Monday, July 24, 2017

A Universal Wonder

Length, girth, shaft curvature, and the existence and even the length of foreskin all may vary. But, it remains a universal truth; this is the male body.






We attended an Erotic Art Exhibit over the weekend. Most of the work was poorly done - though the asking prices were only for the wealthy. I think our friend over at AOM should have adjudicated this "juried art show" - it would've been much better. And still some people are offended by this.
The thing that struck us: How few paintings, sketches, and photographs there were of men. Perhaps .001%. So, we asked one of the artists who did have a few in his exhibit room. His explanation: "Most artists prefer women because their curves make for a more interesting piece of art."
Huh. Well, okay.... So long as it isn't, "Oh, my God! who wants to look at and draw, paint, or photograph a man!" Though I find the lines and shadows of definition on a man just as interesting.
The conversation progressed to one of nudity, and we agreed that it's ridiculous that society continues to press against it, continues to claim general offense at the human body. I, for one, find both men and women equally beautiful and endlessly fascinating.

Because the human body is a universal wonder.
Sexual attraction aside, what is your opinion?


15 comments:

mistress maddie said...

I agree with you completely. While Romans,curves are stunning, a mans landscape is alot more interesting in a different way. We have a nude art show coming up in New Hope here called Naked in Bucks. A friend of mine does beautiful pastel and water colors, and wants to start doing nudes. Guess who his first life model is? I saw the show last year.....some really good work.

Patrick said...

I am not offended by nudity! Great post again!

A French Patrick said...

Sexual attraction apart or included, what is beautiful is beautiful and what is ugly is ugly. Everything depends on the know-how of the photographer, drawer, sculptor or painter. I was going to add "and of the beauty of the model", but in the end I was right not to say it. The slightest detail can change everything. For example the eyes of the Mona Lisa which seem to follow you when you pass in front of her. Mona Lisa who was in reality Gian Giacomo Caprotti (nicknamed Saltai), a kind of androgynous angel, almost transgender, with long curly hairs, who had become the muse and the lover of Léonard de Vinci, who saw in him the goddess of his dreams that he named "Giocondo", which means "gay" (= cheerful) in Italian and that explains the origin of the word "gay" (= homosexual) today.
Love, hugs and bisous, my darlings Jean and Pat.

Postscript @ Jean:
Reading a foreign language: yeah
Writing in a foreign language: ok
Speaking in a foreign language: wait
Listening to a foreign language: fuck

Anonymous said...

This is actually interesting to me. With my background, the general assumption was that porn stars were rape victims; actually gay porn (and solo males) would be less stigmatized than porn featuring women. But that's just an odd case.

I think in general, it's a confluence of factors:

Most consumers of erotica are male. The one thing understood is, wherever the mode of Kinsey's scale lands, there are more 0s than 6s, more 1s than 5s, and more 2s than 4s, IOW a skewed distribution.

Homophobia still is a thing. The "Ew! Gross!" reaction is 100% that.

My other thought is that, unlike length, girth, erection angle, glans coverage, or yaw, absence of a foreskin is, most of the time, not a genetic variation, any more than a tattoo or earring is. (An exception is aposthia, which supposedly was present in Shem and Muhammad.)

Jean WM said...

Pat, I'm with you, but I think the beauty, male or female, comes with being physically fit. All the men are in great shape, this may have something to do with their age but even an older person in good physical shape is attractive. A good artist can create beauty from a male or female form. Hugs and bisous friends.

AOM said...

HA! Sign me up, bro! LOL I, too, find both the female and male form equally beautiful - but seems to me the female form is so overly used that it behoove artists to explore the male form. I don't know how anyone can look and be disgusted by the human form - female or male. Both are gloriously beautiful. Have a lovely day, my Friend. Hugs, Licks, and Strokes,AOM

SickoRicko said...

I agree with you totally!

T said...

Physical and sexual attraction are two different things. I can find someone physically attractive yet have no sexual attraction to them at all. Its the same for both male and female.

It might be a maturity thing but there are some that dont know the difference.

Jeffrey Hamilton said...

Your artist's response, that "Most artists prefer women because their curves make for a more interesting piece of art" is utter rubbish. A rather bland opinion, nothing more. Firstly, I question his assumption to speak for most artists. More importantly, since when were curves necessary to make interesting art? Merely one aspect of shape in a plethora of elements that go to make up an artwork. I speak as an artist (perhaps of some note) and a teacher of design. There must be a deeper prejudice at play here. And I might add (controversially) that artists as a grouping of humanity may well lean slightly more toward homo-eroticism than most. History supports this. Agree with you Pat, both men and women equally beautiful

Fullmoonma said...

If you can step back from our emotions and genetic programming the human body definitely has its strange parts - ears, feet, noses, testicles. Yet we find certain shapes and combinations beautiful, particularly when musculature is defined as in dancers bodies. I always feel that it's incomplete if a penis is missing from the picture...

that one guy said...

I prefer looking at the male form. I understand the comment on an intellectual level, that the female form is more "interesting" because of the curves and planes, but personally I find the male form more beautiful to look at, even at times when I'm not sexually attracted to it. Just my 2 cents.

whkattk said...

@ Jeffrey - I agree with you. Yet, I didn't want to argue the point. I much preferred to discuss nudity in general. The artshows which are heavily women continue to promote the oppression of male nudity; I much would've preferred a nice balance.

whkattk said...

@ mistress - I MUST see a photo of that painting!

mistress maddie said...

@whtattk- It hasn't been started yet, but when it is done I will see that you see it. You have even inspired a post coming up.

admod said...

I find it funny/strange/perfect timing that I ran acros your blog and this post- having just read a piece about why Walt Disney for years focused more on doing animated movies that featured his Princesses and had more females in the stories. - That reason was, because most artist, including the Disney animators, and Walt himself, found that females were easy to draw/paint and capture in that art form than males. The artist you spoke to said that the curves of the female body made for more interesting subjects- and the female body does tend to be rounde and softer- no matter the size of the person, those feminine soft edges are always present. Even the way a woman moves and walks, their movements are much easier and smooth so can be captured with ease. Where as, like Walt Disney discovered, when it comes to the male form, the ideal body type that artist try to capture for their subjects tend to have sharper builds, lines and angles to them and men do not walk and move with the ease and grace of a woman either- they're movements are harder, and severe and lack all the grace of the female counterparts, making that harder to convey in an artistic work mean to showcase the beauty the artist is looking for. . But even men that are not the "ideal" body and shape, that have more curves to their bodies, they still possess those sharper angles and lack those soft flowing lines that a woman has, and that hardness makes them less desirable of a subject to an artist, unless said artist is willing to study, expand their scope and show their talent and have a natural eye for being able to see and capture the male body on canvas, paper or on film. Which maybe the reason that for centuries, artist captured on canvas so many female subjects, creating some of our greatest and colorful pieces of art- but the depictions the artist gave us of men seemed to always be made of stone- because it's harder to carve stone to give it that rounded supple quality that a female has (some amazing stone carvings do exist though that really do capture that life like quality) but stone requires less work for the male subjects , as those harder angles are already present in the store and does not have to worked at so hard in order to be found and brought out.
The Disney part was what part of an interesting piece on the early Disney works I found interesting and fit into this piece. The latter points are my own observations- building upon those points.