women, does not mean that you are. Just because you don't mean to objectify them does not mean you are not doing so.

Narrowly defining beauty and The Female Body while broadly defining art and then conflating them is problematic to say the least. Can you see how if you claim to love every female body and that they're all beautiful and all art but then show only one kind of body, you're implying that all others don't count somehow? Either they're not female or they're not art or ...? If you do think more than one kind of woman is beautiful, then put your money where your mouth is and include some representations of them. If not then don't make such a statement and own up to exactly what you do mean.

I am the last person to disparage female nudity and sexuality especially as subjects of art. But the way its done makes the difference between empowering-and-lovely or violent-and-offensive. But by the reactions you are getting, your take on this obviously leaned more toward one side of the scale than the other. John Berger sums this difference up concisely and cannonically in his book Ways of Seeing. Please, please read it.

And lastly, even if this completion were not offensive, and even if it were well done to the standards we've come to expect, its relation to the original task is tenuous at best.

posted by done on April 10th, 2008 4:25 AM

Lincoln,
You say that the female body is the greatest work of art in history.

1. there is nothing like "the female body", what should that be?
2. As I said before in my understanding art has to be created, not given and I know that that's the common understanding of art within capable art theory. There is the possibility to declare something as art, but then the act of declaring would be the actual artwork, the creation of an idea, a concept.
3. If you say that you objectifie the body and put it in a frame the actual work of art is not the female body, but the image of the female body, what brings me to the point, that the pictures you posted might be images of the female body and some of them could be defined as art, but defenitly not as the greatest works of art in humanity. I don't know what that should be either, but I'm sure that these don't make it to the top ten.
I don't know why you decided to do this task in that way, but for me it's just not very well done. Without any reflection and point, thats just a macho thing, nothing else.
But: I really enjoed reading all these comments !!
Hello and thanks to everyone with attitude!

posted by JTony Loves Brains on April 10th, 2008 7:21 AM

Lincoln - I think you are misunderstanding me, actually. I am not complaining about any of the pieces of art you posted. I agree and accept that all of them are art. If you take a picture of a naked woman, however titillating, however pornographic, and call it art, then it is valid art. The act of an artist pointing at some THING and calling it art brings us into a new way of seeing that THING, which, by my definition makes it art. It also makes it something to be criticized, and often harshly. I don't think anyone here is saying that the items you present are not art.

But you go further. Although we all agree that the picture of the pipe (even when it says it is not a pipe) is art, you hold up the pipe itself and say that form is the art. I am saying a form cannot be the art, especially when that form is living and breathing.

We are all stuck in the Socratic cave, looking at shadows of the Platonic forms, but we can't turn around and see the real thing. And that's really what you are talking about, here, is the Platonic Form of a female body, the embodiment of all that is female beauty. I am saying that Platonic Forms are not art. The art is the process of pointing to a THING, a representation of one of those Forms. Calling the human form Art is dragging it down to a THING, and that breaks it.

If we get out of philosophy and into the "real world" and talk about the ideal of the human body as it lives and breathes, there are still problems. Idealizing the physical human body as art in and of itself, without the addition of the representation, makes the human body a THING by my definition, and that makes it no longer a Person. Making the sweeping gesture of saying all human bodies are art makes them all THINGS and makes them not People (Soylent Green is People). And we are at the same impasse.

I don't think anyone is attacking your art, Lincoln, but I do think that your definition of the human form as a work of art, which is the basis of your thesis (and which you seem to have stopped arguing from) is flawed and also does not meet the requirements of the task. I get it, Lincoln, but it doesn't fly for me.

Oh, and I resent the comparison to the early scienceguru arguments. No where here have I been insulting or demeaning toward you or your efforts, which was a defining part of sg's comments. If it stings to be criticized, I'm very sorry. My intention is not to sting. My intention is to address the praxis you've presented, and do so with respect, which I think I've done. Bringing sg's early works in was a cheap shot, and hurts.

posted by Flitworth on April 10th, 2008 8:52 AM

As a woman I don't really feel the mind and the body can be separated in this way. Perhaps it's an over-active sense of empathy but I definitely feel the weight of expectation, standardization, and connotation when I see highly sexualized (and impersonal) images of women. Especially when it is repeated so many times. We are not empty vessels and to attempt to make our forms abstract is worrying because one has to wonder where it stops.

posted by Scarlett on April 10th, 2008 8:57 AM

This is a really great book about the male body.

Lincoln, while I am supporting your right to appreciate women aesthetically, and in the abstract Platonic sense, I still don't think it's fair to lump all women together -- even under the same compliment. Again, would you feel comfortable making an assessment of the beauty/lack of beauty of every single member of a particular racial group? I don't see how what you're saying is any different.

That being said, I hope you don't take all this discussion too personally - it's an interesting subject, and I for one am starved for opportunities to discuss theory with intelligent people.

But enough of all this gender talk, I've got a thief to catch!!! Stay tuned...

posted by Lank on April 10th, 2008 9:15 AM

Mr. Lincoln, I appreciate that you love women, and individual women, and the beauty of the female form. And I believe that you think that calling something "art" is a compliment.

But you are making a lot of people very upset and I think you should try to figure out why.

For one thing, the female form (which suffers every time that phrase is bandied about here) is a subject of artwork, not artwork itself. It seems that what you keep insisting is that women's bodies are "art", not the women themselves. I think that this insistence is not helping you.

Idealized bodies are a separation from real bodies. Those who modify their bodies toward some ideal often do so in order to make their body, as an object, be more appreciated. Body modification is an art in which the body is the medium, a canvas of sorts. Those who choose to do this are making a statement in one way or another, choosing to use their bodies as objects.

Bodies are obviously very personal to each of us. Our bodies are a large part of who we are. It's what we use to express ourselves, it's how we are physically seen (and sadly, how we are judged by others to a large degree), it's how we make love, how we bear children, how we fall down and hurt ourselves. It's where our personalities live.

It's fine if you choose to separate yourself from your body. But doing so for others, especially ALL WOMEN, is disrespectful. I know you don't mean any disrespect, but that's how it's coming across.

posted by Scienceguru on April 10th, 2008 9:29 AM

"I want to have my mind changed, but I think the vision is so myopic here that the point is being missed. This conversation reminds me a lot of scienceguru's first rant about ArcticZero where she was just missing the point. She was so upset with the military presence on the continent that she couldn't see the fun"

Oh no guys and gals, you're being myopic and you're not seeing the FUN!

posted by Lank on April 10th, 2008 9:34 AM

Here's a question:

What do the images provided in this task say about female bodies?

posted by The Animus on April 10th, 2008 10:00 AM

:: sighs ::

They could say anything. They're open for interpretation. As is the world and everything else. But hey, if we ignore Lincoln's interpretations, we can extrapolate this task into something it's not!

I'm sorry, Lincoln. For some reason, I feel like I started this, with the use of the words 'objective' and 'beauty'. What was supposed to be near-pointless banter turned into every-one-needs-a-point-stronger-than-the-rest. This is how my family communicates, so I know how it is when something (anything) doesn't get through.

I enjoyed your task completion.
For no reason at all.

posted by JTony Loves Brains on April 10th, 2008 10:19 AM

I disagree Animus:

1. Yes things are open for interperetation, but that means there are some right and wrong interperetations. I'm not saying there is A right and A wrong interperetation, but that some will definitely be wrong by the very nature that they ignore either the text, the context, or both. Some interperetations will be "righter" than others. By examining Lincoln's "text" (by which I mean both the words and images he provides in the task) we can come up with some things that they say about women's bodies, and some will be more right than others and will extend the dialog. That's what Lank is saying, I think.

2. You didn't start this. The discussion would have happened with or without you. You are not a linchpin (or a lynchpin).

3. Just because you are frustrated with what people are saying, frustrated with the criticism of something you like, doesn't mean those people are not getting it, or that folks are trying to one-up one another point wise. The people writing here, myself included, have, I think, important things to say about this praxis. If you were less interested in feeling bad for Lincoln because his praxis is being criticised, less interested in defending him, you might hear some interesting things about art, bodies, women, and representation. Same goes for Lincoln.

posted by Lincøln on April 10th, 2008 10:26 AM

I love all of this discussion.

It's like fuel.

But I'm not going to respond here any more. My points have been made, and so many people are talking on so many different points, that it's difficult to respond to everybody in a thoughtful way. I'm just going to read now.

posted by JTony Loves Brains on April 10th, 2008 10:31 AM

I like that Lincoln....
Except that I'd like to see some sort of response to the discussion within the praxis. For instance, if you have changed from talking about the female form as art in-and-of-itself, I'd like to see you change the praxis to show that. If the discussion calls for you to upgrade your praxis to better meet the word-and-spirit of the directions of the task and you find yourself nodding at all, then please reflect that in the praxis itself. I wouls so love to take my thoughts away from the flag button and instead put my finger firmly down on the vote button.

posted by Sparrows Fall on April 10th, 2008 10:43 AM

My points have been made

The points you think you made are not the points you actually made.

posted by SNORLAX on April 10th, 2008 10:51 AM

WAKA WAKA WOO WOO
SAID THE HAPPY KANGEROO
FOR HE HAD FOUND A GREAT FIELD OF GRASS
WHICH SEVERAL HOURS LATER, GAVE HIM GAS
TIRED OF GRASS HE LOOKED FOR A TASTY SHRUB
THEN HE WAS EATEN BY AN ELEPHANT CUB

posted by JTony Loves Brains on April 10th, 2008 11:09 AM

You know, I shot a rabbit like you once...

And I can do it again. Meat anyone? Rabbits also make good Soylent Green

posted by Julian Muffinbot on April 10th, 2008 11:11 AM

Lincoln said: "Because if you all think that by me taking a photograph of a nude woman and calling it art, that I am somehow demeaning women in general, then I just don't understand. Maybe you all need to feel heard and to show that you're all feminists and for equality and you hate women used to sell T-shirts by not wearing T-shirts or whatever this praxis has brought up in you about women being treated like objects outside of the confines of art. I don't know."

OK, up until now, it seemed as though your posts were well-meaning but coming from a lack of understanding.

But a response like this is quite offensive, more so than anything in your praxis. Bex's response to this was excellent and I don't really have anything further to add, I just wanted to make sure she was not the only one posting that she was offended by that statement.

I see that you have decided to stop posting, and just keep reading the discussion without comment. I don't think this is a bad idea. Removing from yourself the possibility of posting negative reactions might help to read the posts in a different light and consider what is being said in a new way.

The Animus said: "Julian, for the record, I was the one that brought up (and open-questioned) that "women's bodies are more beautiful than men's bodies" thing, and I just didn't have answers to it. I don't think Lincoln upholds that view, so don't hold it against him.
I was looking for some bounce-back on the subject, so I appreciate it."

While I see your point that you are the one who specifically said "women's bodies are more beautiful than men's bodies", Lincoln basically did uphold that view as well - his entire praxis can essentially be read as one giant uphold of that view, whatever his intention was. That's how it came across.

But regardless, if you are looking for bounce-back on the subject, here are some questions to think about:

-How do women benefit from the societal concept that "women's bodies are more beautiful than men's"?
-Which women benefit most from this assumption? What do their bodies look like?
-How are women harmed by this assumption?
-Which women are most harmed by this assumption? What do their bodies look like?
-How do men benefit from this concept?
-How are men harmed?
-How are the benefits and harms different for straight people vs queer people?

-How are you defining "benefit" or "harm" as they relate to the above questions?

-How is this concept upheld? What social rules enforce it?
-What are the consequences for men who find men's bodies beautiful?
-What are the consequences for women who find men's bodies beautiful?

posted by SNORLAX on April 10th, 2008 11:24 AM

I'M A FERRET. I'M SO COOL
I MAKE THE LADY FERRETS DROOL
EVEN THOUGH THERE'S LITTLE I CAN DO
OTHER THAM MAKE A LOT OF POOPOO

posted by SF0 Daemon on April 10th, 2008 1:53 PM

This proof has been flagged by 7 of your fellow players (for the benefit of all, flags are anonymous). As such, it has been automatically disapproved. Most likely, they've posted comments explaining why they're displeased. If you think you may be the victim of a bug, injustice, or a gang of Rubins, hit up the contact page.

posted by Jellybean of Thark on April 10th, 2008 2:27 PM

How about that? Lincoln's first big red X.

posted by The Animus on April 10th, 2008 4:08 PM

1. Yes things are open for interperetation, but that means there are some right and wrong interperetations.

Wait, what?

I'm not saying there is A right and A wrong interperetation, but that some will definitely be wrong by the very nature that they ignore either the text, the context, or both.

This is iffy. How I see it, interpretations are expressed back to the task as opinions, in the form of comments. Seeing as they're opinion, and thus, subjective, I don't see how they can be right or wrong, as they were formed from the praxis' existence, thus not ignorant of the text.
And then we hit that 'context' word.
Let's go back to things are open for interpretation. We agree, awesome. So this context -- it's a thing. It exists in some form or another, even if only in our minds. It's, then, also open for interpretation.
A similar yet completely different comparison to why we need to interpret context is as follows.
Two people walk into a bar. One orders a burger. The other says "How could you!?"
Now, one could infer that part of that burger was once a cow. That inference has context! Yay! One could interpret that the cow has served a greater purpose than its own by sustaining the life of another. For those of you skimming, that's the interpretation of the person that ordered the burger. Another interpretation could be that the cow deserved to live its life to the fullest, and that being turned into a burger is not a method to do so.
Now, is any one able to say either of these are correct? No. Why? Because even if cows could talk, they too would be spewing opinions. I'm gonna be bold and say
There's nothing objective about context
without thinking through every possibility. So forgive me if you find a problem with that.

2. You didn't start this.

It's good to know. I'm not taking responsibility for this mess (::grins::). It was just a feeling. Moreover, I feel that what I said in the beginning was unrefined and opened up a lot of negativity and that I (or my topic) should've been the subject of all this criticism, not the task itself. After all, he did complete it.
What I should've said:
SF0 IS ABOUT BEING RIGHT.
FLAG.
FAIL.

So, depending on your perspective of flagging and opinion of what a good task is, this discourse we're having wouldn't have to render consequences for it.

3. Just because you are frustrated with what people are saying, frustrated with the criticism of something you like, doesn't mean those people are not getting it, or that folks are trying to one-up one another point wise. The people writing here, myself included, have, I think, important things to say about this praxis.

Hmm.... This praxis, or a subject that was brought in by a particular interpretation of the possible context of this praxis?
Also, it was more of an apology to every one. I'm not trying to get people to shut up by any means (this is fun). And I agree, there's lots of people with important things to say. I don't feel frustrated at all, however a lot of people do, and so this apology can be interpreted as a way of saying : nothing personal. All these comments aren't in defense of Lincoln (in fact -- we disagree. His eye for beauty is way more generous than mine. But I've accepted that, and don't hold it against him as a character, nor this task. Just putting that out there.), nor are they spawned from my appreciation of this task or the subject matter. I initially wrote to express my opinions, like we all are doing here.

Plus, cocks are ugly.

After the conversation picked up, I realized that a lot of these opinions about the conversation itself seemed to be interfering with their opinions about the praxis. "What, we're not allowed to infer context, now?" -- of course you are, so now, an exaggerated recap of how it went wrong.
"LINCOLN! YOU WOMANIZING ASSHOLE! HOW DARE YOU SAY YOU APPRECIATE WOMENS BODIES!"
A not-so-exaggerated example:

Just because you think you are honoring women, does not mean that you are. Just because you don't mean to objectify them does not mean you are not doing so.

See that, right there? That's taking this context you infer (it's yours, now!), and placing it on the praxis (not yours!). To me, that's logical fallacy. But what do I know? So, just remember, that's my opinion.

If you were less interested in feeling bad for Lincoln because his praxis is being criticised, less interested in defending him, you might hear some interesting things about art, bodies, women, and representation. Same goes for Lincoln.

I've been on the internet long enough to know that this = flame-bait. Moving on.

While I see your point that you are the one who specifically said "women's bodies are more beautiful than men's bodies", Lincoln basically did uphold that view as well - his entire praxis can essentially be read as one giant uphold of that view, whatever his intention was. That's how it came across.

Can. See that word in there?Can. It can be read. Not "It reads out like" or "the one way to view this task is". The only thing that quote needs is a 'to me' at the end. Of course, that's just my opinion.
Now, to the fun little questionnaire!

-

How do women benefit from the societal concept that "women's bodies are more beautiful than men's"?

I'm not sure. I'm not a woman, and as I said before, I've always felt like I upheld this view because my ego or other personification of my sex drive or subconscious or whatever it was that made that decision did so to avoid the opposite, or any of the alternatives. When I look at a male body, especially naked, I think "What is he capable of (physically)? How many of him would it take to build my fortress of doom?" and after some interpretations of their facial expressions, if any, I realize that this choice of mine has inhibited me from looking at the beauty of male bodies. Instead it becomes a matter of function to me. I question this particular instance of perspective of a lot, especially in discussions like these. I question it, but I don't get any answers. I then come to the conclusion that I'm a dumbass, and that changing what I like will only make me more politically correct, not any happier. So, by asking for feedback, I was really making sure I'm not missing anything.

-Which women benefit most from this assumption? What do their bodies look like?

Woah! It looks like I didn't answer your first question at all. Perhaps I'm saying it doesn't need to be answered. The general argument that the 'ideal image' of a woman in society's terms can be distorted, unrealistic, unattainable, disgusting -- I can agree with. Or, even if I disagree, it'd be by coincidence rather than supporting society. Us vs Them mentality is never a good thing, and just makes flame-bait (see above).

-How are women harmed by this assumption?

Though to be honest, I don't think any women are directly harmed by societal choices. Some girls strive to be something they're not, and some of those destroy themselves over it. Should we point the finger at society or the girl that actually did the destruction? Ethical issues aren't my thing, to be honest.

-Which women are most harmed by this assumption? What do their bodies look like?

For the record, an assumption is the proposition of a fact. I don't know if the term 'proposition' covers opinions as well. Because my opinion, that women's bodies are more beautiful than men's, isn't a fact, by any means. And the correlation that I drew, that society holds that same opinion, isn't fact, either.
"That means you made a generalization! That's logical fallacy!"
I know. I apologize. Then again, a lot of people made the same mistake here.

-How do men benefit from this concept?

And I know you're probably pissed already for me dodging all these questions, but I think for me to answer these, I would need to know the 'why'. As in, Why does society like boobs so much? I don't know that, and there are lots of theories out there I can pick, but it's just like religion -- I just can't. There's no substance in lottery.
"Do NOT bring religion into this!"
Good call.

-How are men harmed?

We're like, called idiots, and like, mean, and stuff.

-How are the benefits and harms different for straight people vs queer people?

This one sounds like it would be worth answering. But you're asking me to define consequences for personal choices, and I'm of the opinion that the choices should define the consequences. And also, if we're looking into sexuality this much, I might as well point out that even people that, for example, love boobs, don't love 'society's perfect image' of boobs. There's big ones, small ones, some the size of your head! And they're all adored in their respective fashions, by people that choose what they like. I can't make an account for the pros and cons of each of these individual choices, so again, I can't answer your question. After all, being straight is a choice, right? Kinda like a transitive opinion.

-How are you defining "benefit" or "harm" as they relate to the above questions?

Not Applicable. Sorry. But I commend you, for this would be a good question to ask.

-How is this concept upheld? What social rules enforce it?

Call me socially inept, and I'm sure they're out there (zomg fuck teh medya!), but I'm of the opinion that these social rules can be ignored, bent or broken. Yes, America is losing its liberties one by one (another opinion), but as human beings, we have the ability to choose what we do, say, and (if you'll believe it) think. Of course, that's not verified (zomg, determinism), but it's a thought.

-What are the consequences for men who find men's bodies beautiful?

They get flagged to death and sent to Hell0?

-What are the consequences for women who find men's bodies beautiful?

:: shrugs :: Could be anything.
I just want express my opinion that these questions were very bold, in that they suggested many straw men and coerced the answers. Let me also reiterate that if I answered these questions not giving a rat's ass about logic, I would've come to the answers you wanted me to: Society is a womanizer, men can't think men are beautiful without being ostracized, and so on. However, if it was your intention to change my view on beauty, I want to apologize for wasting your time. If it was your intention to make sure I wasn't ignoring your interpretation of context, then you did an admirable job.


So, incase you just tl;dr'd, I want to point out that every one has their opinions. They're a bit disorganized here, but they're for the most part educated, and agreeable.
I did not read one fucking comment saying "Let's demean women! Yeah, go men!". I think we all agree that society is a hideous tool. I'm of the opinion we've all seen its effects and disagree with many of them. Now, that being said.
Is one entitled to their own vision of beauty? Is one entitled to their own opinion? Most certainly! Can another disagree? Definitely! Does that have anything to do with this task completion? Hmm....

posted by JTony Loves Brains on April 10th, 2008 4:20 PM

First, you address all the people who disagree with you as one entity, even though we addressed very different points. That's a problem. for instance,I addressed the praxis directly in pretty much every post, and did not bring in much from the outside. My problem is the praxis does not fulfill the criteria set forth by the task. He did not complete it, as far as I see. From the X, it looks like others agree.

Also, why did you hide this?:

I did not read one fucking comment saying "Let's demean women! Yeah, go men!". I think we all agree that society is a hideous tool. I'm of the opinion we've all seen its effects and disagree with many of them. Now, that being said.
Is one entitled to their own vision of beauty? Is one entitled to their own opinion? Most certainly! Can another disagree? Definitely! Does that have anything to do with this task completion? Hmm....

I have other responses, but they'll have to wait.

posted by Flitworth on April 10th, 2008 4:30 PM

I think Lank asked a very good question that might point to one of the reasons many females took issue with aspects of this praxis. What do the images provided say about women? While this is clearly open to interpretation, if we go just by frequency, the images seem to say that tits and ass are the most important parts of a woman. I would extend this to say that sexual availability or explicit presentation as a sexual being are key parts to a "beautiful" woman because the women are not wearing much, if anything. Note also that many of the women do not have visible faces. If we are beautiful as a whole and artistically, not simply sexually, then what about our ears? Our toes? What about muscular women?

posted by The Animus on April 10th, 2008 6:34 PM

First, you address all the people who disagree with you as one entity, even though we addressed very different points.

JTony, I'm sorry. JTony, I'll be sure to address every one individually as needed so nothing is confounded. JTony, this is getting tiresome already.
How bout this? I type stuff into a box that magically gets sent across tubes so that anyone can view it, and if you feel it applies to you (or you.... Or you. You too. No, not you, you) then you can read it as such. If you don't think so, then you can ignore it. Or read it anyway. I quoted things that I had an opinion on, and wrote in a fashion that didn't 'narrowly define' what I was saying to the source. So you can interpret that as you will.

Also, why did you hide this?:

To be honest, I liked the sing-songy nature of the last sentence I wrote. I thought it wrapped up my ideas and the ideas of this conversation nicely. And then I went off on a tangent to see if any one would disagree with it. It didn't fit, and yet, it may have needed to be said.

While this is clearly open to interpretation, if we go just by frequency, the images seem to say that tits and ass are the most important parts of a woman.

They seem to say, to me, that tits and ass are among the most identifiable parts of a woman. A single word changes the context of the praxis, and it's that simple to see a new perspective.

If we are beautiful as a whole and artistically, not simply sexually, then what about our ears? Our toes? What about muscular women?

I said earlier that it's unrealistic to expect Lincoln to portray the infinite scope that is woman. Now that you mention it, though, it would've been cool to see some collage of every part of a (female) human. But then, that would only be one human, and not wholesome enough to represent an entire gender, or even the physical form thereof..... Hm. Any solutions to this? Or, if you were tasked with portraying the physical form of the female human, how would you go about doing it?
"I wouldn't." -- There's a lot of things that I have done that I wouldn't, all in the name of SF0. And I'm sure I'm not the only one. But hey, if you don't want to, you don't want to. Personally, I'd do the collage thing.

However, when a lot of people (particularly belonging to a group you are talking about to which you don't belong) all have similar critiques of what you are saying or doing, there probably is some validity.

Now, what I'm about to say is completely unrelated, but vegans don't like my leather boots. They tell me I shouldn't wear them. I have no idea if what they're saying is valid or not -- it's an opinion. I don't belong to that group, and yet it doesn't affect their opinions at all. I'm just putting that out there. And for the record, I listen to the vegans, I don't ignore them. But I'm still wearing my boots.

In any case, it never hurts to back off and try and see why instead of just assuming "they don't get it".

I'm going to assume (damn it!) that you're referring to my personalized statement about how I feel empathy for something 'not getting through' to people. And, you can take that at face value, but if you interpreted that I was referring to the conversation at hand, I would like to point out that a lot of the questions and points I've seen in this conversation can be answered or responded to respectively by Lincoln.

What do the images provided in this task say about female bodies?

I find that every woman's body is beautiful.

See? It's not so hard.

posted by Flitworth on April 10th, 2008 6:45 PM

The point I was making was that the photos in the praxis did not match the claim of finding every female body beautiful. I don't expect every possibility to be reflected but those that were presented were part of an extremely narrow definition. The two conflict and most of the images were caricatures, not actual women. That said, I should add that I did not flag the praxis either.

Regarding The Animus' statement: I did not read one fucking comment saying "Let's demean women! Yeah, go men!".

Sexism does not have to be explicitly stated to exist. I am not accusing anyone of sexism, just pointing out that the statement is not a valid defense against any perception that people were being accused.

posted by The Animus on April 10th, 2008 7:01 PM

Though it's up in the air what the pictures respresent, I respect your opinion about it. So..... How bout a hug?

And yeah, that statement was rash, and a very very exaggerated means of portraying a point of view. I'm just saying that, despite the praxis and its flags, we probably all agree. Generally. Maybe not on the if-it-should-be-flagged-or-not part, but on the women-are-ill-represented-no-matter-what front. :: grins ::

posted by JTony Loves Brains on April 10th, 2008 7:08 PM

Animus -

What I'm about to say pushes into semantics a bit, but I want to clarify. I'll keep it short.

My point about addressing people individually was that, in quoting me but addressing all you took that quote out of context and added a new, not intended context to it. You spoke about what others were saying right after quoting me, and it made it look like I was coming from a position I was not.

Of course, you may take that and say that it is precisely what we are doing to Lincoln's praxis, but I would disagree, at least as far as my own comments have gone. I have stuck very closely to Lincoln's text and have pointed out how that text does not jibe with the requirements of the task (I did stray once, but corrected that by retracting a particular question, as can be seen above).

(And the snark was un-necessary, by-the-way).

I wrote a bunch more but realized it was, indeed getting semantic... arguing about how we are arguing instead of just sticking to the text, so I decided to delete.

I am glad you didn't pick up and run with the comment I made that you interpreted as flame bait. I want to assure you that I did not intend it so.

posted by The Animus on April 10th, 2008 7:54 PM

JTony --
So that's how you do it! You just put their name at the top. And to think I was about to copypasta your name a bunch. :: grins ::
Well, it's good to read that. When I write, I 'aim' for a destination, a conclusion to follow, rather than pay attention to the source, so that definitely leaves room for (mis?)interpretation, and for that and the resulting confusion, I apologize.
And it's good that you're sticking to the task, in terms of the conversation. Not that you have to, or even that you should, but that you've decided to. I already went on a drunken rampage about that, though.

(Snarking's kinda my thing. Well, moreso than bitching and arguing, if you'd believe it. Take no offense by it, because I mean none..... Well, of course, that's if you take into account the intentions of others. :: grins ::
See, there I go again!And no, that wasn't directed toward you, JTony, or any one in particular for that matter.

posted by JTony Loves Brains on April 10th, 2008 10:35 PM

I love it when discussions come around to people being nice to each other, whether they agree or not. Thanks Animus!

posted by Julian Muffinbot on April 10th, 2008 11:07 PM

Animus: Believe what you like, but I did not ask those questions intending for you to come to any particular answer, or to suggest any straw men. They were just intended to provoke thought, and because you indicated you were interested in exploring why you say women's bodies are more beautiful than men's.

However, I think you may not have understood the questions, because you said: "I don't think any women are directly harmed by societal choices" and "you're asking me to define consequences for personal choices, and I'm of the opinion that the choices should define the consequences."

I'm not actually talking about choices, I'm talking about bodies... and while we do have *some* degree of control over what our bodies look like (we can alter our diets, work out, get plastic surgery, etc), i think that to a much larger extent we're stuck with the bodies we naturally have. I mean, unless we are Michael Jackson.

I'm talking about the social consequences faced by Person A for being their gender and having their body type - things beyond their control. I'm also talking about the social consequences faced by Person B for being their gender and finding beauty in men's bodies, regardless of whether they just naturally find them beautiful or made a choice to find them beautiful - the social consequences come not from that, but from how and whether they *express* that particular belief. I'm not talking about the harm Person A may inflict on themself to *change* their body type to conform to whatever they're trying to conform to. I'm talking about the reactions they get from society, either positive or negative, due to what their body type *is* at whatever moment.

"However, if it was your intention to change my view on beauty, I want to apologize for wasting your time."

It was not my intention. I don't care what you do and do not find beautiful.

"If it was your intention to make sure I wasn't ignoring your interpretation of context, then you did an admirable job."

That was my intention, yes. Why? Because, if we're thinking about why Lincoln's praxis got the response it did, the answer is "social context". I chose to focus on your sentence, "women's bodies are more beautiful than men's", because I think it is a key concept that informs this particular social context.

And if you think I am suggesting, personally believe, or intended you to answer my questions with any of the following:
-Conventionally beautiful women get all positives from society
-Conventionally ugly women get all negatives from society
-Social rules about gender and beauty can't be broken
-All men are jerks and meanies

you are wrong. If you did not think I was suggesting those things, my apologies for thinking you may have been.

in case you want more questions from me, how about this one:

-what negative social consequences commonly befall conventionally beautiful women?



(perhaps i should disclose that i was a sociology major in college)

posted by The Animus on April 11th, 2008 12:21 AM

I'm warning you now, this is going to come off as incredibly immature and dismissive.

I don't care what you do and do not find beautiful.

I don't care about society. What it does, what it thinks, how it affects anyone. I don't like the concept of society because it undermines personal choice.
For example, one negative consequence that could befall a conventionally beautiful woman is unwanted attention. But for that to take place, there needs to be some one giving that attention.
"Society."
That doesn't cut it for me.
"Some old creep at the bar."
That sounds better.
So, the situation becomes "some old creep at the bar gives unwanted attention to a particular conventionally beautiful woman."
Two people are involved, the society concept isn't. Now, every one in that hypothetical situation is accounted for -- their opinions can be articulated and quantified now, as ours can. I never agreed with the blanket blame shit but I never thought to bring it up.
So for the social consequences of Person A, we'd have to assume that their body type and or gender produces (extreme?) positive or negative responses, such that Person A is no longer in control of themselves -- their emotions? Their bodies? What kind of harm can be done by 'society' -- any given person -- without some sort of acknowledgement, interpretation, or consent? There's physical harm. But society isn't causing physical harm. People are causing physical harm. They have names and faces. So these effects that Person A is receiving become reduced to rude remarks, weird stares, and giggles. And yes, that has the capacity to harm an individual. Through interpretation. I get these symptoms because I have long hair as a male. I interpret these things as either a lack of understanding ("Dude, she's hotholyshitfacialhair."), a personal distaste, or simply an observation. Does it affect me, really? No.
Could it? Definitely. So, to go full circle:

I'm not actually talking about choices, I'm talking about bodies...

I'm talking about choices. So sorry for the subject change. A lot of what I said applies to Person B, as well. If you accept the phrase "It comes with the territory", then it should click.

If you did not think I was suggesting those things, my apologies for thinking you may have been.

Apology accepted.

And JTony, I agree.

posted by Lincøln on April 11th, 2008 12:37 AM

A winner is me!

posted by rongo rongo on April 11th, 2008 5:38 AM

Dear Lincoln,
I understand that you offered this praxis to share your joy and love, and I accept this gift with gratitude for the spirit that it was given. I have great admiration and respect for you and your work, and hope that one day we will be able to meet in person and do some fun tasking. Yet I must also tell you that I felt uncomfortable and a little threatened when I read this praxis, and wanted to let you know that as one of the female people in the world receiving this gift, I don't think it had your intended effect on me. I will not comment on whether my feelings are rational or logical, nor whether they are rooted in universals or personals, only that this is my reality, and it doesn't line up perfectly with yours in this case. Which is of course fine, and possibly to be expected, but I wanted to let you know because I feel like we've come to be friends or at least fellow community members and that you might care. Best regards and happy tasking; I always look forward to seeing what you've been up to.

posted by JJason Recognition on April 11th, 2008 6:09 AM

I don't mean to interrupt all the smart around here, but I thought I'd just pop in to say: hey look, it's the Engineer! Good old Engineer.

posted by JTony Loves Brains on April 11th, 2008 6:55 AM

Animus - Just pointing out that you said,

So, the situation becomes "some old creep at the bar gives unwanted attention to a particular conventionally beautiful woman."

but are overlooking the fact that "Society", which you are dismissing here, is what created the concept of "conventional beauty" to begin with. Without the societal context of "conventional beauty" as we know it, this particular woman (and so many women like her) would not be bothered by the old creep... at least not in this particular way.

posted by Tøm on April 11th, 2008 8:37 AM

Just throwing something in here that relates to the task, praxis and flagging.

Lincoln did complete the task. He found what he believed to be the greatest work of art, and purchased and replicated art related to that.

Disagreeing is never a reason to flag anything. Tasks are open to interpretation, and this one in particular. "the greatest work of art in the history of humanity" applies to the tasker. If it didn't there could only ever be one unflagged completion, which everyone agrees on. Which is not going to happen.

posted by The Animus on April 11th, 2008 9:37 AM

Yeah. I didn't want to use the term conventional, and we can infer that it would've been mandatory for the creepy old guy to think she's attractive in some form or another to warrant the attention, individually (so that's articulation for ya). But I was hanging on to enough words as it were.
And Rongo Rongo just posted a perfect example of the kind of expression I was hoping for. It's self-contained, respectful, and understanding.
"I did that too, asshole!" -- I know, she's not the first. It just makes me twitchy when it's even a possibility that people attach Lincoln's intentions to those of society as a whole.
And for the record, I think this is the most civilized conversation I've seen on the internet. Fun stuff.

@General: That's pretty much how I look at it. Good to know some one shares my view. :: grins ::

posted by Lincøln on April 11th, 2008 9:49 AM

I continue to love this conversation.

And I would be happy to have private conversations with anybody about this or any other task or any other matter (please ask me how I could have fixed the Star Wars prequels if George had just called me first), I continue to love the the dialogue here, but responding to specific replies and questions here can be wildly misinterpreted and battles of semantics can delude the discussion, so I will refrain. But if you read any (or all {you fool!}) of this and had to challenge or rethink your individual meaning of art, then I have succeeded. I obviously haven't changed any minds, but as long as I got people to thinking, I think that's never a bad thing.

In San Francisco now. Will be for three more days (and nights). Hoping for some good fun (tasking).

posted by Julian Muffinbot on April 11th, 2008 9:59 AM

The Animus -
"I don't care about society. What it does, what it thinks, how it affects anyone. I don't like the concept of society because it undermines personal choice."

Again, I'm not sure if this is what you thought I was getting at, but I am not suggesting that we are all automatons whose every behavior is determined by our society. Only that there are social norms in place, among them are norms on the subject of beauty/bodies/gender, and these do have effects, positive and negative on real people, due to what their bodies look like.

"So these effects that Person A is receiving become reduced to rude remarks, weird stares, and giggles. And yes, that has the capacity to harm an individual. Through interpretation."

Not only through interpretation. Through reality as well.

Here's a hypothetical situation. We'll use men with long hair since hopefully you will be better able to relate to the example.

Suppose we have Employer X, and we have two job applicants - Applicant Y and Applicant Z. Both are conventionally normal looking guys, but Applicant Y has a normal, short men's haircut, and Applicant Z has long hair. Both have the same qualifications and are equally pleasant to be around. Employer X, even if s/he isn't consciously thinking "Men with long hair are weird!", chooses Applicant Y for the job. On some level, Applicant Z's long hair makes Employer X want to stare, giggle, make a rude remark, or something. Employer X doesn't want people coming into the office thinking they're a bunch of hippies. Or whatever.

Applicant Z has thus faced a real consequence for his appearance, and even if he goes home and goes "I don't care about society! I will have my hair however I want! If I don't interpret this as harm, it's not!" nonetheless, he still doesn't have the job. He can't just "interpret" himself into having the job.

(Or, in a reversal of that situation, let's say the job is at a record store, and the employer wants to cultivate an offbeat appearance in his/her shop or perhaps some hippie nostalgia, and thus hires Applicant Z over Applicant Y. Now it's Applicant Y who doesn't have the job, because of his appearance.)

Perhaps you will want to argue that:

-Applicant Z should just find another job/start his own business/live outside the system/cut his hair - in other words, make different choices. That's what is really important here. Being rejected from that particular job "comes with the territory" of having long hair, so he should recognize that and make a different choice. (As a side note, it's interesting that one of his options is, in fact, to cut his hair. But what if hair length was not his physical difference from the norm? What if, instead, he was very fat, and it was because of a disease or physiological problem, so that no amount of dieting and exercise would make him a more average weight? Does rejection from a job over a similarly qualified, but average weight applicant "come with the territory" of being fat? *Should* it come with the territory? Just a thought exercise, please do not feel compelled to answer these questions unless you want to.)

-It isn't society that rejected Applicant Z - it was Employer X, an individual.

But, let's examine the social context in which this story took place.

WHY is it that Applicant Y's hair is "normal" for men and Applicant X's isn't? Is it because there's some great aesthetic truth, that short hair is better on men than long hair? Of course not. It's a social norm, and it's not the same in every culture. It informed the choice made by Employer X (whether consciously or no). It had a real affect on both Applicant Y and Applicant Z.

In other words, it's not about Applicant Z's choice of hairstyle, or Employer X buying into the idea that short hair is better than long hair for men and making a choice of applicant based on that.

It's about the fact that *there exists a social norm*, in which short hair is the norm for men, and long hair is not.

If this norm did not exist, my example would make as little sense as if the story were about two job applicants, one of whom was wearing a blue shirt and one of whom was wearing a gray shirt. There's no social norm dictating which color is better on a shirt. (at least, not between blue or gray. Might be different if it was blue vs tie-dyed.)

Whether the characters in my example buy into the short-hair norm without really examining it, or whether they consciously reject the norm, or even if they aren't really consciously even thinking about the norm but they just like having long hair - the *existence of that norm* has an affect on them all. It affects the choices they make. The existence of that norm means that some choices will fall in line with that norm and some will not. And there will be social consequences, positive or negative, major or minor, for these choices. The consequences will be perpetuated by individuals, operating in a society that holds that norm. The characters could all make different choices, and thus change their outcomes, but none of this changes the norm. It's the framework in which their choices, or lack thereof, exist.

posted by Myrna Minx on April 11th, 2008 10:01 AM

I did not flag this. However, Lincoln did not complete the task. The female body is not a work of art; it is a manifestation of nature. Art is a manifestation of humankind.

We love phrases like, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," and "This is art if I say so." Pardon me for not buying that drivel. There are universal standards of aesthetics and there is meaning in the word "art." That is not to say that art has to be beautiful, or that an object cannot be declared art. But it has to be understood in an art context.

Like I said above, art is useless stuff that people make. That statement may sound derisive, but it's not. What we make without practical motivation may tell us more about ourselves than any other human artifact. And the word "make" can be used broadly. But I'm getting off topic.

If we call the female body art, then what stops us from calling a camel art? Is the sky art? Are the drywall and carpet in my apartment art? Are my unspoken thoughts art? If the definition gets so loose and becomes open to any individual interpretation, then how can we possibly communicate? The word becomes meaningless.

The task asked for the greatest work of art in the history of humankind. I have refrained from commenting on any other of the many problems riddling this praxis, leaving that to those who could articulate them more eloquently. But this praxis is a failure from the very first premise- IT'S NOT A WORK OF ART.

POST SCRIPT EDIT:
just a bit from dictionary.com:

art –noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?
7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.
8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.
9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.
10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.
11. arts,
a. (used with a singular verb) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences.
b. (used with a plural verb) liberal arts.
12. skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.
13. trickery; cunning: glib and devious art.
14. studied action; artificiality in behavior.
15. an artifice or artful device: the innumerable arts and wiles of politics.
16. Archaic. science, learning, or scholarship.

posted by bunny dragon on April 11th, 2008 10:11 AM

Hey, Lincoln. I like this discussion here, because I feel like I need these sorts of conversations to learn more. Ooh boy do I need to learn more.

After reading through the comments, one thought that came to mind is: how much are you (Lincoln) identifying with the subjects, and how is that similar or different to how other people are?

Me? I'm a guy. How much can I identify with a photo of a woman? Very little. Well, okay: not at all. But a woman reader? She presumably can.

So that's Idea in a Box #1.

Idea in a Box #2 is reactions to the photos. Me, I'm straight: I definitely have a sexual reaction to a photo of a pretty naked woman. I imagine that most women have -as their first reaction- something different.

So now we combine those two boxes, and I think that may be one reason why there's this vast different of reaction and opinion between you and some of the respondents. Distilled, I arrive at the phrase: "wait, that could be me".

That photo of that {woman,man,carpenter,engineer,pilot,waiter,whatever} -could be me-, and I think that imposes a responsibility on the artist, be it photographer or writer or whatnot. I may have no intention of continuing some stereotype, I may even strongly disagree with that stereotype, but if my work makes the people say "wait, that could be me in that stereotype", then well, much as I disagree, I think I need to accept that there's something about my art that -does- have that message in it.

posted by Tøm on April 11th, 2008 10:23 AM

That may be the case, but even so the task has been completed.

Whilst you may not believe the body is a work of art, surely the pieces Lincoln purchased/reproduced are. Therefore, the task has been successfully completed. If anything, it's been completed more than once.

Do you not see the human body as a work of art? How it has achieved and adapted all it has? I understand that's not what everyone was getting at here, but nature can be art!

Anything can be art!

I'll direct you to shed-boat-shed if you disagree.

posted by JTony Loves Brains on April 11th, 2008 11:07 AM

Lincoln - I'm saying this publically because it merits it. I've said it before to others, and I'll say it now to you.

You could have saved the Star Wars prequels if you had told George to do the following.

In episode 2, halfway through have Darth Sideous capture Jar Jar Binks. Show Jar Jar in a cave somewhere being meliciously and painfully tortured, surgically.

In episode 3, bring Jar Jar Binks back, but this time as mostrous Bad-Ass Darth Binks. Show how Sideous has corrupted this cute, innocent (and obviously Force-enhanced) creature into something that would make Darth Maul wet the bed if he saw him in a dream. Show him biting the heads of Kittens.

Then make Anikin have to kill him. Make them battle it out, and just as Anikin is about to light saber his head off have Jar Jar look at him with puppy eyes and say, "Mesa your friend... you no kill your friend..." and have Jar Jar throw Anikin into the Lava. Anikin comes out with his last will and slays Jar Jar, crying for his lost innocense.

Then have Sideous bring out what's left of Padme.

That's how you save Jar Jar, making all that annoyance worth while. That's how you save the prequels.

Now call George and tell him what a schmuck he is.

posted by Lincøln on April 11th, 2008 11:22 AM

I like those ideas.

Also, in Episode One, how about keep little slave boy Anakin in a cage, and whip him? Don't let him build and race toys. Keep a chain around his neck and beat him every night. Make him do awful and demeaning things. Because he is a slave.

Then for the next two movies, the characters of Anakin, Obi-Won and Padme, should be modeled (not close to, but exactly) after Luke, Han and Leia. They should have the exact same characteristics and traits and attitudes, maybe even get into the same adventures. Then set up the classic Lancelot, Guinevere, Arthur love triangle. Jealously and love are great things to turn somebody to evil.

Also, things should be dingy and broken and beaten down like they were in the originals. That's charming. New and shiny is just kinda lame.

Also, intergalactic politics are boring, that should be a sub-plot at best.

I have many many more ideas, not the least of which is make fight scenes exciting to watch.

posted by susy derkins on April 11th, 2008 11:51 AM

Yeah, all the way, Myrna.
THE female body is not art. Camels either.
Lank said that too up there somewhere.
-EDIT-

Do you not see the human body as a work of art? How it has achieved and adapted all it has?

doesn´t fly at all, Tom.

-EDIT-
And Lincoln didn´t acquire any female human body, at all. Although maybe the fact that he think he did is part of what´s offensive too?

Anyway, that´s why I flagged.

posted by Scarlett on April 11th, 2008 12:06 PM

Discussion vote!

posted by Bex. on April 11th, 2008 12:41 PM

Lincoln, I'm also not messaging you privately because I think it should be public. If you can publicly do something offensive, you can publicly respond for your actions. I'm pretty sure, by the steady stream of appreciative private messages i've gotten, that many of the women of sf0 want to hear it.
I think your failure to respond to my concerns is a cop-out and exacerbates my them. This anger is real and serious and not a form of light entertainment for me or others. I wish it weren't for you.

1.) Thanks for your response of adding some more pictures, but I must still say that adding a small number of representations of your grandma and clothed women does not by any means change the situation you've created. It is tokenism. This is what white people do to pretend that they're not racists. Let one of them into the group and make sure they're in every picture so everyone can see how accepting and open we are. Tell them how your best friend is black. Especially when every other new picture still carries the same problems as the original set, it does not paper over the problems you've set up.

2.) I will now speak to something that has specifically to do with me, but I think applies generally.
By including an image of me in here, you have taken a picture that I took, and that for me represents freedom, the courage of unguardedness, innocent nonsexual jubilance, fearlessness, etc. and, by lumping in with all this offensive collection of semi-pornographic images, taken the power from me. You have taken my meaning from that picture and replaced it with your own. And in the way you've done it, you've taken the joy and innocence out of my nakedness and made me feel dirty and cheap, like I'm just another page for you to jerk off to and toss away. You've made me feel your lascivious gaze. You've made me want to put my clothes on and my guard up. You have, by this act disempowered me to control my own image. You have given my naked body meanings I did not and would never give it. You have used my naked body for your ends and not mine. You did not ask my permission or even respect my opinion about this enough to respond.

I can speak about what you have done to my particular image, but I think these feelings are still apply to women in general looking at your task, judging by your flags.
I did not flag your task, but I think the fact that you've managed to upset so many of the women, and men too, who've seen this says something serious about what you're doing here. Something that deserves your serious and public consideration, not trivial dismissal. Why aren't we getting this consideration? Why are you celebrating this and laughing about this instead?
I trust that you did not realize that you were having this effect originally, but now that you've realized it, your failure to respond, your celebration of your flagging, indicates that even if you did not originally do it purposefully, that you stand by the meaning you've created and the damage you've done.

I'm not asking you to join animus and jtony's discussion of semantics. Or a discussion about star wars. These are off topic. I'm asking you to address, at least, my comments.

posted by KristinawithaK on April 11th, 2008 1:44 PM

As usual, Bex fucking ROCKS my socks.

Back to retirement.

posted by JTony Loves Brains on April 11th, 2008 2:03 PM

YAY a retirement break from KristinawithaK!!!!!!!!

Even if it is only for 10 words! That alone is worth this whole praxis!

Before you go, KwaK, can I offer you some Soylent Green?

posted by The Animus on April 11th, 2008 3:35 PM

Perhaps you will want to argue that:
-Applicant Z should just find another job/start his own business/live outside the system/cut his hair -

No, actually, I want to argue that the employer's personal choices doesn't prove that there's a norm. He made the choice, society didn't. The employer's decision could have been affected by a number of things, but I'm gonna chalk it up to what he wants in his business and his experiences. Still no sight of a society.
"Then why is that word in our vocabulary?"
It makes it easy to identify the statistically average choice / opinion / whatever. It doesn't control anyone unless people choose to accept it. So, when some one's fat and jobless, they're obviously not going to interpret their way into a job (though that sounds like fun -- kinda reminds me of Office Space). Does that mean they have or need control over the employer's decision? No, but no one should be expected to.
Also, not to be a stickler, but the example was sort of begging the question. The example I used with the creepy old guy was flawed (forgot that it didn't matter what the girl looked like, only that the guy thought she was attractive -- thanks JTony), but it did show (or rather, I wanted it to show) that all choices are expressed consciously. That's different from having an opinion, which could be influenced by one's subconscious (which could hold our interpretation of the term 'society'). As soon as you put that opinion into action, it's a choice. The employer's choice, no matter the influence, was a conscious one, and thus, still doesn't prove society's control. And by control, I mean influence that cannot be rejected.

I kinda forgot why we're talking about society, though (scrolling up is becoming more and more of a chore. :: grins ::). Is it because we're supposed to take society's view on art, and not our own? Even if society did exist, would it tell us if Lincoln's subject is beautiful?

Two more things, responding to Bunny Dragon and Bex:

That photo of that {woman,man,carpenter,engineer,pilot,waiter,whatever} -could be me-, and I think that imposes a responsibility on the artist, be it photographer or writer or whatnot.

You had some good ideas... Err, Idea Boxes? And it's very considerate for you to think of others' interpretation of the praxis (I didn't, obviously :: grins ::). But the stereotype thing I disagree with, because the artist, Lincoln, is only responsibile for his own interpretation because there's infinite possibilities out there. I could bitch about your business cards being discriminatory towards trees. It's illogical, but it is an interpretation. I wouldn't hold you accountable for my interpretation, because it was your choice as a human (artist? praxis-er? Praxisiner, like practitioner) to do what you wanted.
I don't expect an essay in return or anything, so don't worry about it. It's just my opinion.

And Bex..... Those are really strong opinions. Very strong. Like garlic. I commend you for that. For example, I'm already feelin shaky about the above paragraph. I'm cheering you on even though I don't really agree with some of the things you said. Throughout all of these 80-90 comments, I never felt a dire need to post, it was like SF0 -- I decided to get involved. So I admire your vehemency....... Is that a word?
You're the Bext!

posted by Julian Muffinbot on April 11th, 2008 4:01 PM

"No, actually, I want to argue that the employer's personal choices doesn't prove that there's a norm. He made the choice, society didn't."

So are you saying that there is NOT a norm in our society regarding men's hair length?

Most men have short hair, so I doubt that's what you're actually getting at. Statistically, there's a norm.

WHY do most men in our society have short hair? Does each man with short hair make an aesthetic choice, without ANY input from the culture in which he lives, that short hair looks best? Again, clearly, no. His choice of hair style is informed by the other men in his life, by men in the media, by men in business, by what he thinks women prefer, etc. The norm is real. An individual rejecting the norm does not make the norm stop existing.

To say there is no such thing as society strikes me as a view that is naive (at best). And it is extremely dismissive of the experiences of people whose bodies fall outside the range of societally acceptable norms, and have experienced problems because of it. Fat, Unemployed Guy, who was passed up for a job, is still unemployed. It doesn't matter if he personally rejects the idea that "fat is bad".

"It doesn't control anyone unless people choose to accept it. "

What does that even mean? What is Fat Guy choosing or not choosing in this example?

And as for why we are talking about society, my argument is that Lincoln's praxis is offensive due to the social context in which he created the praxis. When Lincoln says "the female body is the greatest work of art of all time", when he chooses the specific images he chose for the praxis, when he suggests that those who are disagreeing with him are just attention-seekers or having issues brought up about being treated as objects, these things are offensive because of the social context that exists regarding women's bodies and men's bodies. It's why I posed all those questions about bodies and beauty and benefits and harm. And it's why several others on this thread have brought up the context as it is specific to art - that throughout most of art history, men have been behind the lens and women in front of it.

posted by Julian Muffinbot on April 11th, 2008 4:10 PM

also, forgot to put this part in my other comment.

"The employer's decision could have been affected by a number of things, but I'm gonna chalk it up to what he wants in his business and his experiences. Still no sight of a society."

This doesn't make sense either. What does he want in his business and how does hair length affect it? Hair length (like any other purely aesthetic physical attribute - such as conventional beauty or lack thereof) has no affect on someone's ability to do a job. So if he's choosing a short haired man over a long haired man, it's not about who can do the job better. It's about appearance. As you say, it's about what he wants in his business and his experiences, but what DOES he want in his business? What ARE his experiences? He wants his company to not look like a bunch of hippies. He has had experiences in which he's seen long haired men get laughed at and he doesn't want to invite that situation into his business.

So, where's the society?

It lies in the answer to the question: Why do people laugh at or make rude comments to men with long hair? You yourself have been on the receiving end of such comments. Put aside your lack of caring about the comments and think about why you receive them. Do you think you would receive comments mocking you for short hair, if you cut your hair? Do you think that each and every individual mocking you for having long hair is doing so for purely aesthetic reasons, and it has nothing to do with anything else going on in the world around them, among other men, on TV, anywhere?

"The employer's choice, no matter the influence, was a conscious one, and thus, still doesn't prove society's control. And by control, I mean influence that cannot be rejected."

I'm not talking about absolute control. Of course society does not exert absolute control. Everyone is an individual and makes their own choices. I have no idea why you think I'm saying anything about absolute control, about influence that cannot be rejected. I'm talking about norms - and the very nature of a norm, the normal, implies the existence of the abnormal, and the individuals who choose things outside of the norm.

It's so strange and baffling to me that you think social norms either do not affect you or simply do not exist.

posted by Loki on April 11th, 2008 5:07 PM

Dear Lincoln,

There is a big difference between the statements, "I've made my point," and "I understand your point." The later would seem more useful here.

By point, I don't mean everything in the discussion above, valuable and interesting though they it be. I mean simply the fact that a lot of thoughtful people feel this completion is hurtful. To say that they're all simply wrong is to make a dangerously strong claim.

Just in case anybody cares, I neither voted nor flagged. I didn't initially find the task completion itself offensive, nor radically inadequate. (Just a bit trite and not very interesting.) But then, it's not my body up there on the praxis, and even if it were, social context would give it a very different meaning. I'm intrigued by BunnyDragon's comment about divisions based on the "that could be me" reaction, which also does a nice job of explaining my own negative reactions to some other praxes.

posted by Lincøln on April 11th, 2008 5:37 PM

I haven't responded here because the discussion has gone way beyond the scope of my task itself. I have responded privately to the people who addressed me personally. But I'm sure I'll understand everyone's points once I read them when I get home.

(and to be honest, if you've added a comment that you expect me to respond to here, message me with the question or concern, as I'm not really reading this discussion here anymore. Lowteck had to call me and tell me to check this because of one of the comments, so I've responded to a few people, but probably not all)

posted by done on April 11th, 2008 5:39 PM

Maybe you should have taken "star wars" as the greatest work of art in human history.

posted by The Animus on April 11th, 2008 5:47 PM

So are you saying that there is NOT a norm in our society regarding men's hair length?

Well, to be specific, I'm saying there's a statistical average hair length for men (waist / bust / foot size for women). That exists. Great.
I'm also saying that the 'norm', inherently, has no value. The value it has to an individual is decided by said individual.

His choice of hair style is informed by the other men in his life, by men in the media, by men in business, by what he thinks women prefer, etc.

This is called begging the question. It's when you put the conclusion inside of a premise. Change that 'is' to a 'can be', and it'll make sense. But then, there's not much point bringing it up, because it only facilitates free will, and not the concept of society.

Put aside your lack of caring about the comments and think about why you receive them.

I did already.

I interpret these things as either a lack of understanding ("Dude, she's hotholyshitfacialhair."), a personal distaste, or simply an observation.

Do you think that each and every individual mocking you for having long hair is doing so for purely aesthetic reasons,

No. I have no idea why they would. I could guess, but that guess isn't going to get me anywhere. Obviously, I never settled on 'oh, society told them to', and continued to excuse / chastise them for it. I would be completely ignoring their level of understanding / their personal tastes / their will to observe. I can't make local reference to their opinions, so any guess, no matter if I'm right or not, would be false.
Since this concept is getting into existentialism, let me put it this way:
I could tell you that there's a blue vase outside of the room you're currently in. I could describe the vase in perfect detail, and I could be telling the truth when I say I've seen it before. Does the vase exist?
You don't know. You haven't seen the vase yourself, and your senses, your concept of reality, can't verify the existence of this vase. So if you say 'yes, it exists, you told me so', it could be seen as false. If you say 'no, I haven't seen it before', it's again false, because your senses haven't verified that the vase isn't there. If you say 'no, I just checked, asshole'.... Well, then, you caught me. I lied.
By extension, I cannot verify why people give me funny looks, because they haven't expressed their opinions about it. I can't say 'social norms', and I can't say 'personal choice'. That's why I don't care -- my interpretation has no weight on the truth -- the truth regarding their opinions.

It's so strange and baffling to me that you think social norms either do not affect you or simply do not exist.

Perhaps its perverse and often baffling. I'm trying to shed some light on the matter, though.

what DOES he want in his business? What ARE his experiences? He wants his company to not look like a bunch of hippies. He has had experiences in which he's seen long haired men get laughed at and he doesn't want to invite that situation into his business.

There you go. What does that have to do with society? We can bicker about equal opportunity and whatnot, but it's the employer's business, and thus, the employer's will. That brings up an issue about the priority of the will of humans. You're giving the example of the jobless fat man -- I feel sympathy for him, but I don't think he deserves the job any more than the other guy. It wasn't the fat man's choice to have that job. He did the best he could by filling an application. That's life, isn't it?

And it is extremely dismissive of the experiences of people whose bodies fall outside the range of societally acceptable norms, and have experienced problems because of it.

I think this is the root of our discussion. Anything I say, is my opinion. That's all it is. No one can tell me what I am responsible for as a human being, simply because of my opinions. By extension, Lincoln's opinion that women are beautiful cannot be held responsible for 'people that have experienced problems because of [the statistical averages]'. And to correct that, it's the people that chose to interpret their (or others') 'abnormality' as the cause of a problem (such as not getting a job) That sentence is just oozing with subjectivity. Causal connection is very interesting, but I think it's outside the scope of this argument. Maybe not, though.

And as for why we are talking about society, my argument is that Lincoln's praxis is offensive due to the social context in which he created the praxis.

Are you representing society? Why not just represent yourself? I could infer that that's a little egotistical, but it would be an inflammatory remark (opinion) and completely unnecessary. So to be politically correct, I ask this: Despite society, what is your take on the subject of women's bodies being made into art?

I apologize if this seems out of order, I got lazy with the copypasta business.

posted by Sparrows Fall on April 11th, 2008 5:50 PM

I have responded privately to the people who addressed me personally.

Well, if you are done responding publicly, then it seems this praxis and your support for it stand unchanged.

posted by Scienceguru on April 11th, 2008 5:51 PM

It's pretty entertaining to watch you all when *your* ox is being gored :>

Seems simple to me that if someone objects to their image being used without their permission, then the image should be removed from the objectionable use without further comment.

The ferrets and kangaroos and Star Wars discussions are priceless examples of men ridiculing the concerns of women. All that's old is new again :>

That said, when women put naked pictures of themselves on the Internet, shit sometimes happens.

posted by Sparrows Fall on April 11th, 2008 5:51 PM

But if you read any (or all {you fool!}) of this and had to challenge or rethink your individual meaning of art, then I have succeeded.

Lincoln, this praxis has succeeded in becoming an example to us all.

posted by Bex. on April 11th, 2008 6:49 PM

Lincoln, thanks for your apology, but i still think you need to do some work to understand why i feel this way.

Here is part of the private message that i wrote to you but got lost in my crappy wireless connection:

Take this image for example:



Who holds the camera in this picture? Who gazes? What do they gaze at? What does the fact that her head is cut off say about what parts of a woman are the important ones to the photographer? Can you see how this feels disempowering and violent to women viewing it? Can you acknowledge that there is a long history of women portrayed by men in reducing, subjugating ways?

When you make, compile, or publish images like this, you are associating yourself with this history. You are declaring complicity with it. You in fact glorify it. And you reaffirm its message. It does not matter what your intention is, the effect is the same whether you do it while wildly declaring that you are a sexist or if you do it while declaring that you want to honor women.

I understand that you do not want to be hurting anyone, that you don't want to be a sexist. That you don't think of yourself as one. That that lable is hurtful to you. That is why I engage you in discussion in the first place. If I didn't have faith in your good intention, I would dismiss you like I do to SG. But, Lincoln, if you do not want to be accused of being a sexist, then you must not behave like one.

posted by KristinawithaK on April 11th, 2008 7:03 PM

And I suppose that I, being a human male am hardwired to find the female attractive. But I find it more than just the evolutionary instinct, women aren't just attractive, I truly think of the female form as a work of art.

Take an anthropology class. In fact, go ahead and take a course on gender and sexuality as well-I know of men who are repulsed by the female form. And vice versa for women. I know of women who have become men. I know males who don't put themselves into a category. I know homosexuals, I know bisexuals (including myself) I even know of an asexual or two. I think women are beautiful. And I'm not afraid to tell a man that he's beautiful too. But for you to go ahead and make such a statement as above (aside from the "art" issue), is to go against everything that anthropology, sociology and feminism represents. If you think women are "art" that's fine by me. It doesn't affect how I view myself or other women-that's your opinion. But please refrain from supporting your statements with so called "science".

There is no such thing as sexual evolutionary instinct.

On a side note, who is the artist? God? My coupling parents? The sperm? The egg? DNA?

posted by JTony Loves Brains on April 11th, 2008 7:04 PM

Regarding scienceguru's point, I would like to apologize for the Star Wars comments if they offended. It was not my intention to use it as riddicule in ANY way, and I feel very sad if it did so.

My intention with the Star Wars comment was to add a laugh to a discussion that I thought was winding down. I did not know there would be a new flurrie of amazing comments by the likes of Bex Julian, Animus and others afterward. That was a mistake, for as I wrote my Star Wars Note, other notes were being added by Myrna, Julian, Tom and Bunny Dragon.

Please do not think of it as being ridiculing of anyone, as it was in no way intended as such, and if a single persay requests, I'll delete it entirely. I am saddened to think it might have hurt any feelings in any way.

posted by Flitworth on April 11th, 2008 7:11 PM

Lincoln, you said that, "I obviously haven't changed any minds, but as long as I got people to thinking, I think that's never a bad thing." Did it get you thinking?

I see you taking credit for setting the stage for a very important and excellent discussion but can we take credit for creating a greater understanding of why your initial selection of mostly unrealistic women set only in sexual contexts is problematic?

posted by Scienceguru on April 11th, 2008 8:03 PM

Part of the struggle in life is getting a broad enough view of things that you extend your feelings out towards things that don't directly affect YOU. It's the compassion muscle. You develop it by listening and taking seriously when other people are upset by something - and trying to understand why they are feeling the way they are. Paraphrasing why you think they're upset is helpful, even though you often get it wrong the first kazillion times you try.

When the response is nonsensical - it's like the opposite of compassion muscle. It's insensitive boob muscle. So thanks for the apology and boo on the ferret.

> I understand your point. ....

Well, that's a way to temporarily pacify someone who is feeling angry at you. But it's a lie unless you actually DO understand their point and communicate that. I suspect the reason the thread won't die is those who don't think the praxis is offensive aren't proving they understand WHY others (many with vaginas) think it is.

So Lincoln, can you say in 500 words or less why some women (or people) hate this praxis and feel threatened or offended by it? You don't have to agree with them, but you do need to accurately describe why they feel the way they do.

That's what understanding a point is. It's not lip service. It's something you actively do to resolve a conflict.

(And this thread needs to end sometime). :>

posted by Julian Muffinbot on April 11th, 2008 8:16 PM

The Animus said: "But then, there's not much point bringing it up, because it only facilitates free will, and not the concept of society."

This is really the only thing I'm going to address because I think the crux of our discussion is about society vs free will. (Your point about responsibility is interesting, and I am tempted to address that, but on second thought I find it too much of a tangent. My specific arguments were never about what Lincoln is or is not responsible for - others have covered that perfectly well.)

Is it correct to state:
You do not believe in society.
or,
You believe that free will and society are mutually exclusive.
or something else?

That's what it seems but I want to make sure. If either of these is your belief, I'm clearly not going to be able to convince you of anything by making any more arguments/examples based on social context.

I will state for myself:
I believe in both society AND free will. Society informs (NOT dictates) what we do with our free will.

So I cannot answer your last question, that of what my take is on women's bodies being made into art *despite* society. I can't answer it because I feel that it is impossible to separate myself from society. It is equally impossible to separate Lincoln's praxis from society. He didn't do it on Mars for an audience of Martians. He did it here, in the SF0 community, where people had the reactions they had, because the praxis is part of a particular social context of art, gender, sexuality, etc. As Bex puts it, "Can you acknowledge that there is a long history of women portrayed by men in reducing, subjugating ways?"

If that long history did not exist, the praxis would have a different meaning to those of us who are offended.

posted by JTony Loves Brains on April 11th, 2008 9:54 PM

I know I'm stating the obvious here, but one thing happening is that there are more than one discussion happening here.

1. The definition of art and whether or not Lincoln's choice of the female form fits that definition and therefore fits the requirements of the task. I have spoken to this, and may do so again (I stopped when my comments drifted into semantics when addressing Animus, but the original comments are still strong, I think). So has Tom and Myrna and Lank. This may be the argument that is most germane to the task itself.

2. Lincolns choices of imagery in his desire to honor women and whether they do that or degrade women. I've stayed out of this mostly, but Bex, Sparrows, KristinawithaK, Animus and Jullian earllier, sciencguru, babe, etc. have talked on this. This is by far the hottest portion of the discussion on an emotional level. That's part of the reason I've stayed out of it... the women speaking really had control and didn't really need me chiming in, though I have agreed with so very much of what has been said.

3. Free Will vs. Society which is what Animus and Julian have moved into in their back and forth. Aside from the non-sequitor comments (ferrets and Star Wars) this one may have drifted furthest from the task itself (not that there is anything wrong with that. My 2 cents is simple... we all have free will, but society has a strong pressure and denial of the existence of the pressure is foolish.

4. What one should do when lots of folks are arguing and are angry with something you've done and they are feeling less-than-appreciated in the argument. Lots of really great advice here... especially those comments from scienceguru which I'm really taking to heart... and which Lincoln might want to consider taking to heart as well.

5. Ferrets...

I'm not totally sure why I'm breaking this out this way, except that in trying to read through the comments I'm getting lost, and I'm hoping that by breaking it out I can hold it together better, and it'll hold together for others as well.

I'm most interested in talking about 1, and actually thought at a point, even after the red X, that Lincoln could actually save this task. With the heat coming from number 2 and 4, I'm no longer thining that's much of a possibility.

posted by Lincøln on April 11th, 2008 10:24 PM

1) This is the only point I'm really interested in discussing further. And would love to discuss with anybody.

2) I am not taking credit for the state of the world or a woman's place in it. I will not apologize for my choice of images. I take photos of what I want to see and what I find appealing. The subject of whether by doing so I'm perpetuating a negative global image of women I'm not interested in. If somehow my art is upsetting to some, then I apologize, but I do not apologize for the content of my art. I understand that the presentation of a woman's body as an object is upsetting to many, especially if you see it in a sexual context. I didn't put the sexual context into the pictures, you the viewer have. If a naked woman brings up a sexual response in you, then that's an issue of yours. None of the pictures I posted have any sexual connotations to me.

3) I honestly haven't paid attention to this discussion at all. Sorry. But I've been out and about and doing stuff all day and night and only come here every once in awhile.

4) I love this topic and scienceguru is the clearest thinker in this discussion.

5) Comedy is important. Lowteck didn't mean to trivialize anybody's feelings. He just realized how heavy the conversation was getting, and that people were genuinely getting upset and tried to lighten the mood around here. Bravo Lowteck. Also to JTony for the Star Wars reference.

And although point one is the only one I'm interested in discussing, I'll discuss any of the others that you want (especially point 5). But try to be concise and try not to stray off topic with the discussion, when we start talking about haircuts or a woman's role in society or chimpanzees, I lose interest.

posted by The Animus on April 11th, 2008 10:52 PM

But then, there's not much point bringing it up, because it only facilitates free will, and not the concept of society.

That sentence can be read as the two concepts being mutually exclusive, but I didn't intend it to be that way. I added the 'and not the concept of society' because that's what the original quote I was commenting on was aiming to prove. And to clarify, I do believe there's a word in the English language -- 'society'. So it exists.

Society informs (NOT dictates) what we do with our free will.

All it takes for me to agree with this sentence is to change the 'informs' to 'can inform'. I've already talked about how we choose to accept influence, so I'm not going to say something like 'no one accepts said influence'. So I don't want you think I'm being ignorant of your idea of society. It's just incomplete -- to me. I want to refine this idea about society so that we can link it to the meaning of 'social context'. And with that, we can address Number Two on JTony's nice little list.
So to clarify (even more), I want to say that (social) context is subjective. It's interpreted. And there's nothing wrong with inferring context. I'll leave these thoughts here for now.

Can you acknowledge that there is a long history of women portrayed by men in reducing, subjugating ways?

Yes. Yes I can. My girlfriend's an art history major, and she can definitely attest to this. This might be a horrible and unfitting analogy, but I think asking Lincoln to apologize for this history, or its effects, is like asking a German kid to apologize to a Jew. I could be way off base there, seeing as I'm missing the connection between Lincoln's personal choices and the significance of this history. 'Intention' is usually something that brings things like that together, but it's already been discussed, so it must be something else.
Also, not to be an ass, but that picture reminds me a lot of Burning Man. And I could be dooming this thread to an eternity of activity by putting this out there, but generally speaking, Burning Man would have a lot to say about society and art.

posted by The Animus on April 11th, 2008 10:56 PM

Lincoln, I'd like to talk to you about ferrets.

I thought ferrets were kind of cute -- until I met one in person.
I don't know if this is how ferrets say hello, but the first thing this one did was crawl up my pants.
Needless to say, the ferret and I didn't get along very well. I made my hands into a tourniquet to save my netherbits, and it proceeded to bite me and draw blood.

I now have a fear for ferrets. In your opinion, what should I do to overcome this fear?

posted by JTony Loves Brains on April 11th, 2008 11:09 PM

I'm going to bring round my point 1 items tomorrow, but I had something to say about your point 2 response (and it is short).

You have to fucking be kidding me, Lincoln, if you are trying to tell me that the image of the woman leaning back in ecstasy as she gets fucked by the thrusting waves of the ocean is not a sexually charged image. The others you made, I totally see they probably don't have a sexual context for you, but that one photograph is so full of sex a blind man could hear it. In fact, I think that if you hadn't chosen that image along with the rest any feeling of a sexual context in the images as a whole would have been dropped considerably.

I am not making a value judgment one way or another on whether having chosen a sexually charged image is good or bad. Just pointing out that when you said "None of the pictures I posted have any sexual connotations to me." I am assuming you mean the replicas (as there's actual porn in the other set), and I'm assuming you weren't considering the wave-fuck picture.

posted by Lincøln on April 11th, 2008 11:12 PM

Animus, I suggest you meet Mr. Bigglesworth. He tried to climb up my pants just an hour ago and it was very enjoyable. He doesn't bite, at least not hard.

JTony. That photo has no sexual context for me. I see it does for you. And that's cool. Interpret my art however you like, my friend.

posted by Lank on April 11th, 2008 11:24 PM

Even if in your mind there is a separation of "the shape of a female body" and the context of the images here, that separation is not happening for most everyone else here.

It's as simple as doing a rundown of what is prominent in each of your featured images:

Purchases:
Tits
Ass
Tits
Ass

Replicas:
Ass
Tits
Ass
Tits

And you call this "the greatest work of art in the history of humanity"? The greatest work of art in the history of humanity is tits and ass?

I wish I could say, "Imagine it the other way around," but I can't. Men are so rarely the unwilling victims of female lust, it would be absurd. But women have been and continue to be unwilling victims of male lust, from ogling to rape. In this context, a world in which women already have to be on guard, to post these images in a place where heretofore the community has felt safe and free from such a threatening atmosphere, is highly troubling.

"I will not apologize for my choice of images" makes me sad. Really?

Really?

And... are you calling these images "your art"? That really takes the cake. Aren't they all supposed to be purchases/replicas? Your art is to make women on SFØ uncomfortable? Or are you saying that your art is the greatest art in the history of humanity?

posted by JTony Loves Brains on April 11th, 2008 11:27 PM

OK, when you say it has no sexual context for you, what exactly does it mean?

I mean, are you saying it doesn't turn you on sexually? That you don't personally feel sexual feelings or thoughts when you look at it?

Or are you saying that you can see nothing sexual about it, even though it is filled with culturally accepted sexual symbols, position, gesture? Are you saying you don't see those? That they were unintended entirely when you took the picture? Or that when you printed it you didn't expect that others would see it as a sexually charged image?

Some of these I buy wholeheartedly and can totally get behind. Others I find at best inconceivably naive given your usual cultural acuity. I know this isn't the subject you most want to discuss here, but I'd love more clarification, if you would.

posted by Lincøln on April 11th, 2008 11:30 PM

When I refer to "my art" (and everything I've discussed) I'm referring to the pieces I created, not the ones I purchased. The pieces I purchased are for another discussion. I think.

JTony, yes, I can see nothing sexual about it, even though it is filled with culturally accepted sexual symbols, position, and gestures. I do see how that can be perceived. Totally. And yes, it was unintended entirely when I took the picture.

posted by Lank on April 11th, 2008 11:43 PM

Wow.

Do you see the difference between the images of scantily or unclad women here in your "proof" and this?

(I think I know the answer.)

To use just a touch of hyperbole, what you're doing is a little like saying to a Jewish friend, "These anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda posters are the greatest thing on Earth. Check out the skill with which they're drawn. It's a good thing I don't see anything violent or disturbing about them." Do you understand that?

posted by Scienceguru on April 12th, 2008 12:25 AM

That was *so* not what I meant.

Of course, the images are sexual. That's already been said. You like to look at women's bodies. Not men's. Because you're attracted to women and not attracted to men. That's why. There's nothing more intrinsically artistic about one gender over the other. They're just bodies.

And tits and ass are more "artistic" than elbows and ankles because they're more sexually charged.

There's nothing wrong with playing with sexual imagery. That's what adults do and at least some of you on this website are adults. I expect this praxis and the Craig's List one before it came partially out of frustration at the asexual prankster Disneyland atmosphere. I suspect it gets old - especially for a grown man in his thirties.

But you have to take responsibility for what you do. I thought the Craig's List praxis was rude and hurtful as well, but since the targets were not "that could be me", you all managed to overlook it.

Now it is you.

The line between a splank and a big red X can be mighty thin.

If you're going to play with sexual images, you better have a good idea what you're doing. Just plomping them up there heedlessly and pretending they're just any old pictures - well, they're not. Especially when one of them is the image of another player.

It's kinda like a snuff film. I could post a video of someone strangling another person. Doesn't mean it really happened. Doesn't mean the person getting strangled didn't deserve it. But if I just say "hey look at the cool camera angles" without explaining the murder part - no one's going to hear me.

No one's hearing you because the context is being deliberately withheld from loaded images.

And to fail to redeem the opportunity to provide some more context, if not to demonstrate understanding of what's loaded and why ... that's just lame.

posted by KristinawithaK on April 12th, 2008 12:34 AM

Nothing sexual about that last photo, huh? Then why am I turned on? Damn that's hot...
I'd definitely like to see me a naked man too. But that frontal shot will do me just fine.

Sorry, I got a little tired of masturbating to the Mona Lisa.

posted by Julian Muffinbot on April 12th, 2008 12:39 AM

the animus:" So to clarify (even more), I want to say that (social) context is subjective. It's interpreted. And there's nothing wrong with inferring context. "

so really, the difference in our opinions boils down to:
-you believe it is possible for someone to choose to be totally unaffected by society/social norms
-i don't

by all means, feel free to keep viewing your own experiences through that lens.

"This might be a horrible and unfitting analogy, but I think asking Lincoln to apologize for this history, or its effects, is like asking a German kid to apologize to a Jew. I could be way off base there, seeing as I'm missing the connection between Lincoln's personal choices and the significance of this history."

Yeah... I think you are off base. Plus, no one's asking Lincoln to apologize for the history. They're asking him to apologize because he offended them by his actions. The fact that his actions exist in social context of that history is meaningful (and plenty of others in this discussion have explained the connection between Lincoln's choice of images, his opinions, and that history) but it doesn't mean that anyone's holding Lincoln responsible for that whole history.

In an earlier comment you said something about how no one can tell you what you're responsible for as a human, because of your opinions.

Well, Lincoln certainly does not HAVE TO take responsibility for anything, no one can force him to do so, but it would be nice if he did.

It's like... if I unintentionally insult your mother, it would be a lot more constructive for me to apologize, explain I did not mean it, and ask her why she was offended, and try to understand. Rather than go "My opinion was not meant to be offensive, so it's YOUR opinion that what I said is offensive that's the problem!" If that was how I responded, your mom would be perfectly justified in thinking I'm a jerk (or at best, insensitive and stubborn).

posted by Julian Muffinbot on April 12th, 2008 12:39 AM

p.s. Myrna, I will totally join your Babe Hawaii fanclub. that vegetable instrument was hot.

posted by The Animus on April 12th, 2008 1:24 AM

"My opinion was not meant to be offensive, so it's YOUR opinion that what I said is offensive that's the problem!"

It's not a problem. In fact, there's a lot to be said about this character's mother. But I digress -- we seem to agree people have the ability to choose their opinions. And that's good enough for me.

So, I'm glad we cleared all that up. Twas fun.
It's the cholesterol levels. :: grins ::

posted by JTony Loves Brains on April 12th, 2008 10:53 AM

Julian - does that mean there's a sexual context to Babe's vegetable instrument now, too? I'll have to consider that. Or is a carrot sometimes just a carrot?

posted by JTony Loves Brains on April 12th, 2008 11:04 AM

Julian said - "They're asking him to apologize because he offended them by his actions."

In fact, what I really think folks are asking Lincoln to apologize for is not even his actions in posting the praxis, but his lack care about the reaction of those who saw it. I think everyone would agree that Lincoln's intentions in putting up this praxis were noble. He was not trying to antagonize anyone.

The problem came when folks called foul on the praxis, but Lincoln for the most part didn't show a lot of care about what those people were actually saying. To some of us he showed care in private discussion, but it looks like, to me, others he didn't so much.

And publically he put his foot down with some "I will not apologize for"'s and "I've made my point"'s, neither of which show a lot of listening or caring. Folks aren't calling for him to carry the burden of man's crappy treatment or woman's image throughout history.

They pretty much just want him to show he cares about what they said.

(I know I'm speaking for a lot of folks here, and if you disagree, chime in and call me a schmuck for saying it)

posted by Sparrows Fall on April 12th, 2008 11:32 AM

You say:

1) This is the only point I'm really interested in discussing further. And would love to discuss with anybody.

And yet Babe, Lank, Suzy, Myrna, and others have addressed this point. You have not responded to them. Are your responses to them forthcoming?

If you're really interested in discussing this point, I would think that their comments would make you do more than "love this conversation" - they might make you actually respond to them.

I know it's an overwhelming number of comments, Lincoln, but it's an overwhelming number both because of your original praxis and because of the arguments you have selected in support of it, which are deeply flawed (which is, I suspect, the true reason why you have not responded to Babe, Lank, Suzy, Myrna, and others, and continued to wave the "It's art, it's art, that means I have no responsibility for my actions!" flag around, even though they have all soundly destroyed that argument). You have a responsibility to respond, and respond publicly.

Yes, a lot of time and effort, but some of your recent comments have suggested you can't be bothered, or don't have time to do so, which is very dismissive.

Lincoln, you created this. You have made this art, you have posted it on SFØ and you have made a breathtaking number of the game's players uncomfortable and hurt.

Can you acknowledge that? Can you acknowledge it without a craven fauxpology such as If somehow my art is upsetting to some, then I apologize, but I do not apologize for the content of my art.. In which you manage both to apologize to people only if they happen to be offended (I think it's quite safe to conclude from the 15 flags and counting this praxis received, and the content of the majority of the comments posted here, that people are upset – the 'if' is insulting. The 'somehow' is also incredibly insulting, as many people have spent a tremendous amount of time explaining to you the ways in which the praxis and your subsequent responses were offensive and upsetting.) but also to note that you're not taking responsibility for anything you've created here.

If you were a troll, it would be quite the accomplishment. But you're not. You're Lincoln.

It seems that sometimes you are trying to play this off as if this were an installation designed to discomfit, to make people question things. You say, But if you read any (or all {you fool!}) of this and had to challenge or rethink your individual meaning of art, then I have succeeded.

I would suggest that the thing that has been most challenged and rethought are people's opinions and respect for you, and for your ability to respond when you have done things that hurt others. Whether or not you respond to them, a large number of the comments here are directed squarely at you. Many of the people here are not having a discussion with each other – they are looking at you. You can sit back and say you love this conversation, and compare it to fuel, and wistfully hope that somehow someone's questioned their definition of art, then occasionally say that it's art so everyone's responses are their own problem and none of yours, but it doesn't change the fact that a majority of these comments are still directed squarely at you.

And you are responding privately or not at all.

(Although I take that back – you're responding to JTony and Animus. Which, great start! Keep at it! It's not like the discussion is slowing down at all – you've got the time to start picking up other people's comments and responding to them, too.)

I would also like to note that I, personally, very much want to see you to publicly respond to Bex.

To summarize: You have used a number of images that have unsettled and hurt many players, and whether or not you personally see these images as sexualized, you are aware that they are perceived that way. You state that they are art, yet your definition/argument as to why they are art is seriously flawed.

And now, you do not respond to critiques and explanations as to why this is so flawed, while responding to others and continuing to use that definition/argument, as if the people who have taken so much time to explain these things to you are but a high, whining noise in your ears. You also continue to ignore (or refuse to respond publicly to) the numerous people who have told you that you have hurt them, unsettled them, and made them feel unsafe.

There are a number of words for people who do those sorts of things, Lincoln, and none of them are at all complementary.

posted by Sparrows Fall on April 12th, 2008 11:34 AM

I also agree with what JTony says, just above my two comments.

posted by Lank on April 12th, 2008 11:41 AM

This time, Sparrows, you said it better than me.

posted by Julian Muffinbot on April 12th, 2008 11:52 AM

JTony said: "In fact, what I really think folks are asking Lincoln to apologize for is not even his actions in posting the praxis, but his lack care about the reaction of those who saw it. I think everyone would agree that Lincoln's intentions in putting up this praxis were noble. He was not trying to antagonize anyone."

I agree, and I think in my brain when I think of "Lincoln's actions" i was including his actions in the discussion as well, but I failed to say it that way.

But I also believe, pretty firmly, that even if you had noble intentions when you did something that ended up offending people, it is still a good idea to take responsibility for that initial thing you did, too.

posted by Lincøln on April 12th, 2008 12:20 PM

OK. I agree that I need to publicly respond (i have done a lot of private response) and I will, but it may take some time to organize my thoughts and read what has been written here. I have only been skimming since I got to San Francisco. When I catch up, I'll have something to say. But the conversation is really really big right now. Gimmie a few days. Also, I have responded to most everybody that was genuinely upset (I think). Again, if you are and want a more immediate response, shoot me an email.

posted by The Animus on April 12th, 2008 12:40 PM

I second JTony's general remark.

You state that they are art, yet your definition/argument as to why they are art is seriously flawed.

I could pull this into semantics again, but I think by doing so, by creating an agreement to disagree, perhaps I'm not allowing you (or you or you or you) to express yourself as you want to. I could say that the concept of art is subjective, and thus, there's very valid arguments on both sides of the fence. "One man's trash is another man's treasure".

But, this isn't an ivory tower. It's SF0.
I realized I started coming onto the site for this page specifically, and I wasn't looking at other tasks. When I did, they seemed to be too complacent or something. So, in order to shake that perspective, I'm going to step back from being a PhilosoNazi, and go back to voting on half-assed completions and being inspired by this community.
So, good day, sirs.
I'm thinking about starting a career as a professional troll. What do you guys think?

posted by GYØ Ben on April 12th, 2008 2:44 PM

I feel sorry for myself, backscrolling this entire discussion has taken a good half hour, and I have no interesting or useful input to contribute.

Dammit.

posted by Jellybean of Thark on April 12th, 2008 2:51 PM

Now you know how I feel, Ben.

posted by JTony Loves Brains on April 12th, 2008 5:05 PM

Animus, Just for clarity, the "seriously flawed" quote was actually Sparrows Fall's comment and not my own.

posted by Lincøln on April 12th, 2008 5:55 PM

I feel a lot like Ben and C.M. but I will find it in me somehow to put something together within a few days.

posted by JJason Recognition on April 12th, 2008 8:06 PM

Animus: I don't know. We've already got a troll.

posted by Bex. on April 14th, 2008 2:34 AM

posted by Bex. on April 14th, 2008 3:11 AM

posted by JTony Loves Brains on April 15th, 2008 8:45 AM

First, the comment above from Bex... my favorite is "Your Comfort Is My Silence".

Now, I said I was going to write this up, so even though this conversation has died while awaiting Lincoln's return, I wanted to get it in here, as I think it speaks to much of what the other Art related comments have been addressing. I did say some of this way at the top, but not in a complete coherent way, so here goes.

My definition of art is a bit more liberal than most, but it is a definition with things falling inside and outside the boundaries set, and it is what lead me to decide that this praxis failed the criteria set by the task.

My definition has two main points.
1. An artist is someone who makes (or "defines") art.
2. Art is whatever an artist points at and says "that is art".

For me art is simply a re-framing of an idea, object, or action into something that we look at in a tangibly different way. Art is about seeing something in the context of art (art history, artistic skill, artistic sensibilites). It is about taking something out of the context of the "everyday" and holding it up to the light. This is why both Monet's water lilies and Duchamp's readymades are both art. You might like one more than the other, but by being placed in the artistic context, they both become art. Just because it is art doesn't mean it is good, and just because it is not good doesn't mean it isn't art.

This means though that art must be a physically framable "thing". It can be an action, physically framed in time and space (this is where performance is defined as art), or it can be an object or image or set of images... all physical (even with computer images the files are physically stored on the hard drive and shown on a physical screen). Art cannot be an idea. You can't point to an idea and call it art, because there is nothing to point to, nothing to define in space and time, nothing to pull into a new artistic context.

This is the first place that Lincoln's praxis fails. The "female human body" is an idea, an idealized form that lives in the brain. There is no "female human body" that one can point to as "THE female human body".

If you point to one female human body and say "this defines the female human body as art" I can point to another female human body and point out a thousand differences and ask if these differences define it as not-art or different-art in comparison. The answers will invariably make them into two separate things, and you no longer have one "THE female human body" to work with. Since the idea of "THE female human body" doesn't exist in real life, you cannot point to it and call it art, as Lincoln has done.

This praxis did have me adjust one item in my definition, and that is that I had never considered my rules of defining living beings as art before. The conclusion I've come to is that an artist really has no right in pointing to another being without their permission and defining them as art. Although a person is bound by time and space, pointing to one and calling her art degrades her from person-hood into a thing, as by definition a work of art is a definable thing. It takes that person out of their own context and redefines that context in a way that is out of their control, robbing them of their own self-determination. At the very least I believe it is highly unethical.

This is different than taking a picture of a person, as the art is not the person, but the picture. In a performance the people are not the art, the performance is, the actions that they are taking in that defined time and space. In general people cannot be art. In the example above of the two women, one could call each of them a work of art but I would say this is literally taking their personhood away because holding them up to the artistic light all you see is skin and bones defined by some other artist.

The one adjustment to this is that an individual can define themselves as art or their own bodies as art, or with another artist define themselves as such. This self-determination brings round the cojoined idea of artist/art... the "artist, paint thyself" idea, and as such the personhood remains intact.

So this is the second place Lincoln's praxis fails. He can't define the idea of THE female human body as art, and, at best, it is increadibly unethical to the point of being automatically rejectable to define individual or even a group of female human bodies as art without their express permission and collaboration. In no way can THE female human body be art. Therefore the basis on which Lincoln starts his praxis is completely and total faulty.

I said it and someone else said it as well, the Female Human Body is not a work of art, it is a work of nature, as are all Human forms, either in the ideal or in reality. Examining that form can be art if it leaves behind a physically defined thing or action, but the form itself is nature itself, and claiming it as art is artistic hubris at its worst.

posted by Lincøln on April 16th, 2008 3:57 PM

I feel that a response from me is necessary here. I wasn't going to post anything because the thread had died down, and trying to address everybody's issues here (while possible) isn't feasible for me, but since I promised an 'official' response, here is my best attempt. I'm sorry all I was able to provide this forum before today were snarky comments and jokes (but I am still willing to talk about my ideas about Star Wars. Seriously), but I didn't really have the time to do more than just skim before today. Also, I will admit that I didn't take any of the comments below my praxis seriously. At all. I didn't even read them until I was out leaving my clues and got a phone call from Lowteck telling me that Bex was really upset and that I should censor or remove my praxis. It was at that point that I realized that others were not only taking it way seriously, but were getting genuinely offended. And even then I didn't read it, I skimmed it to get a gist of what was going on, and then sent private messages to everybody I found that seemed to be offended because when I posted here, my words got twisted and re-contextualized because there were so many different conversations going on.

I am now going to give you a little back-story about myself, as I think it may explain something (not excuse anything, just explain). It is impossible to offend me. And you can't hurt my feelings unless you really work at it, and really only Lank or C.M. have that ability (there are a few other members of this community who I have unflinching respect for that come close, they have the ability to disappoint and sadden me, but not yet have the ability to hurt my feelings). To hurt my feelings, you would have to get real close to me, show yourself to be a true friend (or lover), develop a relationship with me for years, and then (and only then) you would have to turn on me by lying or stealing or purposely breaking my trust. Which means that your actions would have to actually affect me on purpose. My feelings get hurt when somebody I love actually purposely tries to do me harm. And I am unoffendable. Especially by words, or ideas or pictures. So this is good to know about me. I also always assume the best about people. And I think logically, and (this may be a fault of mine, no not 'may be', this is a fault of mine) I assume that everybody I meet thinks like I do. Which is a bad thing I suppose. Whenever I see a Bush bumper sticker I assume it must be a joke or a piece of ironic art or performance or something. I mean, I know this is wrong and I know people voted for Bush and that people think that hanging a human from a tree is OK if their skin color is different from theirs, and people believe that the stories in the bible actually happened, but I try to think of those people in the abstract, and surely the people I meet aren't those people. Surely the people I meet are just like me. So, because I think most people think like I do, I didn't take serious the comments about my praxis. I admit I perhaps should have taken better care to look out for the feelings of my community based on my praxis. It just didn't occur to me. Add to that the fact that I was either on the road or hanging out with my fellow SFØ players in San Francisco almost the whole time these comments were being posted and it's easy to think I was being cavalier. And I will also admit that I don't care what others think about me, and enjoyed seeing the crazy number of flags, and also admit that Lowteck and myself added anywhere between three or four of those flags ourselves. And because I don't care what anybody thinks of me, because I have no pride to protect, I often don't respond to challenges or censures at all. And this often makes me look like a dick. And again. I don't care (it's not that I don't care about the feelings of others, I just don't care what others think of me). If you think of me as an asshole, then think of me as an asshole. I'm OK with that. I know that sounds dismissive and rude, but I really honestly don't care what anybody thinks of me. I tend to let my actions speak for themselves.

Now on to the subject of art and what is art and what can be considered art. Art is subjective and therefore mercurial and impossible to nail down, and one's definition of art is fickle at best, and might change over years or even days. I have a sense about me where I think of just about everything as art and have had that opinion for about as long as I've known how to label things myself. If there is one of those signs with the caption "But is it art?" I always answer yes. Just by asking the question, means you've categorized it as art. For me this expands into the realm of nature as well. Yes, a sunset can be art. Even if I don't take a photograph of it, or paint it, my looking at and appreciating it classifies it as art. Even living beings to me can be art. I think all cats art art, they way they move even outside of the frame of the Discovery channel or a youtube video, even for an audience of one, still art. And JTony and Myrna Minx think that I'm wrong, and that's OK, because every definition of art is highly personal and biased, and in that sense I am wrong and deserve flags. And the point cannot be argued. Everybody's right and everybody's wrong when it comes to the definition of art.

Now onto the hardest subject to delve into that this praxis has stirred up. Which I'm going to classify as "women historically diminished into sexual objects". I think coming at the topic from that angle will appease most everybody. Maybe not. But it's the angle I'm choosing to try and get to everybody's issues in a large shotgun blast of information. But first I'm going to start with the dickhead answer that makes me into an asshole misogynistic fucktard. And that is that neither me nor any men have painted women into a sexualized box. Women have historically painted themselves into that box. I'm going to talk about all women as a group, which obviously leaves out the exceptions and puts Joni Mitchell in the same group as Paris Hilton, and I know that's over simplifying, but I hope you don't think I mean all women when I say 'women' for the basis of this conversation. But rather a few public examples can shape the vision of the perceived whole. And that's what I'm referring to when I say women, OK? OK. Women want to be looked at in a sexual nature, it empowers them. Women choose to be models and porn stars and strippers and actors of their own accord. They put on makeup and fancy clothes and get operations of their own accord, and I do understand the economics of the situation, that no woman would do that without a man's money that makes it worthwhile, but regardless of the circumstances, it is still a choice that women have made for themselves. And I see nothing wrong with it. I'll even go so far as to call it art. In the photos I have taken, all of the models volunteered to be photographed, in fact most approached me. So to say that I (or other men, or anybody really) have anything to do with the perceived image of women in society is taking all responsibility away from women. To say that the causes of women's views in the world have anything to do with anything other than a woman's own choice is a bit narrow in focus. I like for people to own up to and accept their choices and actions, and I own up to enjoying looking at and drawing and photographing a woman's body. And I own up to posting pictures of naked women on this praxis. And I won't apologize for that. But to say that I'm perpetuating a negative or unrealistic image of women I find laughable. Because these photos weren't doctored in any way, these are real women that I photographed. Sure they may be thin, but they have cellulite and stretch marks and wrinkles and saggy boobs and everything else real women have. To claim this is an unreal portrayal of women is ludicrous. Although if you are referring to the artwork that I purchased, such as the first picture of Angela Spica aka The Engineer, then yes, you're right, she is an exaggerated example of woman, but I didn't create it and it's a character driven example. Angela doesn't look like that in the comic, she only looks like that when she becomes The Engineer and can choose what she looks like. She chooses to look like that when the nanomachines create the armor she wears. But that's fiction. And not my own work. But also for the record, I know a woman who has that exact body, and if any of you want to come down to my theater on any given Saturday night I'll point her out to you. At least I didn't post a picture of Little Annie Fanny. I have done nothing but post pictures of real women depicted by me as art (except the ones I purchased). And if by doing that I have perpetuated or made worse the way women are thought of then I apologize for my behavior.

Now even though I touched on this topic (and hopefully brought to an end all basis for further discussion on the subject) I will also revisit the idea of the woman's body being considered art in the sense that I said that "The" female human body was the greatest work of art of all time. And it was posited that I was de-humanizing women with such a statement. I don't think I was de-humanizing, but rather objectifying them. I also feel nothing wrong with classifying a living thing in such a way. To me it's like saying penguins cannot fly. This does indeed take the individual-ness away from every penguin. Or rather it's like saying that cats are the most graceful animal. Some cats may not be graceful, and all uniqueness of individual cats gets lost in this statement, but it doesn't make it any less true for me. So to arbitrarily classify all women into one group and label them as one, isn't a problem for me, moral or otherwise. Calling them art I already spoke to. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, we all can't agree all of the time. I still respect those with different opinions than mine, in fact I like being around people with different opinions than I do, I like it even more when they're smarter than I am. This proof not being a good example, I enjoy having my mind changed. This discussion has strengthened my position on what can be classified as art. And I feel better about taking pictures of nude women and calling it art. This discussion has been great, and I love all of the different threads that were running throughout. Now I feel like I could resubmit this entire discussion here. I was advised to unsubmit this task on a number of occasions, and I'm glad I didn't because of the great discussion this has become.

And if you were offended by anything posted by myself I apologize.
My intent wasn't to offend, but to take a critical look at art and what is considered art.
I understand art all by itself is a touchy subject (I mean this awesome piece of awesome had people upset with it), and then to add into the mix every woman's issue you can think of into the mix, I see where all of the hurt feelings came from. And if you were one of those with hurt feelings, I whole-heartedly apologize.

posted by KristinawithaK on April 16th, 2008 4:56 PM

Women want to be looked at in a sexual nature, it empowers them. Women choose to be models and porn stars and strippers and actors of their own accord. They put on makeup and fancy clothes and get operations of their own accord, and I do understand the economics of the situation, that no woman would do that without a man's money that makes it worthwhile, but regardless of the circumstances, it is still a choice that women have made for themselves. And I see nothing wrong with it. I'll even go so far as to call it art.

If you ever get the time, read (or at least look into) a book called "Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture" by Ariel Levy. It explains exactly why some women feel that being viewed in a sexual nature is "empowering" and I think you might be surprised at why this is and what compels them to do so. And it has nothing to do with "human instinct."

posted by JTony Loves Brains on April 16th, 2008 5:09 PM

I haven't read the book, but I can assume it has to do with a lot of cold, hard, cash.... usually held out by a man, or men.

The oversimplifications, Lincoln, are pretty mind blowing... as is the lack of understanding or seeking to understand, or showing a desire to understand... just more reiteration of your previously brief statements.

This praxis reminds me greatly of the Monster in the book Frankenstein by Mary Shelly. Victor creates him and immediately abandons him to his own devices... newly born, 7feet tall and hideously ugly and all alone. He goes off to convalesce and then party with his friends and family, while the monster roams, reviled by all who see him. Interesting parallel, I think.

posted by Lincøln on April 16th, 2008 5:34 PM

I haven't read the book either, but judging from the title, I can assume that it's about women doing it to themselves. I would assume it's a kind of beat-them-to-the-punch reaction. A we-can-do-anything-men-can-do, and do it better mentality that makes strippers feel like feminists because they're in control of what they're doing. When a woman's role model on success is Jenna Jamison and not Joan Didion. Which is understandable because which one is a millionaire? Which one is world famous? That might not be what the book you mention is about, but if it comes close, how do I have anything to do with it? Am I to blame any more than Charles Edward Boutibonne or Terry Richardson? Perhaps I am.

posted by Julian Muffinbot on April 16th, 2008 10:08 PM

"A we-can-do-anything-men-can-do, and do it better mentality that makes strippers feel like feminists because they're in control of what they're doing."

Is it just a mentality - it's not *real*, these women just think it is? And they're not really feminists - they just "feel like" feminists?

Yeah, I'm sure that's it.

posted by Scienceguru on April 16th, 2008 10:26 PM

And sadly it will take a honking lot of text to address, but there are a few things that need to be said. I'll try to be as brief as I can, but may fail :>

I'm not going to debate that there were a lot of conversations going on: there were. But there's something a little disingenous about posting something in a public place and then expressing total disinterest in the comments about it. Why post it if you don't want anybody to see it? I don't seriously believe you or anybody else here is *that* obsessed with points or getting to level 8. There is a bit of a game being played with regards to tremendous interest in hearing about how awesome praxes are and feigned indifference to hearing about how not-awesome they are. It strikes me as a false note, FWIW.

In terms of assessing people by your own standards: isn't life a process of figuring out that everyone else *isn't* just like you? Not at all. People have totally different experiences that make them react to things in totally different ways. So it isn't going to work to act as if everyone is just like you. That's where the golden rule falls down as an operating module. You may not mind at all being treated in a way that really upsets someone else. Does that make them crazy? Does that mean you can dismiss them out of hand?

If you don't know them very well, that's what you do. That's what we all do. Because dealing with difference is exhausting. But as you put it, when it was someone you *knew* - you paid more attention.

But you can't have a community unless you treat everyone in that community as if they are someone you *know* - i.e. someone whose differences from you will be acknowledged. I think you got the reaction you got because you acted as if members of your on-line community (it's not mine, but it is yours) were not acknowledged as such.

And theoretically if this some advanced model of enlightenment and community and collaboration and free, unfettered activity, it shouldn't be dismissing human differences as too trivial to be paid attention to: as that's the model of the oppressive, difference-hating, lemming society.

I'm gonna skip the art definition part as other people have addressed it in detail and go on the "hardest subject" as it's more compelling to me.

First of all, I'm not a fan of prefacing an answer by saying "now I'm a dickhead and I'm going to seem like a misogynist fucktard". If that's the direction that you're going with an argument, it's a pretty good indication that you ought to STOP RIGHT THERE. Because misogynist fucktardness is not, ever, the truth. It's prejudice, bias, discrimination and falsehood. Is there ever a good answer to a question that makes you seem like a racist bigot? Or a queer-hater? Of course not. it's a pretty big indicator that you're on the wrong track. Misogyny means the belief that women by category are inferior to men. If you're saying something that "sounds that way" - it's not a good thing that you're saying. And more to the point, it's not a true thing that you are saying because the truth is that women are not inferior to men.

Of course women have used their sexual power over het men. They're not stupid, after all. Any entity that makes .79 on the dollar needs all the help they can get and is gonna use whatever they got to try to even out that built-in disadvantage. Since we're talking about the *history of art*, lets be a little more real. Women were chattel. They belonged to their husband like cows. They couldn't vote. 25% of them died in childbirth before their 30th birthday, often perishing in the delivery of their rapist's child. And *that* was in civilized Europe.

So you say what's wrong with objectifying women's bodies as a category and saying complimentary things like how beautiful their sexual parts are when they're young and nubile? They like that. Look how they pose and preen for us. How is it different than saying "all cats are graceful?". I'm gonna argue it isn't different at all - it's the same frigging thing.

Besides the obvious point that not all cats are graceful (some are klutzes, some are old and sick and deformed) and if the cats could talk, I'm betting they'd kinda prefer to be appreciated as individuals rather than as a species: the reality is that no matter how graceful their idealized form might be: they die by the millions every year in nightmarish shelters because nobody will give them a home. And living creatures need individual nurture and care, not idealized objectivity that doesn't save them from the gas chamber. So all these vague compliments - don't do them any good.

Women needed health care, a vote, their personal freedom, a room of their own, a way to earn a living, the autonomy of their own bodies from rape and unwanted childbirth. Alot of them still do. And they all need to earn the same damn dollar for a dollar's work. Need that a lot more than odes to their breasts. You can't eat an ode to your breast.

So these paens to parts: is it any wonder women read them as a re-affirmation of a damnable deal: lame compliments instead of meeting actual needs? Worshipping the ideal form while kicking to the curb the real women who stands in front of you? Not only kicking her to curb and neglecting her needs or actively abusing her, but having the frigging audacity to do it while singing the praises of "her" species and holding the mantle of a lover and admirer of women?

I'm not saying this praxis did that, but it sure brought up some bad societal memories.

Which brings us to preening and posing: if you're smart and you've got a bad deal, there isn't anything to do but play the angles you got. And that's what any self-respecting human being does under rotten circumstances: use the weapons at hand. And male lust is a weapon pretty women have. It's dumb as a rock though to confuse the angry, cynical use of sexual appeal to climb to a slightly better position in life as anything but what it is. Rage. Rage is not power. Rage is a reaction to lack of power.

What's repulsive is the lack of recognition of what all that preening and posing is about. Sure it's a choice. Sure it's a route to empowerment. It's an angry, hopeless, desperate, cynical and bitter choice. That's what women see. And they see the stupidity of the men that fall for it and say "how beautiful". Its the exact opposite of freely given sexuality that is a positive choice and not about lack of power. Which is what women find greatness and beauty and art in the exalted sense in.

So it's a difference in narrative. When you define as great images of objectified powerlessness that represent bad choices, you negate the difference between the two. Which negates the female experience. Which makes the "compliment" a decidedly uncomfortable one at best.

posted by Scarlett on April 17th, 2008 2:29 AM

Scienceguru, that was perfectly stated.

posted by done on April 17th, 2008 10:46 AM

Concerning your comment "women historically diminished into sexual objects":

Before you wrote this statement I didn't take this whole thing here too serious, cause it's actually just a few pictures of naked women, a not very well founded argumentation about art and a few fast comments in discussion-swamp.
I'm not easy to bother as well, so I didn't really care.
But after reading your last statement about the female role in society and why you think it is like that I really got kind of frustrated.

I'm not going to start any argumentation on that right now but you have obviously a lack of basic understanding of the topic and I highly recommend you to treat yourself with some feminist literature before you go on discussing.

If you would read just the first few pages of Simone de Beauvoirs "The second sex" you would definitly understand a little bit more of what the problem is about.

I don't like this discussion anymore.

posted by Lank on April 18th, 2008 11:57 PM

Mr. Lincoln, when you say,

Women want to be looked at in a sexual nature, it empowers them. Women choose to be models and porn stars and strippers and actors of their own accord. They put on makeup and fancy clothes and get operations of their own accord, and I do understand the economics of the situation, that no woman would do that without a man's money that makes it worthwhile, but regardless of the circumstances, it is still a choice that women have made for themselves. And I see nothing wrong with it.

you are a douchebag. Does it help that it comes from someone who's closer to you?

If you believe that women want to be models and porn stars and strippers because it empowers them, you are seriously deluded. Yes, some women make these choices, but it sounds like you believe that these are ideal choices. Many (and I dare say most) women who make these choices do so because they see no better options for themselves and/or because the attention received is a substitute for genuine affection. These women aren't creating a demand for their sexuality, but rather filling the demand of their audience. That's not power. As scienceguru says, these are BAD choices.

Perhaps it is your inability to empathize that keeps you from being able to see that most women don't want to be seen as meat.

posted by Flitworth on April 19th, 2008 5:01 AM

Lincoln, I realize you have stated you don't care but I would like to publicly state that your "official" response causes my hands to shake. The reasons that I am suffering tremors (I'm not certain if it is horror or disgust or just utter sadness) have been very well addressed by both Scienceguru and Lank. I hope you take them seriously.

posted by Bex. on April 19th, 2008 6:13 PM

I am mystified by how far your head is in your ass, Lincoln. I take back everything I said about your good intentions. My trust is totally lost. And even SFØ as a whole feels a lot less safe now.
Here you go: Flag.

TIme to switch to my other tactic for dealing with extreme douchebaggery: Dismissal.

posted by anna one on April 19th, 2008 6:19 PM

I'll second that, Flitworth.

I find myself immobilized and speechless by this praxis and it's discussion.
I'm not offended, my feelings aren't hurt- but I am disgusted, disappointed and depressed by the unflinching misogyny displayed here.

posted by Scienceguru on April 20th, 2008 1:28 AM

And sadly it will take a honking lot of text to address, but there are a few things that need to be said. I'll try to be as brief as I can, but may fail :>

I'm not going to debate that there were a lot of conversations going on: there were. But there's something a little disingenous about posting something in a public place and then expressing total disinterest in the comments about it. Why post it if you don't want anybody to see it? I don't seriously believe you or anybody else here is *that* obsessed with points or getting to level 8. There is a bit of a game being played with regards to tremendous interest in hearing about how awesome praxes are and feigned indifference to hearing about how not-awesome they are. It strikes me as a false note, FWIW.

In terms of assessing people by your own standards: isn't life a process of figuring out that everyone else *isn't* just like you? Not at all. People have totally different experiences that make them react to things in totally different ways. So it isn't going to work to act as if everyone is just like you. That's where the golden rule falls down as an operating module. You may not mind at all being treated in a way that really upsets someone else. Does that make them crazy? Does that mean you can dismiss them out of hand?

If you don't know them very well, that's what you do. That's what we all do. Because dealing with difference is exhausting. But as you put it, when it was someone you *knew* - you paid more attention.

But you can't have a community unless you treat everyone in that community as if they are someone you *know* - i.e. someone whose differences from you will be acknowledged. I think you got the reaction you got because you acted as if members of your on-line community (it's not mine, but it is yours) were not acknowledged as such.

And theoretically if this some advanced model of enlightenment and community and collaboration and free, unfettered activity, it shouldn't be dismissing human differences as too trivial to be paid attention to: as that's the model of the oppressive, difference-hating, lemming society.

I'm gonna skip the art definition part as other people have addressed it in detail and go on the "hardest subject" as it's more compelling to me.

First of all, I'm not a fan of prefacing an answer by saying "now I'm a dickhead and I'm going to seem like a misogynist fucktard". If that's the direction that you're going with an argument, it's a pretty good indication that you ought to STOP RIGHT THERE. Because misogynist fucktardness is not, ever, the truth. It's prejudice, bias, discrimination and falsehood. Is there ever a good answer to a question that makes you seem like a racist bigot? Or a queer-hater? Of course not. it's a pretty big indicator that you're on the wrong track. Misogyny means the belief that women by category are inferior to men. If you're saying something that "sounds that way" - it's not a good thing that you're saying. And more to the point, it's not a true thing that you are saying because the truth is that women are not inferior to men.

Of course women have used their sexual power over het men. They're not stupid, after all. Any entity that makes .79 on the dollar needs all the help they can get and is gonna use whatever they got to try to even out that built-in disadvantage. Since we're talking about the *history of art*, lets be a little more real. Women were chattel. They belonged to their husband like cows. They couldn't vote. 25% of them died in childbirth before their 30th birthday, often perishing in the delivery of their rapist's child. And *that* was in civilized Europe.

So you say what's wrong with objectifying women's bodies as a category and saying complimentary things like how beautiful their sexual parts are when they're young and nubile? They like that. Look how they pose and preen for us. How is it different than saying "all cats are graceful?". I'm gonna argue it isn't different at all - it's the same frigging thing.

Besides the obvious point that not all cats are graceful (some are klutzes, some are old and sick and deformed) and if the cats could talk, I'm betting they'd kinda prefer to be appreciated as individuals rather than as a species: the reality is that no matter how graceful their idealized form might be: they die by the millions every year in nightmarish shelters because nobody will give them a home. And living creatures need individual nurture and care, not idealized objectivity that doesn't save them from the gas chamber. So all these vague compliments - don't do them any good.

Women needed health care, a vote, their personal freedom, a room of their own, a way to earn a living, the autonomy of their own bodies from rape and unwanted childbirth. Alot of them still do. And they all need to earn the same damn dollar for a dollar's work. Need that a lot more than odes to their breasts. You can't eat an ode to your breast.

So these paens to parts: is it any wonder women read them as a re-affirmation of a damnable deal: lame compliments instead of meeting actual needs? Worshipping the ideal form while kicking to the curb the real women who stands in front of you? Not only kicking her to curb and neglecting her needs or actively abusing her, but having the frigging audacity to do it while singing the praises of "her" species and holding the mantle of a lover and admirer of women?

I'm not saying this praxis did that, but it sure brought up some bad societal memories.

Which brings us to preening and posing: if you're smart and you've got a bad deal, there isn't anything to do but play the angles you got. And that's what any self-respecting human being does under rotten circumstances: use the weapons at hand. And male lust is a weapon pretty women have. It's dumb as a rock though to confuse the angry, cynical use of sexual appeal to climb to a slightly better position in life as anything but what it is. Rage. Rage is not power. Rage is a reaction to lack of power.

What's repulsive is the lack of recognition of what all that preening and posing is about. Sure it's a choice. Sure it's a route to empowerment. It's an angry, hopeless, desperate, cynical and bitter choice. That's what women see. And they see the stupidity of the men that fall for it and say "how beautiful". Its the exact opposite of freely given sexuality that is a positive choice and not about lack of power. Which is what women find greatness and beauty and art in the exalted sense in.

So it's a difference in narrative. When you define as great images of objectified powerlessness that represent bad choices, you negate the difference between the two. Which negates the female experience. Which makes the "compliment" a decidedly uncomfortable one at best.

posted by Scienceguru on April 20th, 2008 11:06 AM

Person stealing my sign-in name - lol, you don't need to take what I wrote, and re-post it to the same thread three days later. It's already there.

posted by Delirium's Fishes on April 21st, 2008 8:56 AM

I'm really disappointed that this got flagged...
Even before I was on sf0 (and that wasn't all that long ago) I got to hear about this task through The Animus, and I can honestly accredit this with my interest in joining. As an artist and art history major, the misunderstanding you had to put up with, frankly, annoys the shit out of me, and I believe your point was missed entirely. I think The Animus has said everything else I wanted to, so I'm going to leave it at that.
Censorship is the end of art.
Nice job anyway, and stick to your guns!

posted by Burn Unit on April 21st, 2008 1:21 PM

this is totally awesome commentary!

Oh, also, as, you know, A Foursquare Bible Believing Christian™, I for one know that the female body is not a work of art. . . not by any human hand.

See, I don't buy that Intelligent Design bullshit (bad theology eating bad science? ewww, stinky) but the Creator is no artist, or not in any present sense anyway. So I feel perfectly free to Flag Away: you didn't complete the task.

Also, what they said. Itchy comments, baby, very itchy.

posted by JTony Loves Brains on April 21st, 2008 2:18 PM

Delerium -

I think Lincoln could have avoided the flag had he acted to adjust/change/alter/complete/re-work/re-consider his praxis. He chose not to act (and yes, I know he was travelling... he could have stated as such ahead and asked folks to hold off their flagging till he could get to it... which he really didn't do).

And there is no censorship here. The entirety of the praxis is there for everyone to read. Having an X stating that the fellow taskers don't think it completed the task is not censorship. Nothing has been removed, altered, or otherwise taken down or away. In fact, it is the opposite of censorship, since there has been at least as much, if not more information by way of commentary added to the task since the X was flown.

(Oh, and I did finally flag, by-the-way, after my last post... takes a lot to get me to flag).

posted by Lank on April 21st, 2008 8:38 PM

And another thing -

If a sunset is art then anything can be art. If all it takes is for a person to declare something to be "art" for it to be so, then everything is art. Then the word becomes pointless and assigns no quality or value to anything. It just becomes another word for "everything".

Art is tricky to define, yes, which means it's not easy to define. For one thing, I believe it is impossible for the definition of art to be subjective. If the word is going to mean anything, at least two people have to agree on what it means, therefore taking away it's subjectivity. Otherwise, I could define art as "the release of a metric ton of Asian pears into deep space", thereby negating everything else that has ever been called "art" as art.

Calling a sunset pretty is fine. But calling it "art" offends me as an artist, because it makes the creation of artwork irrelevant and, again, devalues the word.

posted by JTony Loves Brains on April 21st, 2008 10:22 PM

I agree and disagree with you Lank. I agree that a sunset is not art, although with mi criteria above I'm not sure I can support that. I think under certain circumstances, framed properly, I suppose a sunset could be art.

See, where I disagree with you is where you say that because a person can point to something and call it art that means that everything is art... Yes an artist can point to anything and call it art, but that is because, for me, the roll of the artist is to change our perception of things, refocus us by taking something out of context. While the artist is pointing and saying "that is art" it is art. The moment it is taken off the pedestal and put back into the bathroom, it is just a urinal again.

You see, it is the reframing for me that makes something art. You can reframe by depiction, like in painting, but you can also reframe just by placement, as in a readymade. I suppose a particular sunset could be reframed into art by an artist, but that doesn't make every sunset art... and the artist has to do the work to reframe it in a way for people to understand both the loss of old context and the new context in which he or she places it. With a urinal it means getting it into the museum. With a sunset, I don't know. A proscenium and curtain? A presentation? A "color symphony" like in the Phantom Tollbooth?

Although just pointing and saying, "that's art" fulfills the definition, it is somewhat lacking given the grandeur of the sunset, and it is hart to roost the sunset from its context because of that grandeur and sheer mass. It is also a very difficult "thing" to nail down, unless with some imaging device, and sunsets make very ephemeral events. Art doesn't like to be ephemeral because it likes the hard boundaries, the frame, on which the artist hangs the context.

John Cage did something very similar with 4'33''... he took silence out of the context of the "space between the notes" and he made it the music. That, to me, is the epitome of what an artist does.

Oh, and the other part of the idea of everything being art or not... things are only art for a short period of time. Some things stay as art until they deteriorate into their components, but a whole lot of art returns to either its old context or a totally new non-art context. A prop teapot in a play may very well make it to someone's table after the play's run is complete. While part of the play, that prop teapot was part of the art, but now it is not. The frame the artists created with that teapot has closed. The 4'33'' is over and there are again notes coming from that piano.

posted by praximity on April 21st, 2008 11:03 PM

so...i kinda missed out on this discussion.

but here's my piece: talking about things is much better than not talking about them. underlying beliefs and assumptions too often go uninterrogated in daily actions and they deserve to be confronted. especially the super-personal things.

and yet. the internet is not really the best place for these kinds of discussions. especially at this length, its amazingly easy to lose coherence. and of course, as seems to be occurring right now, arguments get caricatured pretty quickly. its too easy to become detached from the people behind the talk, too easy to take sides. this is the internet, after all. persona is all we are, mere visage, not much different than the people in those images so far above us now.

for a long-form discussion about feminism, about contentious topics, you need to KNOW and be constantly reminded of who you are speaking to/of, where they are coming from, etc...
these aren't just abstract arguments we're dealing with (at least, most of them aren't. go on, those immediately above me. this is a fine place for abstractions).

frankly, i'm amazed this has gone on this long.
hate to sound boring, but this needs to be worked out in person.
make it difficult, make it uncomfortable, but take it outside.

don't stay up at night shooting arrows in the dark.

posted by Lincøln on April 21st, 2008 11:07 PM

And maybe go talk about Doorhenge. Please.

posted by Lank on April 21st, 2008 11:23 PM

Okay. The point of my comments here was to try to get through to Lincoln. Since Lincoln isn't listening, this is my last comment here.

There's a good reason why it's the 2nd most discussed praxis of all time.

posted by JTony Loves Brains on April 21st, 2008 11:28 PM

And why it is the MOST FLAGGED praxis of all time, too.

You'd think that that alone would warrant discussion, AND get Lincoln's attention. Apparently not.

posted by praximity on April 21st, 2008 11:32 PM

but i'm forgetting where i am on the internet.

i'm at sf0.

why don't we take this to the praxis board?
practical applications of feminist theory...now that sounds hot.

might i suggest this? or perhaps...?
a rebuttal praxis would be amazing.

man, i'm excited already.

posted by Lincøln on April 21st, 2008 11:50 PM

Or maybe this. Or possibly this.

posted by Delirium's Fishes on April 22nd, 2008 9:17 PM

JTony--
Your points are very valid, especially with what you said about the flagging and I understand your position, however:
I think you misinterpreted how I referred to censorship; very obviously, the pieces themselves were not censored, but what bothered me was the fact that everyone who viewed the examples expected lincoln to censor himself.

Art is a very personal interpretation of your environment in all of its aspects. And yes, anything can be art--even a urinal--if one person can find some beauty in it. Almost everything that exists in our world took craft and skill to create.

And I understand your assumed frustration at the art community in the fact that anyone can put something on a pedestal and call it art (i'm an established artist with a few gallery showings under my belt; been there, done that). But my point is that no one involved in this discussion--myself included in that statement--has the final right or authority to say "what is art;" that fundamental question hasn't been answered by philosophers, politicians, or artists alike for over two thousand years or more.

If Lincoln's view of art is the female body, then that is his perogative; our job as an audience is either to appreciate or not. I, for one, find Trevor Brown's work fascinating, while others may find it disturbing. Who's to tell me or him that his work is unacceptable?

I think this discussion is truly a lost cause because everyone has their own opinions that they're not going to budge from. All of the feminazi propaganda that has been used to target this praxis (and I've read Feminine Mystique three times, along with the Second Sex, so don't shoot the messenger) is an overused excuse that is frankly beginning to sound very old to this diehard feminist.

To summarize, art should not be censored. Period. No one will ever be able to answer the question "What is art?" And finally, we should stop attacking this task completion just because it got under our skin. Face it; this praxis made you think. It got your attention. You've been discussing it for weeks. Whether or not you agree with his view, he accomplished the very goal that all artists have:

Lincoln got you to examine your own perspective.

So kudos.

posted by The Animus on April 23rd, 2008 1:26 AM

I think Lincoln could have avoided the flag had he acted to adjust/change/alter/complete/re-work/re-consider his praxis.

And there is no censorship here....... Nothing has been removed, altered, or otherwise taken down or away.

Hm..... So are we supposed to care about flags, or not? I'm confused.
:: grins ::

Lank, I sometimes feel the same way. But if I needed some one to agree with me to make something important, I'd need a lot of friends to go on with life. That's why I'm of the opinion that we choose the meaning of ______ (insert 'art', I dare you) ourselves. Or that we have the capacity to. There are those out there that like others to choose for them. But again, that's their choice. So, I think if you want to get Lincoln's attention, perhaps you could buff out your argument a bit. Or maybe PM him. Something.

This all reminds me of a girl I knew awhile back....
"Do these jeans make my butt look big?"
If I said yes, I was calling her a fatass.
If I said no, I was either lying, or somehow implying that the rest of her was fat.
If I said anything else or nothing at all, I was 'avoiding the question', and that's bad.
I soon found out that it was impossible to tell her she was beautiful, and mean it.

Hm....

posted by The Animus on April 23rd, 2008 1:29 AM

Oh yeah, and Lincoln.
I'm flagging this task, simply for flagging the most-flagged task in SF0 history. Also, this.

posted by Tøm on April 23rd, 2008 10:49 AM

I'd insert art there any day.

It's art if the audience sees it that way.


I of course have no experiences in the matter ,and you are welcome to tell me to hush up if you disagree.

posted by Scarlett on April 23rd, 2008 1:54 PM

O.
M.
G.

That Rick has moves!

Lincoln, check this out.

posted by Lincøln on April 23rd, 2008 2:11 PM

Scarlett wins.

That's the best I've seen yet.


Funny fact, I thought the lyrics were "And then I'm gonna" instead of "I'm never gonna" which makes a much more brutally honest song, and kinda brave.

Another one I miss heard was "every time you go away, you take a piece of meat with you"

posted by The Animus on April 23rd, 2008 2:27 PM

I like this better.

posted by Tøm on April 23rd, 2008 2:28 PM ↓ show bad content ↓

posted by Jellybean of Thark on April 23rd, 2008 3:23 PM

Hey, Tom you just invented the Comment Flag!

posted by KristinawithaK on April 23rd, 2008 4:23 PM

Ditto C.M.

How do I close that damn window without restarting my computer???

posted by KristinawithaK on April 23rd, 2008 4:25 PM

Omg, that song is so frickin annoying. I'm restarting anyways...

>:(

posted by Tøm on April 23rd, 2008 4:25 PM

Hold enter!

EDIT: Damn, too late... sorry!

posted by KristinawithaK on April 23rd, 2008 4:42 PM

Ugh...

I have it in my right mind to send The Vixen after you!!
Black combat boots and all :)

posted by Tøm on April 23rd, 2008 4:45 PM

The Vixen would be welcomed in Great Yarmouth, regardless of impending deserved doom!

posted by KristinawithaK on April 23rd, 2008 5:08 PM

What about KristinawithaK? I might head on over to your fair country this summer....for the 10th time :)

posted by Tøm on April 23rd, 2008 5:33 PM

This summer eh?

Not around 28th of June by any chance?

posted by KristinawithaK on April 23rd, 2008 5:56 PM

Possibly. However, I'm still paying off my trip there from LAST summer. I might do a family trip there though.

"Hey Mom and Dad! Let's go task with some boys in a tiny little sea village in Norfolk!"

Great Yarmouth is in Norfolk, right?

posted by The Animus on April 23rd, 2008 6:43 PM

Good game, Tom. Comment flagged.

posted by teucer on April 23rd, 2008 8:21 PM

I'm with DA on this one.

A good rickroll is funny. Not the height of humor, but clever. Partly because of the way it says "I could have tricked you into anything at all. Remember goatse? Here I am doing some similar clever trickery - but nothing malicious, so we can pat each other on the back and enjoy it."

Anything that fucks your computer up like that *is* malicious, and that in turn takes out the point.

Early in my high school years, before goatse, a couple of my friends and I had a brief fad of sending each other to file://c:\\aux\aux\ - which, on pre-XP versions of windows, lead to a blue screen of death. It lasted about a week or two before we realized it just wasn't worth the irritation it caused and we stopped.

Scripts like that one are not notably different from aux\aux\.

posted by JJason Recognition on April 23rd, 2008 8:33 PM

On the other hand, Caramell Dansen is always awesome. Thank you Animus, for brightening my night.

posted by The Animus on April 23rd, 2008 10:02 PM

When I first heard the song, it felt like my brain was raped in every hole simultaneously. I'm trying to make it the new Rick Roll.

posted by GYØ Ben on August 22nd, 2008 7:15 AM

Reading the top few comments, then scrolling through and reading the last few... is an interesting experience.