Further to my last blog, and specifically to one of the comments it prompted, I found myself crafting a response within the responses and then thought, hey!, if I move this to the main page I can avoid coming up with a new blog topic. Anyway, Hame's considered response in the previous's blog's comment section got me thinking along the following lines and this is my response to Hame's points:
Hame, want (sexual) does not equal pornography even if one wants to fuck the brains out of the subject of a painting. Even if Joyce suggested so.
As for fucking, I say when it comes to literature or art, we need to fuck into silence the intellectual deconstructionists. It makes for good academics but for the ruination of reading and personal art appreciation.
Australian artist, Cherry Hood, has some interesting things to say (not her original thesis, of course) about what our reaction to any particular piece of art says, not about the work under scrutiny but about we who are viewing the art. (That process itself is surely the measure of art's existence; that engagement we throw back at the work.)
Given she does oversized water colour portraits of adolescent boys (they are not real people, but composites of photographs and people she knows) that mix innocence and hints of violence and dollops of budding sexuality and loads of sensualness, she understands that reaction. Indeed, her graduate thesis was to take works of the European Masters in which naked young girls appeared and to switch the image of the naked female with that of a naked boy. As she predicted the show of the works brought a firestorm of protest that raged to the highest levels of government and included police attempts to shut down her show. She was called a paedophile and worse. What, she wondered, was different in her works than those of the Masters that critics and art lovers adore and praise? Well, the difference was in the viewers themselves, not the works. Naked girls okay. Naked boys bad.
I have one of her portraits ("Bruder 15") and more than one person has been quite troubled by it -- and all it is is a remarkable water colour of a gorgeous and innocent boy's face. To see such a large painting of a stunningly beautiful boy makes some people squirm -- my point, Hood's point, is the squirm is coming from inside the viewer, not from the work.
A woman I work with viewed "St. Michael" (the painting which was the subject of my last blog) with me and she too, as you are Hame, is incredibly attracted to the subject's beauty. "He's hot!," she repeated countless times.
But please, the imediate jumping from attraction to erotic to pornography is a bit problematic. But before I let that derail me, I want to say that what is fascinating is that the painting so engages you Hame that you are afraid it shows, that others will know you (in this case, your desires and wants) by your hanging the painting in your home! (The only alternative decision making process for living with/buying art is to decide whether it goes with your couch or not.)
In a much more straightforward way a gallery owner has pointed out to me on many occassions that nudes don't sell, male nudes less so, and surprisingly gay men are among the most hesitant to buy cock on canvas. What will people think: "This (naked male fom)is what I want" = "I am gay."
Art with cock or not, I think it takes a courage of sorts (an extension of the courage the artists of true artistic output demonstrate) to lay yourself bare through your artistic tastes, to hang it there on the wall next to the Ikea poster -- it says a lot about a person. It's why I ask people what they think of art. I don't give a damn if their response is counter to mine, I want to hear what the work is doing to them. (So often people who see some of the art I own are silent; as if I've asked them what they think so they'll confirm my own tastes in the works I bought and that if they don't like it it will speak poorly of my buying choicer, or something...).
Anyway, I'd amend your suggestion Hame from art reflecting the buyer's "that's what I want" to read, "that's who I am!" when looking for the answer to the question, "what does a person's art collection or taste in art say about them."