Porn again
Rachel Albertson betrays a unique understanding of what pornography is in her letter ["Parental advisory!!" Mailbag, September 30]. In a way it’s touching and sociologically refreshing to hear such examples of completely ingenuous Puritanism I thought only survived locally in isolated pockets of the Shenandoah Valley. Me, I hadn’t considered there was anything necessarily sexual about the female nudes or cotton underwear, but I guess different subcultures provide different subtexts for what they see—and once the petticoats and corsets come off, there’s no question about what’s about to go down.
Seriously, though, Albertson should consider whether it really satisfies any test for porn. Could C-VILLE really have been pandering to prurient interests? The paper publishes all kinds of art reproductions. Nor does it look like the subjects are being exploited in any way. It just seems to be a re-enactment of a classic artwork. Does it make sense to discriminate against a remake just because the medium is different? Actually, if any painter would be interesting in a photographic treatment, it might be Picasso, who commented famously, in part about the future of art, "I have discovered photography. Now I can kill myself."
Kristopher Rikken
Charlottesville
Tripping the censor
As I was reading your great paper, I ran across a letter titled "Parental Advisory!" Actually, what first grabbed my attention was the small photo of three partially nude women with interesting masks on. As I read the letter to learn more I discovered that I was reading about some angry reader’s disgust with having previously seen this photo in a past issue of good old C-VILLE. Before I could even finish the reader’s letter my anger began to increase, and my temper flared as I read line after line how Rachel R. Albertson from Earlysville feels that this picture is pornography.
I agree that this photograph is not a piece of classical art (in the literal sense), such as a piece of work by Picasso, Monet, Van Gogh, Chagall, Warhol, etc. However, unlike Albertson proclaimed, it is art. It is a piece of social commentary, a piece of work and a thought from one individual to make another contemplate and consider its meaning. Some art is not something that is always favorable or popular, in fact many works by the artists I named above have at one time or another been criticized for their meaning and purpose. Art is not something that we all sit down and say, "O.K., that one we can let people look at because it doesn’t provoke any unclean thoughts, but that one over there we can’t because it’s not clean and it makes me think of things that are not popular in society."
Reading Albertson’s letter reminded me of being in first grade and being punished for looking at books with pictures of female anatomy. It reminded me of the days when parents of the Christian Coalition convinced the record industry to censor artists’ work. Or even worse, I felt like I was reading about someone calling for censorship. Oops, I didn’t meant to let the cat out of the bag.
Maybe it’s no coincidence that Albertson’s letter appeared in C-VILLE’s issue titled "Patriot acts," referring to the Bush Administration’s effort to turn this country into a modern-day version of Nazi Germany by keeping all of us scared as shit and finding a common enemy we all hate. But that discussion is for another day.
Albertson’s letter is uncalled for, her conservative virtues have no place in an arts and entertainment weekly. Maybe Albertson should choose a different newspaper to read, like the Daily Progress—they are owned by good old conservative company Media General. They don’t mind subverting information either. Thank you, C-VILLE, for making me able see things I may not like.
Zack Worrell
Charlottesville
Correction
In "Lighten up," a feature in last week’s ABODE supplement, a home owner-architect was misidentified in one caption. She is Lucia Phinney, not Linda Phinney as published.