pegkerr: (Default)
[personal profile] pegkerr
[livejournal.com profile] daphnep has written an important post about anorexic art she discovered in a fine-arts reproductions catalogue; go read it.

Thanks to [livejournal.com profile] elisem for the link.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-01-31 03:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cakmpls.livejournal.com
Well, that ruined what started as a good day.

(No, not really, but that expresses my opinion of this "remodeling.")

(no subject)

Date: 2009-01-31 03:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] msavi.livejournal.com
Another friend on my flist pointed me to that post, and the more I think about it, the more irksome I find it. >:\

(no subject)

Date: 2009-01-31 04:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] thenines.livejournal.com
That's a really interesting post, Peg, and especially the most recent one she linked to, explaining the basis of her industry and the ways in which a consumer democracy does dictate the "evolution" of art based on what people do, not what they say. Thanks!

(no subject)

Date: 2009-01-31 05:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kijjohnson.livejournal.com
Those are not the bodies of anorexic women. They are thin, but not even too thin: they have a fat layer and some muscle tone, they are not gaunt, their bones are not painfully prominent, and their breasts have not deflated. Skinny does not have to mean anorexic, and most of the time it doesn't. Sometimes, it just means skinny.

OTOH, the Venuses are really disturbing.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-01-31 06:52 pm (UTC)
kerri: (Default)
From: [personal profile] kerri
Do you mean that the original Venuses are disturbing, or the new ones?

(no subject)

Date: 2009-01-31 07:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kijjohnson.livejournal.com
These. The originals are beautiful, some of the most beautiful women's bodies in art.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-01-31 07:38 pm (UTC)
kerri: (Default)
From: [personal profile] kerri
Ahhh, okay. I wasn't sure whether you meant it that way or the other way around, for a minute! Thanks for the clarification.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-01-31 05:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dd-b.livejournal.com
I have to go with Kij on this one. The Venus, in particular, the original one, has no waist. A woman has to have quite a lot of fat to have no waist, what with the hip bones and all. You can be more skinny than that and still be very healthy.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-01-31 10:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] avengangle.livejournal.com
Well, not really. Some women actually come in a shape that doesn't have prominent hips at all. My sister-in-law is one of them. She has no waist, and she's a size 0. I don't think that makes her any less of a woman.

I don't think this debate and the subsequent outrage is whether or not the 'new' statuettes are healthy-looking or not; I think it's over the fact that the originals were altered almost beyond recognition. Yes, perhaps Peg used the word 'anorexic' to mean 'lost a lot of weight overnight,' rather than 'liposucked' or something else, but the point was that the Venus didn't need to lose weight as she's a piece of classic art.

Profile

pegkerr: (Default)
pegkerr

July 2025

S M T W T F S
  123 45
678910 1112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Peg Kerr, Author

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags