Not only are there no clearly discernible “nice asses” amidst this unwashed mass but the whole thing is a waste of nudity. You can’t see anything. So maybe the idea is “nudity with no interest.” Great! The problem there is that we already live in a culture of censorship that forces erotic disinterest upon consumers to the extent that there is massive over-compensation when a tit finally appears in public, as in the case of a famous wardrobe malfunction that caused an uproar of idiocy in what is clearly a Freudian substitution of anger for hyper repressed erotic desire (see Beyond the Pleasure Principle). It is true and, of course, ironic that the culture of censorship permits titillation - brief or digitized glimpses of the flesh, a floppy nutsack here or black triangle there - but of course the proper and most successful censoring mechanism would in fact be to “show it all” to the point of tedium, such that nudity incites no arousal whatsoever. So show us the dicks and pussies! Let’s get used to these things and be done with it and the need to produce “art” purporting to make philosophical points about nudity and the human condition.
Wait, this one’s not so bad:
3 comments:
Do you mean something like this instead?
http://www.canal96.com/extra/strange/wwbeauty/
. . . only as an exhibit of 80's fashions running into the sands of "lady pants" and bad hair. See, there's "digitized" labia here. These are not nudes.
not to mention, i didn't see any dicks or balls there either!
Post a Comment