[Paleopsych] nudity

Euterpel66 at aol.com Euterpel66 at aol.com
Sat Oct 29 02:18:14 UTC 2005

In a message dated 10/28/2005 6:53:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
anonymous_animus at yahoo.com writes:

Lorraine  says:
>>Maybe I have missed something, but what about 
ART? Every  Friday a model poses nude for four hours
for me Some of them are strong  women insisting on  
certain conditions. An acquaintance draws her  nudes
from Playboy.<<

--That's an example of how agreement  upon a frame
influences perception of what's in it. The "artistic
nude"  frame renders anything in it culturally
acceptable, even highbrow. The  "porn" frame can put
the same content in a totally different light.  The
same individual can have two sets of "eyes", depending
on the  setting, other observers, and contextual cues.
Some artists enjoy playing  with the boundary lines
between frames, turning porn into art and vice  versa.
It seems difficult for most people to intentionally
shift their  interpretation, and it's relatively easy
to convince them that something is  art or trash, just
by surrounding the object with signs  commonly
associated with one context or the other. Perception
is  malleable, and most people aren't very comfortable
with ambiguity,  preferring situations where they know
in advance which set of eyes to  use.


Yes, that true Michael. Take Mapplethorpe for example
For Lynn> Pictures

Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who  find it. 
---Andre Gide  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/paleopsych/attachments/20051028/310ac97a/attachment.html>

More information about the paleopsych mailing list