« George Michael: In Search of Cheap Thrills | Main | So I suppose you won't mind if I piss in your pool? »

July 25, 2006

When horsefucking is considered art

I have been meaning to do a larger entry discussing the line between pornography and art for some time over at Blue Nuit (NSFW), but I haven't got around to it. Ihave to ask, though, why is it that Indian termples depicting practically any and every type of sexual expression and act you can think of considered art and is worthy of preservation, but the stuff I show at Blue Nuit considered harmful and disgusting crap (pornography)? What would a fundie Baptist say about this art? "Silly ignorant Indian heathens!" or "Evil Indian heathens!" Or would anti-porn feminists find this stuff to be artistic? What are the criteria?

I don't know what other arbitrary things you could add to that list. Don't get me wrong: I don't think it's pornography, either. I think that it has more value by virtue of its age alone. However, as far as I know, they performed those actions for many if not all of the same reasons we do: to get off. It bothers me that the depictions lawful sex are wrong on DVD but right when set in stone.

Posted by JonasParker at July 25, 2006 8:49 AM

Comments

The things with the temples, is that it was not meant as pornography, it was meant to symbolize the material and corporeal world with all its pleasures and pains and how it is a valid part of life. When one enters the temple one sheds one's mortal coil and is ready to embrace the Higher Being. Sex is a part of mortal life, not one to be ignored or swept under the rug. It's there, it's not bad, let's embrace that too, and carve it in stone while we are at it.

Posted by: zura at July 25, 2006 11:48 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?