Just Looking ...

All this talk about the erect penis! I just couldn't help myself but to respond. I kid, but in all seriousness, I do have some thoughts. I'd have to disagree partially to what the previous blog writer has said (no offense) in that the erect penis is always pornography and not art. I do agree with pushing the envelope and making ourselves question what we consider to be art or porn, but isn't the gray area simply to broad to distinguish? I took an Ethnomusicology class on my abroad program in NZ. The professor, the first day, made us distinguish between what we considered was music or noise. The answer we came to was, it's all relative. If there is anything I have learned about being an Anthropology major is that some things are true some of the time and more over, cultural relativity plays a significant role in matters such as these. What one considers to be noise could very well be music to another. This goes for art as well. As someone once said (forgive me for I forget who), "the only difference between erotica and porn is the lighting." In a society such as ours, that of liberal capitalist, the omniprescent phallus need not prove its importance.

I also want to extend this to the fact that an image of the erect penis is the exact opposite of post-modern art or post-modern advertising. This image is anything but all encompassing or absorbing leaving no room for analysis or critique. It is a very explicit image that signifies anything but passivity- it is de facto active. There are no questions about what an erect penis means or why one is viewing it in such a way. It is obvious, harsh, anything but subtle. Regardless of one views of the erect penis as art or porn one cannot deny what it is that is being bought/sold, communicated/advertised, etc. Maybe this is also a reason as to why this kind of image is simply not applicable to the post-modern era.