Friday, May 1, 2009
Visual Art Don't Say Opening: The First Night of the Seattle Erotic Art Festival
Posted by Jen Graves on Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:44 AM
As I've made clear before, I would probably be identified as sex-negative, if mainly because sex-positiveness doesn't seem remotely hot to me.
However. Given the choice between the glitter-painted, bethonged sex-positives and body-denying right-wingers (who made all this freaking sex-positivity necessary in the first place: thanks), I stand firmly with the persons who paint and/or display a many-penised worm; pastorals of cunnilingus; all those Edward Westonesque look-at-the-nipples-in-half-shadow photographs; a glowing grid of cast penises (even though this really makes the poor small penises really stand out); and even a golfer who has just swung from the "rough" of a woman's pubic hair toward the flagged hole of her belly button, even though such a thing totally stretches credulity, considering that the pubic hair and the belly button are quite close together and yet the man has swung his club all the way into the air when, plainly, all that is required is simple putting.
It becomes slightly more difficult for me to stand firmly with the spectacle of the seated woman who is bound in about eight different unpleasantly Abu-Ghraibish ways while party people pose on her for photographs. Or the sculpture of a naked woman on all fours trapped in a wire web with only one opening. Sexual freedom involves lots of ladies in cages and wires, which is not to say they mind one bit, but just to say that I didn't see half as much dominatrix imagery as ladies-being-dominated imagery.
Seattle Erotic Art Festival continues all weekend and is completely free on Sunday. I really do recommend you go, not in search of erotica (I didn't find any but there's nothing saying you won't), but because it's sort of fascinating in its own right, almost like a giant sex survey laid out in pictures.
And attention art people: There is a new sexction this year, of 27 not-necessarily-erotica-identifying artists selected by artist-curator Sharon Arnold. Gretchen Bennett has a hilarious deadpan video (interview with Arnold here). Emily Ann Pothast made geometric erotica. Jenny Zwick, Troy Gua, Joey Veltkamp, Kimberly Trowbridge, Jennifer McNeely, Robert Hardgrave, Diem Chau—it's a whole new angle thinking of their work in this context. Another artist, in the "regular" show, that I'd have put in this "real artist" section: Alison Sweet, whose teeny-tiny strips of vintage porn-film negatives mounted on a lightbox are sweet, smart, and work on many levels.
Top, Vicki Marie Stolsen, That Ain't Right No 3; below, Derek Nobbs, Unearthed
Share via
2
That lightbox piece by Alison Sweet might just be my favorite piece in the entire show! I loved it.
3
Jen, I'm pretty confident that the disparity between art depicting women as submissive and art depicting women as dominant falls in line with the proportion of kinky women who are actually submissive to kinky women who are dominant. There's a reason dominatrices (apparently that's the plural. It makes linguistic sense, but it's still kinda funny) are so coveted and popular. Even with the smaller proportion of men who are into being dominated by a woman, there are not enough kinky, dominant women to go around.
So, it's not a 50/50 split by any means, and to expect the art to be equal-opportunity in that way is unrealistic.
So, it's not a 50/50 split by any means, and to expect the art to be equal-opportunity in that way is unrealistic.
4
Thanks for highlighting the disproportionate amount of imagery of women being dominated and humiliated. It is important that we take the trouble to say these things out loud.
5
What you say, Jocelyn, about the proportion of submissive women may well be true. It is certainly what our social conditioning encourages. I don't have any way of knowing because I don't have access to a very large survey of women's sexual practice done by an organization that I consider reliable. But really? You're "pretty sure" based on the fact that there are few dominatrices and that they are expensive?
I think this is a much wider, deeper problem with sexism. Perhaps, for example, women continue to percieve that what is wanted of them is mostly submission, so that's the side of themselves they are most likely to present. Further, what if this is a big, bad circle, and as a continuation of it, such images are more likely to be shown at an art show? Hmm. Seems like something an art critic at an alt weekly should get points for for mentioning in her write up. It also seems like something she'd get attacked for, because we all know society is beyond sexism, right? I mean, those particular women must like being humiliated, so what's the harm in showing it? What's the harm in being disproportionate if it reflects reality? But that reality came from somewhere. It was at least in part created by a patriarchal society which has a stake in keeping women in a position of submission. Pay attention to advertising, still. To television and movie characters. We have not come as far as we think. So noticing things like disproportionate representation in an art show - speaking it aloud so other people can notice and think about it - is very important part of chipping away at what is still a very large, important problem that those in power don't want you worrying your pretty little head about.
I think this is a much wider, deeper problem with sexism. Perhaps, for example, women continue to percieve that what is wanted of them is mostly submission, so that's the side of themselves they are most likely to present. Further, what if this is a big, bad circle, and as a continuation of it, such images are more likely to be shown at an art show? Hmm. Seems like something an art critic at an alt weekly should get points for for mentioning in her write up. It also seems like something she'd get attacked for, because we all know society is beyond sexism, right? I mean, those particular women must like being humiliated, so what's the harm in showing it? What's the harm in being disproportionate if it reflects reality? But that reality came from somewhere. It was at least in part created by a patriarchal society which has a stake in keeping women in a position of submission. Pay attention to advertising, still. To television and movie characters. We have not come as far as we think. So noticing things like disproportionate representation in an art show - speaking it aloud so other people can notice and think about it - is very important part of chipping away at what is still a very large, important problem that those in power don't want you worrying your pretty little head about.
7
Jen, thanks for the great post; I'm sorry I missed you last night (aside from a brief hello!) Like you and Joey, I really appreciated Alison Sweet's piece as well.
This show was a great leap forward for the Festival. I'm happy to have been a part of it, to extend a bridge between the mainstream art world and erotic art. This show really brings forward a contemporary context to the meaning of contemporary art. Big thanks go out to the organizers and the artists who said "YES!"
While it's true some of the work is controversial, I worry about pieces like "Caged Girl" because it's so impactful. People remember it more than some of the more quiet works such as Rich Lehl or Ryan Molenkamp; or any of the many tender and sweet images in the juried selection (of which there are a multitude).
@4: there is not at all a disproportionate amount of cruelty-towards-women art in the Festival. I invite you to come down any time on Friday, or if you'd rather not spend the money, come down between 12-4 on Sunday to see for yourself.
I never did find out who that bound seated woman was or where she came from...
This show was a great leap forward for the Festival. I'm happy to have been a part of it, to extend a bridge between the mainstream art world and erotic art. This show really brings forward a contemporary context to the meaning of contemporary art. Big thanks go out to the organizers and the artists who said "YES!"
While it's true some of the work is controversial, I worry about pieces like "Caged Girl" because it's so impactful. People remember it more than some of the more quiet works such as Rich Lehl or Ryan Molenkamp; or any of the many tender and sweet images in the juried selection (of which there are a multitude).
@4: there is not at all a disproportionate amount of cruelty-towards-women art in the Festival. I invite you to come down any time on Friday, or if you'd rather not spend the money, come down between 12-4 on Sunday to see for yourself.
I never did find out who that bound seated woman was or where she came from...
8
Wow, I need more coffee.
That sentence:
This show really brings forward a contemporary context to the meaning of contemporary art.
Should read:
This show really brings forward a contemporary context to the meaning of erotic art.
Self editing, for the win.
That sentence:
This show really brings forward a contemporary context to the meaning of contemporary art.
Should read:
This show really brings forward a contemporary context to the meaning of erotic art.
Self editing, for the win.
9
Sharon: Sorry I missed you also! And I'm really glad you're commenting here.
Did I really mischaracterize the show? You sound so very sure when you say "there is not at all a disproportionate amount of cruelty-towards-women art in the Festival." It's always possible that I missed things, as I'm not as involved in the festival as you are, but do you really think that's not even up for discussion?
Did I really mischaracterize the show? You sound so very sure when you say "there is not at all a disproportionate amount of cruelty-towards-women art in the Festival." It's always possible that I missed things, as I'm not as involved in the festival as you are, but do you really think that's not even up for discussion?
10
@5 - I have no doubt that social conditioning has an impact on sexuality (with both sexes). I think, however, that this trend is likely very complicated and not so easily explained.
That said, we are not talking about advertising (which is offensive for lots of reasons besides sexism), job equality, or the general position of women in western society. We are talking about erotic art. It's all well and good to blame society for giving people their kinks, but that doesn't change the fact that people have kinks. I do not advocate women compromising themselves unwillingly, nor do I advocate real sexual violence. That said, lots of women are into being dominated sexually. I think that an important component of contemporary feminism should be allowing women who are so inclined to be submissive without having to feel like a bad feminist about it.
Some women want to stay home with their kids, some women like cleaning, some of them spend their whole lives taking care of people because it is what they want to do. Now that we as women are no longer forced to do these things, are we really going to begrudge those who actually want to do them? Are we going to blame society for their desire to be traditional? I mean, we can blame society if we want, but that doesn't negate the desire. Do you get what I'm saying?
I do not see the idea of female sexual submission as inherently anti-feminist. It is degrading, yes. But the people who participate in it (willingly) want it to be. Because it's really fucking hot. Just sayin'.
That said, we are not talking about advertising (which is offensive for lots of reasons besides sexism), job equality, or the general position of women in western society. We are talking about erotic art. It's all well and good to blame society for giving people their kinks, but that doesn't change the fact that people have kinks. I do not advocate women compromising themselves unwillingly, nor do I advocate real sexual violence. That said, lots of women are into being dominated sexually. I think that an important component of contemporary feminism should be allowing women who are so inclined to be submissive without having to feel like a bad feminist about it.
Some women want to stay home with their kids, some women like cleaning, some of them spend their whole lives taking care of people because it is what they want to do. Now that we as women are no longer forced to do these things, are we really going to begrudge those who actually want to do them? Are we going to blame society for their desire to be traditional? I mean, we can blame society if we want, but that doesn't negate the desire. Do you get what I'm saying?
I do not see the idea of female sexual submission as inherently anti-feminist. It is degrading, yes. But the people who participate in it (willingly) want it to be. Because it's really fucking hot. Just sayin'.
11
Jen, I think it's always a valid topic for discussion. I think it might be one of those things that relies heavily on perception, and I suppose we may have a difference of opinion. I also believe in comparison to Festivals past, the amount of work which would be considered degrading is extremely low -- there was very little work on bondage, s&m, or any kink at all. Some of the harshest imagery was actually of genital restriction/torture of the male variety!
Women represented sexually in art is not only emotionally charged for those of us who are female, but socially taboo if it even remotely borders on bondage, cruelty, or submission. One has to be very careful. While only a small part of the Festival, it is the work which will stick to the ribs of those who object, unfortunately overshadowing the massive amount of work which may have spoken to them more.
Women represented sexually in art is not only emotionally charged for those of us who are female, but socially taboo if it even remotely borders on bondage, cruelty, or submission. One has to be very careful. While only a small part of the Festival, it is the work which will stick to the ribs of those who object, unfortunately overshadowing the massive amount of work which may have spoken to them more.
13
Interesting discussion and thanks for the mention Jen, once again.
I think there are a number of factors at play in the whole dom/sub thing, probably some biological and some cultural (isn't culture just an emergent property of biology?) At any rate, I'm giving a slide talk on the history of the relationship between sexuality and religious/spiritual practice on Sunday in association with the festival (which also goes a long way toward framing individual psychology and worldview, even in societies that like to consider themselves "post-religious.") Anyway, if anyone's interested, here's more information.
I think there are a number of factors at play in the whole dom/sub thing, probably some biological and some cultural (isn't culture just an emergent property of biology?) At any rate, I'm giving a slide talk on the history of the relationship between sexuality and religious/spiritual practice on Sunday in association with the festival (which also goes a long way toward framing individual psychology and worldview, even in societies that like to consider themselves "post-religious.") Anyway, if anyone's interested, here's more information.
14
I have found IMO that whenever I have a show and someone walks in with their own political agenda all they see are pieces that fit into that agenda. I once had a woman stand in my studio and ask "where are the pictures of tied up men?" while staring at a 20x30 image of a penis in a metal cage. All she could see in the room were women being persecuted because that was her agenda.
Others in the room were shocked by her reaction. I just laughed. I do think it is worth the discussion but I also think it might be a larger discussion than your assumption allows.
Why is an image of a woman's genitals seen as a sign of submission and why are male genitals seen as a sign of assault. I saw a lot of penises. But you describe none of them as being submissive.
Others in the room were shocked by her reaction. I just laughed. I do think it is worth the discussion but I also think it might be a larger discussion than your assumption allows.
Why is an image of a woman's genitals seen as a sign of submission and why are male genitals seen as a sign of assault. I saw a lot of penises. But you describe none of them as being submissive.
15
I think discussion about what may feel difficult or even disproportionate in an erotic art show is valuable. I agree with the post which mentioned that submissive females are more prevalent than dominatrices. (as good a new word as truthiness if you ask me! )
My main comment is one that may bring those sex positive PC people to mind but needs must. When you refer to a bound, seated woman at an erotic art show as being "Abu-Ghraibish" it's problematic and a bit lazy journalistically. Those involved in BDSM have spent years, countless dollars, and much community time (rightly so) defining "Safe, Sane Consensual" as the hallmark of their activities and sexuality. This deserves comment.
Sexual submission requires consent to be considered sex rather than violence/victimization. As there was no consent, not even implied consent at Abu Ghraib and in other tortures enacted throughout the world, it's not just a pedantic pro-sex point I'm making. Rather, there's an evidentiary difference . It's a fact, consensual submission is on the opposite side of an important line between socio-pathic behavior and torture versus and sexual choice and consent.
Beyond that it's up to those (us) women who are artists and feel moved to create work which embodies consent as well as control, power, less ambivalence. and perhaps even domination to shift that balance. I know I missed the deadlines this year (and I identify as a dominant female) but I don't next year.
My main comment is one that may bring those sex positive PC people to mind but needs must. When you refer to a bound, seated woman at an erotic art show as being "Abu-Ghraibish" it's problematic and a bit lazy journalistically. Those involved in BDSM have spent years, countless dollars, and much community time (rightly so) defining "Safe, Sane Consensual" as the hallmark of their activities and sexuality. This deserves comment.
Sexual submission requires consent to be considered sex rather than violence/victimization. As there was no consent, not even implied consent at Abu Ghraib and in other tortures enacted throughout the world, it's not just a pedantic pro-sex point I'm making. Rather, there's an evidentiary difference . It's a fact, consensual submission is on the opposite side of an important line between socio-pathic behavior and torture versus and sexual choice and consent.
Beyond that it's up to those (us) women who are artists and feel moved to create work which embodies consent as well as control, power, less ambivalence. and perhaps even domination to shift that balance. I know I missed the deadlines this year (and I identify as a dominant female) but I don't next year.
16
Thank you Sharon and Jocelyn for weighing in on this post. I agree 100% with what both of you have posted here.
As someone who identifies as a sexual dominant, I play with submissive men and women all the time. Degradation can be part of the fun for my playmates but more often it has to do with vulnerability, a release of the control that binds us to the mundane world, and an opportunity to be the focus of someone's undivided and adoring attention for as long as both participants have agreed upon. Seen in that light I would hope more people, including the author of this piece, could be more empathic to those who identify as sexual submissives.
I do believe the debate as to non-consensual imbalances of power between the sexes is an important one. But I don't think any ground will be won by my fellow feminists in telling other members of our gender that consensual activities which give them pleasure are wrong and implying to the world at large that they just don't know any better because they are buying into brainwashing.
If anyone reading this has any questions as to the nature of consensual bondage and discipline, dominance and submission, and sadism and masochism, I invite you to visit the Center for Sex Positive Culture's exhibit at the back of the exhibition hall. Volunteers from our membership will be there all weekend and can often provide insight into this wonderful world of kink that seems to get so many people all riled up...luckily many in a good way.
As someone who identifies as a sexual dominant, I play with submissive men and women all the time. Degradation can be part of the fun for my playmates but more often it has to do with vulnerability, a release of the control that binds us to the mundane world, and an opportunity to be the focus of someone's undivided and adoring attention for as long as both participants have agreed upon. Seen in that light I would hope more people, including the author of this piece, could be more empathic to those who identify as sexual submissives.
I do believe the debate as to non-consensual imbalances of power between the sexes is an important one. But I don't think any ground will be won by my fellow feminists in telling other members of our gender that consensual activities which give them pleasure are wrong and implying to the world at large that they just don't know any better because they are buying into brainwashing.
If anyone reading this has any questions as to the nature of consensual bondage and discipline, dominance and submission, and sadism and masochism, I invite you to visit the Center for Sex Positive Culture's exhibit at the back of the exhibition hall. Volunteers from our membership will be there all weekend and can often provide insight into this wonderful world of kink that seems to get so many people all riled up...luckily many in a good way.
17
Jen,
Are you suggesting that the jurors chose more woman being dominated imagery, proportionately, than woman dominating imagery? Or men being dominated?
Or is this more of a commentary on the genre of erotic art being dominated by images of women dominated.
If that is the case, do you think that it should be the responsibility at a festival such as this of the jurors to balance out the images of women being dominated with images women dominating (and subsequently with men being dominated and men dominating) even if "quality" is sacrificed?
Also, i really enjoyed your comment about the golf photo-you are right, totally the wrong choice of club.
-Ryan Molenkamp (one of the only artists in the show that did a work that is completely non-figural)
Are you suggesting that the jurors chose more woman being dominated imagery, proportionately, than woman dominating imagery? Or men being dominated?
Or is this more of a commentary on the genre of erotic art being dominated by images of women dominated.
If that is the case, do you think that it should be the responsibility at a festival such as this of the jurors to balance out the images of women being dominated with images women dominating (and subsequently with men being dominated and men dominating) even if "quality" is sacrificed?
Also, i really enjoyed your comment about the golf photo-you are right, totally the wrong choice of club.
-Ryan Molenkamp (one of the only artists in the show that did a work that is completely non-figural)
18
"I really do recommend you go, not in search of erotica (I didn't find any. . .)"
Perhaps in the future the Stranger could send a reporter who is capable of relating to erotic art. Then that person might have something interesting to report.
Perhaps in the future the Stranger could send a reporter who is capable of relating to erotic art. Then that person might have something interesting to report.
19
This whole discussion reminds me of the some of the performance pieces we both saw at the WACK! show in Vancouver: notably Yoko Ono's "Cut Piece" and Marina Abramovic's "Rhythm 0" From the exhibition catalog:
I think in both pieces above, the male hand is the same hand that engages in domination, both in and out of BDSM contexts. The case has been made in feminist theory that this is also the same hand that exploits the passive, "feminine" matrix of the natural world for industrial "masculine" goals.
What BDSM can do, I suppose, is provide a safe, socially acceptable outlet for these violent impulses. Though (and this is based entirely on anecdotal evidence and not authoritative in any way) the handful men I've met in my life that I knew to be dom males had in common that they did not have a very integrated or holistic self-image. All acts of violence are acts against the self.
More...
…for me the power of [Yoko Ono's Cut Piece] resides in the drama of physical intimacy that the piece stages. To participate in the performance, the spectator has to come onstage; he or she has to enter the performance space and give up the security inherent in voyeurism and become the object of the audience’s gaze. … In the…film of the New York performance, when a particularly aggressive male spectator approaches and cuts off her bra strap, the artist flinches for a brief second before she resumes her passive sacrifice. This flicker is precisely where live performance gains hits power; unscripted and momentary, Ono’s work exposes the aggression that marks sexual difference and the laborious efforts women make not to be undone by it. …
In 1974, the themes of Ono’s Cut Piece were revisited in Marina Abramović’s extraordinary performance Rhythm 0. Promising to remain passive for six hours, …Abramović invited spectators to use any of the seventy-two objects she had arrayed on a table next to her in a gallery in Naples. The objects…included a feather, a scalpel, paint, a gun, and a bullet. Before long, Abramović’s skin had been cut and she was bleeding; a spectator had put the gun in her hand and cocked it against her forehead. There was a growing sense of danger. Other spectators intervened and Abramović accepted their care. In this radical gesture of an even more profound acceptance of the spectators’ will than the original plan, a gesture that showed how active passivity often is, the performance was transformed; Abramović allowed her spectators to become co-creators of her work.
–Peggy Phelan, The Returns of Touch: Feminist Performances, 1960-80. Printed in the WACK! exhibition catalog, pp. 352-353.
I think in both pieces above, the male hand is the same hand that engages in domination, both in and out of BDSM contexts. The case has been made in feminist theory that this is also the same hand that exploits the passive, "feminine" matrix of the natural world for industrial "masculine" goals.
What BDSM can do, I suppose, is provide a safe, socially acceptable outlet for these violent impulses. Though (and this is based entirely on anecdotal evidence and not authoritative in any way) the handful men I've met in my life that I knew to be dom males had in common that they did not have a very integrated or holistic self-image. All acts of violence are acts against the self.
22
That said, I should reiterate that I do not mean that observation to be taken as authoritative in any way. Activities which are consensual and sincerely bring mutual enjoyment will elicit no complaint from me. It is in any case the objectification of the sub, not the physical act itself, that I would categorize as violence.
23
@20, point taken.
@21, care to elaborate on how you've managed to transcend the universal body-bound human condition?
@21, care to elaborate on how you've managed to transcend the universal body-bound human condition?
24
Wow, this is actually turning into an interesting discussion.
I think it is impossible to view art without our own preconceptions coloring it. You see what you want to see.
There was a wide variety of art and entertainment there. More than I've ever seen at past festivals. If you want to be offended by something, I have no doubt you could find something there to be offended by.
There was bondage going on in one corner. There was also some beautiful aerial work going on in another corner. There was bad art, edgy art, and also some really subtle art and beautiful art.
I saw one act where the woman acted the subservient roll, and ended up in a cage in the end. I saw another act where a veiled belly dancer pranced around on stage while her boy toy played the subservient roll and stood docilely by and held her various wraps as they came off. And yet another act where a male performer handcuffed a male audience member to a chair. So it wasn't all women being subservient, unless that is all you choose to see.
If the BDSM squicks you out, go look at the guy on the massage table being artistically decorated with paper-thin slices of cucumber. Smelled good. I totally wanted to be that guy.
I think it is impossible to view art without our own preconceptions coloring it. You see what you want to see.
There was a wide variety of art and entertainment there. More than I've ever seen at past festivals. If you want to be offended by something, I have no doubt you could find something there to be offended by.
There was bondage going on in one corner. There was also some beautiful aerial work going on in another corner. There was bad art, edgy art, and also some really subtle art and beautiful art.
I saw one act where the woman acted the subservient roll, and ended up in a cage in the end. I saw another act where a veiled belly dancer pranced around on stage while her boy toy played the subservient roll and stood docilely by and held her various wraps as they came off. And yet another act where a male performer handcuffed a male audience member to a chair. So it wasn't all women being subservient, unless that is all you choose to see.
If the BDSM squicks you out, go look at the guy on the massage table being artistically decorated with paper-thin slices of cucumber. Smelled good. I totally wanted to be that guy.
26
@23,
If you would take even just two seconds to think about it, you would realize just how fucking stupid that statement is.
Many human cultures have demonized sexual behavior outside the bounds of marriage and especially homosexual behavior -- even going so far as to prescribe the death penalty for anyone who engages in it. Care to explain how those cultural practices are emergent properties of biology?
If you would take even just two seconds to think about it, you would realize just how fucking stupid that statement is.
Many human cultures have demonized sexual behavior outside the bounds of marriage and especially homosexual behavior -- even going so far as to prescribe the death penalty for anyone who engages in it. Care to explain how those cultural practices are emergent properties of biology?
29
I totally agree that this has become a really interesting conversation. And just to be clear: I would never, ever say that a woman who enjoys being dominated is a bad feminist or is in any way suspect. Never.
But I do think I saw more images of women being dominated in that show than men being dominated -- and I think that's a reflection of a sexist world we're still very much living in, in which women need to be kept under a certain amount of collective control. It reminds me of a survey I saw a few months ago that, when you take it, it tells you if you are racist. When the surveyors compiled everyone's data, rather than reading it individually, they found that the entire society was racist. Black testtakers were only slightly less likely than white testtakers to report a preference for whites. Testtakers were revealing the condition of the culture as much as their individual relationship to it.
But I do think I saw more images of women being dominated in that show than men being dominated -- and I think that's a reflection of a sexist world we're still very much living in, in which women need to be kept under a certain amount of collective control. It reminds me of a survey I saw a few months ago that, when you take it, it tells you if you are racist. When the surveyors compiled everyone's data, rather than reading it individually, they found that the entire society was racist. Black testtakers were only slightly less likely than white testtakers to report a preference for whites. Testtakers were revealing the condition of the culture as much as their individual relationship to it.
30
Please allow me to interject.
Not all of the work (and in fact a small minority) is about the D/s dynamic. Not that it isn't relevant, but the Seattle Erotic Art Festival is about far more than this.
The point of my curating 27 non-erotic mainstream artists into the Festival was for the express purpose of showing how extensive the range of erotic art can be; that it can surpass our preconceived notions of what would be shown at an "erotic exhibition."
To quote my prologue to the interviews:
This is not the sex of the downtrodden or disadvantaged. This is not even porn. This is a cross section of a society's collected perspective of what is sexy in today's culture. The Seattle Erotic Art Festival is nothing if not fully Democratic – you may not like everything you see or hear but you have to acknowledge it has a place there. And isn't that what art and life is supposedly about? This Festival is a safe place for celebrating and encouraging sexuality in all its incarnations: love, happiness, joy, acceptance, reaching out, crossing bridges, longing, kinship, distance, closeness, storytelling, whimsy, acceptance, rejection, control, losing control, risk.
I encourage everyone to go out and form an opinion on their own observations of the show, based on actually being at the show rather than pure assumption or the words of others.
Not all of the work (and in fact a small minority) is about the D/s dynamic. Not that it isn't relevant, but the Seattle Erotic Art Festival is about far more than this.
The point of my curating 27 non-erotic mainstream artists into the Festival was for the express purpose of showing how extensive the range of erotic art can be; that it can surpass our preconceived notions of what would be shown at an "erotic exhibition."
To quote my prologue to the interviews:
This is not the sex of the downtrodden or disadvantaged. This is not even porn. This is a cross section of a society's collected perspective of what is sexy in today's culture. The Seattle Erotic Art Festival is nothing if not fully Democratic – you may not like everything you see or hear but you have to acknowledge it has a place there. And isn't that what art and life is supposedly about? This Festival is a safe place for celebrating and encouraging sexuality in all its incarnations: love, happiness, joy, acceptance, reaching out, crossing bridges, longing, kinship, distance, closeness, storytelling, whimsy, acceptance, rejection, control, losing control, risk.
I encourage everyone to go out and form an opinion on their own observations of the show, based on actually being at the show rather than pure assumption or the words of others.
31
@28,
We are all similar biologically, and from a single source, but our experiences are far from the same. An Inuit's experience of life bears little resemblance to a West African's, though they share DNA. Geographic conditions influence economic conditions, influencing social conditions, ad infinitum.
I recommend you pick up a few books, if only to form better arguments for the opinion you already hold. Joseph Campbell's "Masks of God" series is an extraordinary, encyclopedic introduction to the diversity of human beliefs and societies. Jared Diamond's "Guns Germs and Steel," though controversial among some anthropologists, is a good beginning resource as far as the geographical factors that help shape individuals into cultures.
We are all similar biologically, and from a single source, but our experiences are far from the same. An Inuit's experience of life bears little resemblance to a West African's, though they share DNA. Geographic conditions influence economic conditions, influencing social conditions, ad infinitum.
I recommend you pick up a few books, if only to form better arguments for the opinion you already hold. Joseph Campbell's "Masks of God" series is an extraordinary, encyclopedic introduction to the diversity of human beliefs and societies. Jared Diamond's "Guns Germs and Steel," though controversial among some anthropologists, is a good beginning resource as far as the geographical factors that help shape individuals into cultures.
32
@28 also @26, care to explain how they aren't? Ironically, this is actually the exact topic of my talk on Sunday, which traces the relationship between sexuality and religion from paleolithic times to Ted Haggard.
33
@21, 27 - That's not an argument, that's just contradiction. You need to make your case if you want to be taken seriously. It's the only way you get ahead in the world - except by cutting people's heads off with flat-out "you're wrong, I'm going home" statements like that.
34
@31,
Thanks for the patronizing lecture. I've read Guns, Germs and Steel. You still haven't explained why culture quashes basic and natural biological impulses while also allegedly being an emergent property of biology.
Your argument boils down to this: there's no reason to change any shitty aspect of our culture, because it's just biology. Biology determines that women are inferior and are to be dominated. Follow your logic and anyone who's been shat on by our culture over the millennia completely deserves it, whether they had the wrong skin tone or the wrong sex organs, all because of biology. Care to defend that?
Thanks for the patronizing lecture. I've read Guns, Germs and Steel. You still haven't explained why culture quashes basic and natural biological impulses while also allegedly being an emergent property of biology.
Your argument boils down to this: there's no reason to change any shitty aspect of our culture, because it's just biology. Biology determines that women are inferior and are to be dominated. Follow your logic and anyone who's been shat on by our culture over the millennia completely deserves it, whether they had the wrong skin tone or the wrong sex organs, all because of biology. Care to defend that?
36
@31
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11d…
The DNA Age
In DNA Era, New Worries About Prejudice
By AMY HARMON
Published: November 11, 2007
When scientists first decoded the human genome in 2000, they were quick to portray it as proof of humankind’s remarkable similarity. The DNA of any two people, they emphasized, is at least 99 percent identical.
But new research is exploring the remaining fraction to explain differences between people of different continental origins.
Scientists, for instance, have recently identified small changes in DNA that account for the pale skin of Europeans, the tendency of Asians to sweat less and West Africans’ resistance to certain diseases.
At the same time, genetic information is slipping out of the laboratory and into everyday life, carrying with it the inescapable message that people of different races have different DNA. Ancestry tests tell customers what percentage of their genes are from Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas. The heart-disease drug BiDil is marketed exclusively to African-Americans, who seem genetically predisposed to respond to it. Jews are offered prenatal tests for genetic disorders rarely found in other ethnic groups.
Such developments are providing some of the first tangible benefits of the genetic revolution. Yet some social critics fear they may also be giving long-discredited racial prejudices a new potency. The notion that race is more than skin deep, they fear, could undermine principles of equal treatment and opportunity that have relied on the presumption that we are all fundamentally equal.
MORE AT LINK ABOVE
More...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11d…
The DNA Age
In DNA Era, New Worries About Prejudice
By AMY HARMON
Published: November 11, 2007
When scientists first decoded the human genome in 2000, they were quick to portray it as proof of humankind’s remarkable similarity. The DNA of any two people, they emphasized, is at least 99 percent identical.
But new research is exploring the remaining fraction to explain differences between people of different continental origins.
Scientists, for instance, have recently identified small changes in DNA that account for the pale skin of Europeans, the tendency of Asians to sweat less and West Africans’ resistance to certain diseases.
At the same time, genetic information is slipping out of the laboratory and into everyday life, carrying with it the inescapable message that people of different races have different DNA. Ancestry tests tell customers what percentage of their genes are from Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas. The heart-disease drug BiDil is marketed exclusively to African-Americans, who seem genetically predisposed to respond to it. Jews are offered prenatal tests for genetic disorders rarely found in other ethnic groups.
Such developments are providing some of the first tangible benefits of the genetic revolution. Yet some social critics fear they may also be giving long-discredited racial prejudices a new potency. The notion that race is more than skin deep, they fear, could undermine principles of equal treatment and opportunity that have relied on the presumption that we are all fundamentally equal.
MORE AT LINK ABOVE
37
@34 - You're putting words in peoples' mouths now. The argument "culture is emergent from biology" does not imply that "there's no reason to change any shitty aspect of our culture", and you did not try to show that it does, you just asserted it. Various cultures amplify or surpress various aspects of our biological totality; what we think to be true about our biological nature is not necessarily true (eg., Jews aren't actually inferior to Germans just because the Nazis said they were - arguments based on nature are fallacious when you use nature as a cover for your ignorance).
38
@31
Not at all. Because I would never say any of those things, and they comprise an emotional tirade that has nothing to do with the original premise. You can defend that one. It's yours.
Where, pray tell, does culture come from if it is not a function of biology, geography, and social interaction (itself a function of the first two.) An invisible man in the sky, perhaps?
there's no reason to change any shitty aspect of our culture, because it's just biology. Biology determines that women are inferior and are to be dominated. Follow your logic and anyone who's been shat on by our culture over the millennia completely deserves it, whether they had the wrong skin tone or the wrong sex organs, all because of biology. Care to defend that?
Not at all. Because I would never say any of those things, and they comprise an emotional tirade that has nothing to do with the original premise. You can defend that one. It's yours.
Where, pray tell, does culture come from if it is not a function of biology, geography, and social interaction (itself a function of the first two.) An invisible man in the sky, perhaps?
40
Racists, for example, have long used one generally verifiable fact about black people - that their skin is darker than white people's - and drawn non-sequitur conclusions that are not verifiable - eg, that they are less intelligent, or spiritually inferior, or spawn of the devil. The fallacy is in the mind of the bigot looking for an excuse to oppress, and this immature will to dominate is in fact a biological contingency influenced by culture.
41
Translation: I say that biology determines culture, and any evidence to the contrary only proves that point.
Various cultures amplify or surpress various aspects of our biological totality...
Translation: I say that biology determines culture, and any evidence to the contrary only proves that point.
43
Sharon: Just for the record, I encouraged the same thing! People should certainly -- and always -- go for themselves.
44
@41, you seem to be confusing determinism with what I originally said, which was that culture is emergent. That is, there are factors
(notably geography and social interaction) that interact with biology to produce culture. Culture does not produce biology (at least, not until very recently. Thanks, Octomom.)
(notably geography and social interaction) that interact with biology to produce culture. Culture does not produce biology (at least, not until very recently. Thanks, Octomom.)
45
@ Jen, if I sounded if I hadn't thought so, let me say I feel you've done well to encourage others to get out there and take a look.
46
@38,
After a period of thousands of years of human development and taking into consideration our (almost) unparalleled intelligence, I think it's ludicrous to suggest that biology has much of an impact on what we do other than eating, sleeping, and fucking.
Your initial point heavily implied that the dominance and subordination of women is determined by biology and biology (since, according to you, culture is determined by biology). I fail to see any evidence of that. How is this determined by biology? Prove it. Biology only determines our drive to procreate. Why should biology determine how this is done (by taking most choice in the matter out of a woman's hands)? How women have been treated over millennia of human civilization has likely been determined mostly by a need for de facto slaves to provide unpaid labor. If anything, it's contraindicated to biology since a species likely survives better when females get to choose their own mates.
After a period of thousands of years of human development and taking into consideration our (almost) unparalleled intelligence, I think it's ludicrous to suggest that biology has much of an impact on what we do other than eating, sleeping, and fucking.
Your initial point heavily implied that the dominance and subordination of women is determined by biology and biology (since, according to you, culture is determined by biology). I fail to see any evidence of that. How is this determined by biology? Prove it. Biology only determines our drive to procreate. Why should biology determine how this is done (by taking most choice in the matter out of a woman's hands)? How women have been treated over millennia of human civilization has likely been determined mostly by a need for de facto slaves to provide unpaid labor. If anything, it's contraindicated to biology since a species likely survives better when females get to choose their own mates.
47
@keshmeshi: You may have read Guns, Germs, and Steel and while that may be a great subway read (a condensed and watered down summary of multiple sources of anthropological analysis) I'd encourage you to get closer to the source of the theory and read Marvin Harris' Cannibals and Kings. Or perhaps Claude Levi Strauss' The Savage Mind. Or any other more contemporary analysis on biology and culture. All of these can be found in any Freshman anthropology section of the bookstore.
What I'd really like to get at the heart of is how you're wrapping up your observations in the context of art, or I suppose in this case, erotic art?
What I'd really like to get at the heart of is how you're wrapping up your observations in the context of art, or I suppose in this case, erotic art?
48
What are you describing here if not biology?
The problem is one of individuation. If a person (eg. a woman) has an inclination to differ from the social norm, then she's compelled to do so by her biology. Biology does not stipulate that all people should be exactly the same. That's just been a copout used to force everyone into the same mold. The reality of who we are - biologically determined - is much more complex and rich than the two-dimensional caricature you seem to make it out to be.
If anything, it's contraindicated to biology since a species likely survives better when females get to choose their own mates.
What are you describing here if not biology?
The problem is one of individuation. If a person (eg. a woman) has an inclination to differ from the social norm, then she's compelled to do so by her biology. Biology does not stipulate that all people should be exactly the same. That's just been a copout used to force everyone into the same mold. The reality of who we are - biologically determined - is much more complex and rich than the two-dimensional caricature you seem to make it out to be.
49
Biology != gender. Gender is but a single aspect of a whole myriad host of biological factors that make up a person.
50
@ 46, thank you for finally giving me something to argue with besides unsubstantiated hostility.
I would agree with you 100% that women have been treated unfairly throughout human history.
Several thousand years ago, women were assumed to have magic powers because no one understood exactly how babies were made, or that men had a role in it. Goddess cults were the dominant form of religion throughout the ancient Near East and women were afforded special standing as a result.
Today, that same region is dominated by patriarchal religions that prescribe violence toward women, each other, and themselves. Does this imply that patriarchal religion is "better?" Not at all, at least morally. But the truth is that a patriarchal, exploitive worldview like that will make you start wars—and help you win them. The history of human religions, and the cultures founded on them, is littered with the fragments of peace-loving, spiritual people being dashed to pieces by their warlike neighbors, who have also been in charge of writing all the history.
Knowing that everything we do is influenced by our biology (which is, in turn, rooted in a mysterious source beyond our comprehension!) and making that an excuse to react apathetically to injustice are two very, very, VERY different things. If anything, I advocate becoming self-aware—understanding our physicality as part of that process—in order to willfully build a culture that transcends the negative aspects of our psychology.
Declaring a culture you don't agree with evil or worthless without making an attempt to understand where that culture comes from and how it is able to take hold is not only a dead end, it reinforces those negative aspects you might wish to disarm. Right wing American Christianity is arguably the worst idea human beings have ever come up with, but it gains a stronghold through no small part because it FEELS good. It encourages passionate hatred which, paradoxically, creates ecstasy in the brain.
All in all, aside from being called "fucking stupid" (when you apparently do have it in you to make a thoughtful case), I believe we are on the same page when it comes to issues of human rights, our culture's legacy, and what must be done to improve it. Thank you for the lively discussion!
More...
I would agree with you 100% that women have been treated unfairly throughout human history.
Several thousand years ago, women were assumed to have magic powers because no one understood exactly how babies were made, or that men had a role in it. Goddess cults were the dominant form of religion throughout the ancient Near East and women were afforded special standing as a result.
Today, that same region is dominated by patriarchal religions that prescribe violence toward women, each other, and themselves. Does this imply that patriarchal religion is "better?" Not at all, at least morally. But the truth is that a patriarchal, exploitive worldview like that will make you start wars—and help you win them. The history of human religions, and the cultures founded on them, is littered with the fragments of peace-loving, spiritual people being dashed to pieces by their warlike neighbors, who have also been in charge of writing all the history.
Knowing that everything we do is influenced by our biology (which is, in turn, rooted in a mysterious source beyond our comprehension!) and making that an excuse to react apathetically to injustice are two very, very, VERY different things. If anything, I advocate becoming self-aware—understanding our physicality as part of that process—in order to willfully build a culture that transcends the negative aspects of our psychology.
Declaring a culture you don't agree with evil or worthless without making an attempt to understand where that culture comes from and how it is able to take hold is not only a dead end, it reinforces those negative aspects you might wish to disarm. Right wing American Christianity is arguably the worst idea human beings have ever come up with, but it gains a stronghold through no small part because it FEELS good. It encourages passionate hatred which, paradoxically, creates ecstasy in the brain.
All in all, aside from being called "fucking stupid" (when you apparently do have it in you to make a thoughtful case), I believe we are on the same page when it comes to issues of human rights, our culture's legacy, and what must be done to improve it. Thank you for the lively discussion!
51
You know...it's an ART show. IF, in fact, there is a disproportionate amount of "submissive female" art there, it could be that not as much masculine submissive art was submitted or that most of society seems to find the female figure/image more appealing than the male figure.
To turn an art show into a feminist rant session peeves me to no end. The models wanted to participate in making that art. It isn't an attempt to tell society "yes, everyone go out and tie up your women!"
Does a still life of a bowl of fruit mean you're supposed to go buy a bowl of fruit and tell everyone else they should have one as well??
I agree with the "we see what we want to see" and "agenda" related comments.
Yes, there are female submissives who submit for unhealthy reasons, but if you took the time to get to know a variety of them you would find many of us are intelligent, self-sustaining, outgoing, independent, non-doormat quality women who enjoy it for a WIDE variety of reasons. Say what you will but I've never bought into societal training that I'm "supposed" to do anything in or with my life. The choices I make are fully mine and done because *I* want to. It isn't for everyone.
Oddly enough, I personally find that having a collar around my neck is more liberating than any feminist rally could ever make me feel.....and while I'm not the feminist rally type, I have ALWAYS stood up for myself and other women in an "I/We can do anything we want to" sort of way...my entire life.
To turn an art show into a feminist rant session peeves me to no end. The models wanted to participate in making that art. It isn't an attempt to tell society "yes, everyone go out and tie up your women!"
Does a still life of a bowl of fruit mean you're supposed to go buy a bowl of fruit and tell everyone else they should have one as well??
I agree with the "we see what we want to see" and "agenda" related comments.
Yes, there are female submissives who submit for unhealthy reasons, but if you took the time to get to know a variety of them you would find many of us are intelligent, self-sustaining, outgoing, independent, non-doormat quality women who enjoy it for a WIDE variety of reasons. Say what you will but I've never bought into societal training that I'm "supposed" to do anything in or with my life. The choices I make are fully mine and done because *I* want to. It isn't for everyone.
Oddly enough, I personally find that having a collar around my neck is more liberating than any feminist rally could ever make me feel.....and while I'm not the feminist rally type, I have ALWAYS stood up for myself and other women in an "I/We can do anything we want to" sort of way...my entire life.
53
Why is it that whenever someone who is not involved in the BDSM community writes about BDSM, Abu-Ghraib is almost always mentioned? Not terribly original or demonstrative of any comprehension of what this show is about.
The women in this show who are being "tortured" are doing so because *that is what they fucking want.* They are taking charge of their sexuality. If that's not feminist, I don't know what is. Call it social conditioning if you'd like, I think that's a valid discussion, but a judgmental attitude about *what creams a woman's jeans* in a safe and consensual manner is NOT feminist. When a woman is trying to get off, if she's worried about how politically correct her kinks are, that's not very erotic.
I haven't been to the show yet, so I can't comment on what amount or percentage of it is focused on male dominance-female submission (because women *never* submit to other women, right?), and I'm not sure how valuable that discussion really is, but I do think that Ms. Graves clearly has her own thinly veiled political agenda here. She is welcome to submit an entry focused on female dominance-male submission for next year's SEAF.
By the way, I'm a straight dominatrix.
The women in this show who are being "tortured" are doing so because *that is what they fucking want.* They are taking charge of their sexuality. If that's not feminist, I don't know what is. Call it social conditioning if you'd like, I think that's a valid discussion, but a judgmental attitude about *what creams a woman's jeans* in a safe and consensual manner is NOT feminist. When a woman is trying to get off, if she's worried about how politically correct her kinks are, that's not very erotic.
I haven't been to the show yet, so I can't comment on what amount or percentage of it is focused on male dominance-female submission (because women *never* submit to other women, right?), and I'm not sure how valuable that discussion really is, but I do think that Ms. Graves clearly has her own thinly veiled political agenda here. She is welcome to submit an entry focused on female dominance-male submission for next year's SEAF.
By the way, I'm a straight dominatrix.
54
"Sexual freedom involves lots of ladies in cages and wires, which is not to say they mind one bit…”
For some, including myself, yes: sexual freedom does often include ladies in cages. It's a choice that I am able to make for myself due to my sexual freedom. I think I would identify as a feminist as I support women’s rights to make choices about their occupation, their lifestyle, and their sexuality (and everything else for that matter). Since I do indeed have the ability to make choices about being bound and caged, it is absolutely freeing to do so. Essentially, I can do whatever the hell I want, as can all of those women represented by those art pieces, and we choose to do this.
Yay for sexual freedom and liberation through submission.
Furthermore, in agreement with what Jim Duvall has said, I’m pretty sure that even if there were a 50/50 split between art representing women in submissive positions and woman in dominant ones or women vs. men in submissive positions, SOMEONE would still focus on the ‘sexually repressed’ females due to some agenda. It’s unavoidable.
For some, including myself, yes: sexual freedom does often include ladies in cages. It's a choice that I am able to make for myself due to my sexual freedom. I think I would identify as a feminist as I support women’s rights to make choices about their occupation, their lifestyle, and their sexuality (and everything else for that matter). Since I do indeed have the ability to make choices about being bound and caged, it is absolutely freeing to do so. Essentially, I can do whatever the hell I want, as can all of those women represented by those art pieces, and we choose to do this.
Yay for sexual freedom and liberation through submission.
Furthermore, in agreement with what Jim Duvall has said, I’m pretty sure that even if there were a 50/50 split between art representing women in submissive positions and woman in dominant ones or women vs. men in submissive positions, SOMEONE would still focus on the ‘sexually repressed’ females due to some agenda. It’s unavoidable.
56
In Jen's defense (and maybe I'm off base, Jen?) , I didn't feel she was criticizing D/s culture. I felt she was expressing the impact it had on her personally, which is fair.
If you had seen the woman seated at the Festival, this particular "performance piece" may have invoked the memory of Abu-Ghraib because of the shape of the hood she wore and because of the way patrons interacted with her (some ways almost identical to Abu-Ghraib documentation) If you arent' exposed to BDSM on a regular basis, the fact that hoods and humiliating interactions are commonplace aren't going to be the first impression; the impact and memory of where you've seen it most is.
Once again, I'd like to point out that this type of art and sexual representation is not the main body of the Festival, and would be thrilled to hear people's impressions of the show as well. (respective or irrespective of the prevalent topic in the comments thread)
If you had seen the woman seated at the Festival, this particular "performance piece" may have invoked the memory of Abu-Ghraib because of the shape of the hood she wore and because of the way patrons interacted with her (some ways almost identical to Abu-Ghraib documentation) If you arent' exposed to BDSM on a regular basis, the fact that hoods and humiliating interactions are commonplace aren't going to be the first impression; the impact and memory of where you've seen it most is.
Once again, I'd like to point out that this type of art and sexual representation is not the main body of the Festival, and would be thrilled to hear people's impressions of the show as well. (respective or irrespective of the prevalent topic in the comments thread)
59
Sharon: You're on base. I'm not the type to judge other people's sexual preferences. I was writing about the effect that seeing (what I took to be) more female bondage than male bondage in this show had on me, given the context of the larger world. @3 makes my point for me in a different way.
60
Yes, and thanks for bringing up some better introductory books on anthropology than "Guns, Germs and Steel." I felt squicky about that one even as I typed it.
61
@ 55 & 57.
Thanks for being completely dismissive of the work of hundreds of artists whom you've never seen.
Sure some of it is crap. Walk into any gallery or museum in any city in the world and some of it is crap. But there is some really fantastic stuff there too. Really top quality work. Overall, I found more stuff that I liked this year than the last time I went. And the general level of quality is higher this year than in the past.
With as much variety as they have there, it is inevitable that nobody will love everything there. But for anyone who is interested at all, you'll find some wonderful art there too. I think the festival curators have done a great job trying to bring in quality stuff to appeal to a very diverse audience.
Thanks for being completely dismissive of the work of hundreds of artists whom you've never seen.
Sure some of it is crap. Walk into any gallery or museum in any city in the world and some of it is crap. But there is some really fantastic stuff there too. Really top quality work. Overall, I found more stuff that I liked this year than the last time I went. And the general level of quality is higher this year than in the past.
With as much variety as they have there, it is inevitable that nobody will love everything there. But for anyone who is interested at all, you'll find some wonderful art there too. I think the festival curators have done a great job trying to bring in quality stuff to appeal to a very diverse audience.
64
I would second Lady T's comment @16: If you have questions about what motivates people to participate in the activities portrayed in the art , please stop in at the CSPC/FSPC installation in the back of the SEAF exhibition hall. Not only are there Foundation Board Members there to discuss these topics with you, there are even a number of books on display from the Foundation's library--just a sampling of the many the FSPC makes available as part of their educational mission.
These topics of female subjugation, abuse, and the like are not by any means new. There are extensive writings on these issues. The "kinky" sexual practices extend throughout history; there is even a book on display with images from Pompeii depicting just this sort of thing.
On another note in regards to the 'degrading' aspects of female submission: I am a very well educated woman with a background in art and consider myself a feminist. Yet I also identify as a submissive. I found those same images that others have called 'degrading' to be liberating.
Contrary to what some people apparently believe, being a feminist includes the freedom to be whatever we wish--including a submissive. I have found much more freedom and much less degradation when being a submissive than I have ever had as a single parent expected to be "Super Woman," doing everything for everyone with nothing for myself in return.
Would you see those art pieces differently if on the various cuffs and ropes binding some of those women, I as an artist placed labels that read: "Career", "Spouse/Partner", "Boss", "Housework", "Child 1", "Child 2", "Care Taker for Elderly Parents", "Church Group", "PTA", "Finances", "What's for Dinner?", "Decision Maker", "Society's Expectations", etc? What if you looked at those bonds as relieving the person so bound of those overwhelming responsibilities and giving them an escape from them? (After all, if you are so restrained you can't be held responsible for doing everything for everyone.) Would that make a difference?
Like much art, it really is all in the perspective and mind set of the viewer.
More...
These topics of female subjugation, abuse, and the like are not by any means new. There are extensive writings on these issues. The "kinky" sexual practices extend throughout history; there is even a book on display with images from Pompeii depicting just this sort of thing.
On another note in regards to the 'degrading' aspects of female submission: I am a very well educated woman with a background in art and consider myself a feminist. Yet I also identify as a submissive. I found those same images that others have called 'degrading' to be liberating.
Contrary to what some people apparently believe, being a feminist includes the freedom to be whatever we wish--including a submissive. I have found much more freedom and much less degradation when being a submissive than I have ever had as a single parent expected to be "Super Woman," doing everything for everyone with nothing for myself in return.
Would you see those art pieces differently if on the various cuffs and ropes binding some of those women, I as an artist placed labels that read: "Career", "Spouse/Partner", "Boss", "Housework", "Child 1", "Child 2", "Care Taker for Elderly Parents", "Church Group", "PTA", "Finances", "What's for Dinner?", "Decision Maker", "Society's Expectations", etc? What if you looked at those bonds as relieving the person so bound of those overwhelming responsibilities and giving them an escape from them? (After all, if you are so restrained you can't be held responsible for doing everything for everyone.) Would that make a difference?
Like much art, it really is all in the perspective and mind set of the viewer.
66
"even though this really makes the poor small penises really stand out"
Heaven forbid women who want to be bound, gagged, and beaten get to act out that fantasy while Jen Graves is busy publicly and non-consensually degrading men who happen to have smaller-than-average penises.
Heaven forbid women who want to be bound, gagged, and beaten get to act out that fantasy while Jen Graves is busy publicly and non-consensually degrading men who happen to have smaller-than-average penises.
67
@66- If you choose to read it, you're consenting to read it. People that bitch and moan about things being nonconsensual just because they don't like it are totally wrong- things are nonconsensual if there was no prior permission given. How did she "nonconsensually" use the internet to transmit the information to you? Take some responsibility for your actions.
@Jen- I had exactly the same thought. The little ones REALLY stood out to me, surprisingly even more than the massive ones.
@Jen- I had exactly the same thought. The little ones REALLY stood out to me, surprisingly even more than the massive ones.
68
@29 I will still say I saw more male genitals being tortured than female in this show.
As an example of people seeing what they want I give a guest lecture to college classes on erotic art and media. At some point in the lecture I show a slide of a woman nude in a leather collar and cuffs on her knees serving a glass of wine to a man in a tuxedo. The college students have been fed a pretty steady diet of how the media shapes us and makes our society and we are all victims of the media etc.
They mostly get angry. We discuss the image and I ignore their anger as it builds. At some point someone usually makes the comment about how I chose to models who look so much alike.
I drop the punch line then. This image is actually of the same person commemorating the gift of her feminine self as she begins the transition to becoming a man. We shot it with a blue screen. When he realized he needed to transition he found himself giving up some things and privileges to get the life he needed to live. We wanted to commemorate that sacrifice.
The students had a predisposition to see the image in a certain way and totally ignored the same haircut, the same face and almost identical facial expression. They saw what their life experience to date gave them.
Art is not something that is done to us. It is something we do to ourselves.
As an example of people seeing what they want I give a guest lecture to college classes on erotic art and media. At some point in the lecture I show a slide of a woman nude in a leather collar and cuffs on her knees serving a glass of wine to a man in a tuxedo. The college students have been fed a pretty steady diet of how the media shapes us and makes our society and we are all victims of the media etc.
They mostly get angry. We discuss the image and I ignore their anger as it builds. At some point someone usually makes the comment about how I chose to models who look so much alike.
I drop the punch line then. This image is actually of the same person commemorating the gift of her feminine self as she begins the transition to becoming a man. We shot it with a blue screen. When he realized he needed to transition he found himself giving up some things and privileges to get the life he needed to live. We wanted to commemorate that sacrifice.
The students had a predisposition to see the image in a certain way and totally ignored the same haircut, the same face and almost identical facial expression. They saw what their life experience to date gave them.
Art is not something that is done to us. It is something we do to ourselves.
69
The assumption that representations of female submission imply male domiance even when no one else is in the artwork reflects a perception from the get go, one if my opinion is sexist. Of all the images in the catolog of female submission (containing bondage or pain) only 3 contained an image fo a dominant male in the work. That is less than 20% of the images there (not everything from the show is in the catalog).
As a woman who enjoys both sides of suspension bondage I find the assumption that the rigging done in all of the images must have been done by a man in the name of a femiist arguement both ironic and offensive. I also find it remarkable that the assumption that the woman in ropes is submissive is being made, when what I see from my persepctive are amazingly strong and powerful images or female strength and beauty, because I know what it would take physically to acheive the image.
As a woman who enjoys both sides of suspension bondage I find the assumption that the rigging done in all of the images must have been done by a man in the name of a femiist arguement both ironic and offensive. I also find it remarkable that the assumption that the woman in ropes is submissive is being made, when what I see from my persepctive are amazingly strong and powerful images or female strength and beauty, because I know what it would take physically to acheive the image.
70
I'm a 24/7 slave and 3 years ago married my master. After a long day at work as the owner and director of a business. I find it a release to come home and serve my husband. I find comfort in not being in charge. I didn't find true pleasure in sex prior to my choice to submit. You seam to think that submission is a negative thing but it really isn't. Like with most things you can not really judge a book from its cover. I was 34 before I entered the lifestyle and this the first time I have ever felt truly happy in a relationship. I respect the man I am with and he respects me. In fact he feels just as honored that I choose to sit at his feet and I do being there.
Its not a matter of male or female in any way. My best friend is a dominant that is female. She is never short on men who want to serve her. Unfortunately allot of men feel that society will not accept this life choice so they hide it. They are considered less of a man if they serve a women. Even though men do it in vanilla relationships all the time. They are not as willing to have their picture posted in an art gallery for all to see. Maybe if society was more excepting you would see more men in the art.
Its not a matter of male or female in any way. My best friend is a dominant that is female. She is never short on men who want to serve her. Unfortunately allot of men feel that society will not accept this life choice so they hide it. They are considered less of a man if they serve a women. Even though men do it in vanilla relationships all the time. They are not as willing to have their picture posted in an art gallery for all to see. Maybe if society was more excepting you would see more men in the art.
71
@67: The "non-consensual" stuff is a joke... you know that thing called a sense of humor?
It IS interesting that Ms. Graves seems to have her feminist sensibilities in a wad over this show, yet she has no problem making flippant value judgments about male genitalia. What if there were a piece of artwork featuring molds of a whole bunch of different women's bodies next to each other and she wrote about it, "It really did make the poor fat ones stand out"?
It IS interesting that Ms. Graves seems to have her feminist sensibilities in a wad over this show, yet she has no problem making flippant value judgments about male genitalia. What if there were a piece of artwork featuring molds of a whole bunch of different women's bodies next to each other and she wrote about it, "It really did make the poor fat ones stand out"?
72
I don't think the boring Seattle erotic art show is worth the time and trouble some people in this thread have taken on the vital issue of whether Women Like It.
74
I forget how repressed the majority of Americans are when it comes to sex. This was my first SEAF and I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it.
The art is amazing and phenomenally provocative. My favortie piece is the Femdomme cradling her male slaves head and is spitting into his mouth.
I would like to point out that subjugation of women is a far cry from submission. Whether it is a man or a woman; submission is about a walk in life that has nothing whatsoever to do with what society says a woman should be.
The art is amazing and phenomenally provocative. My favortie piece is the Femdomme cradling her male slaves head and is spitting into his mouth.
I would like to point out that subjugation of women is a far cry from submission. Whether it is a man or a woman; submission is about a walk in life that has nothing whatsoever to do with what society says a woman should be.
75
From Jen Grave's post: "I would probably be identified as sex-negative, if mainly because sex-positiveness doesn't seem remotely hot to me."
Correct me if I'm wrong but sex-postivity is not about being or seeming hot, erotic, or titillating; it's about regarding sex and sexuality as a fundamental, natural, and healthy expression of being human. Moving past a sense of shame and guilt about sexuality and desire; embracing our sexual nature(s) and allowing open, public discussion (in all forms of "discussion") of the same.
Sex negativity is about hiding or suppressing sexual feelings, actions, public affection, or talk about them. Like the lesbian couple at Qwest stadium asked to leave because they shared a hug and a kiss; thinking that anything which might possibly allude to "sex" (in anyone's perception) should not be expressed or present in the public sphere is sex-negative. There are appropriate and un-appropriate venues for various elements of course, but in general the moralistic impulse to cover up anything sexual is still rather high. Thanks to SEAF for opening new dimensions of the conversation.
I don't know you Ms. Graves, but attending SEAF with an open mind, stating you are firmly in the camp of sexual-art expression, and generating such an interesting thread strikes me as a fundamentally sex-positive thing to do. Thanks.
Correct me if I'm wrong but sex-postivity is not about being or seeming hot, erotic, or titillating; it's about regarding sex and sexuality as a fundamental, natural, and healthy expression of being human. Moving past a sense of shame and guilt about sexuality and desire; embracing our sexual nature(s) and allowing open, public discussion (in all forms of "discussion") of the same.
Sex negativity is about hiding or suppressing sexual feelings, actions, public affection, or talk about them. Like the lesbian couple at Qwest stadium asked to leave because they shared a hug and a kiss; thinking that anything which might possibly allude to "sex" (in anyone's perception) should not be expressed or present in the public sphere is sex-negative. There are appropriate and un-appropriate venues for various elements of course, but in general the moralistic impulse to cover up anything sexual is still rather high. Thanks to SEAF for opening new dimensions of the conversation.
I don't know you Ms. Graves, but attending SEAF with an open mind, stating you are firmly in the camp of sexual-art expression, and generating such an interesting thread strikes me as a fundamentally sex-positive thing to do. Thanks.
76
Thanks for the nice post! I've missed the Seattle Erotic Art Festival this year, but I've seen a lot of material represented there online. Thousands of blogs and twitters are still "alive" discussing this event. Every year this festival gets better and it will always attract a lot of visitors all over the country.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
"Let his days be few... Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow." by Dan Savage
-
Pit Bulls! by Dan Savage
-
Becoming a Man by Dan Savage
-
$2,600,000,000 by Dan Savage
-
All The Best Men Are Taken by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot & Drunk by Dan Savage
-
I Hate You, Garrison Keillor by Jen Graves
-
Unreal Americans by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (76) RSS