what a tart...

so i've been labelled on the strengths (or apparent weaknesses) of my profile picture. a tart. and what a tart i must be. there is a fine line between art and trash, pornography and art, trash and pornography. i'm sure its not worth my while to show you the trash, and yet, when the beauty and naive essence of the human figure is the question, where is the line drawn between art for arts sake, and art for pleasure's? isn't the purpose of all art to provoke pleasure? or at the very least a response?

and 'tart', (see comments on my last post) whomever you may be, thankyou for rewarding me with such a response. i'd very much like to read what else you have to say, feel free to comment as you would. i cannot justify your opinion, but you are welcome to it. for such a strong label, based on an image, it does not have much to back it up. on the other hand, there is art.

an image by polish artist tamara de lempicka - she stares at the viewer, completely comfortable in who she is, baring her breast almost daintily, like forbidden fruit, amused to incite a response, but too blaise to really mind.

another lempicka - one of my favourites. she revels in her body, curvaceous and voluptuous, she looks to be basking in post orgasmic bliss. but shock, if i liken art to pornography.

this is art, people. these artists are revered world wide, they celebrate humanity. and so they should. don't even get me started on the beauteous creations of the renaissance period. one can hardly call boticelli or ghirlandaio's curvaceous muses by the trashy title of 'tart'.

Armadeo Modigliani's reclined nude hints at sunday mornings after nights of revelry. her toned body and perky breasts arouse images of sex, purely and simply. she stretches like a cat, waiting for her lover to return to bed. what an outcry there would have been if the jewish community (of which modigliani was a fervent member) had thought this to be tarty pornography, especially in the early 1900's.

Man Ray - pioneer in the photographic world. world reknowned, he took enormous leaps and bounds both pushing the boundaries of art and exploring a new medium. and yet, all of his muses were whores, happy to get off the street and pose. its rare to see one looking happy, and even in modern pornography, it is rare to see a girl with a genuine smile on her face. and yet, this too, is art.

Paul Wunderlich, respected professor of graphic art and painting at the University of Fine Arts, Hamburg for many years, took this photo of a reclining nude in 1971. a fairly liberal period, i know, however he has been awarded extensive acclaim by many art organisations across the world - hardly the reward deserving of a pornographer.

and now to the final inquest. where is the line drawn between a celebration of the human anatomy, and pornography? to me, it is only the base nature of humanity that creates the concept of 'pornography' and attaches such a negative allegory to it. if i am guilty of posting a pornographic image (or tarty, as my anonymous recreant critic would put it), i am only guilty of one thing. in my mind, that is art. in yours? perhaps therein lies a deeper question.