(no subject)

"I am troubled by how often people talk about likability when they talk about art.

I am troubled by how often our protagonists are supposed to live impeccable, sin-free lives, extolling the right virtues in the right order – when we, the audience, do not and never have, no matter what we perform for those around us.

I am troubled by the word “problematic,” mostly because of how fundamentally undescriptive it is. Tell me that something is xenophobic, condescending, clichéd, unspeakably stupid, or some other constellation of descriptors. Then I will decide whether I agree, based on the intersection of that thing with my particular set of values and aesthetics. But by saying it is problematic you are saying that it constitutes or presents a problem, to which my first instinct is to reply: I hope so.

Art is the realm of the problem. Art chews on problems, turns them over, examines them, breaks them open, breaks us open against them. Art contains a myriad of problems, dislocations, uncertainties. Doesn’t it? If not, then what?"

[..]

"In 1990, Rev. Donald Wildmon and the American Family Association excerpted some sexy collage bits out of the paintings in Wojnarowicz’s NEA-funded exhibit “Tongues of Flame,” and sent a mass mailing to every member of Congress and 178,000 pastors, demanding that the NEA not fund gay pornography. Wojnarowicz, true to form, called them “a bunch of repressed five-year-olds” and pointed out that, if you’re asking the government to defend the ethics of where its money goes: “Public monies are being used to fund covert wars, to buy instruments of death.” And yet, though he won that case, he couldn’t defeat the ongoing American misconception that art must be entwined with Goodness."

[..]

"This is where institutions come in, because art does not exist in a vacuum. It is published, it is performed, it is judged worthy or unworthy of receiving cultivation and funding. I worry about a climate in which, fearing censure, institutions only support works of art that portray the values that their communities have deemed worthy. I worry about the prioritization of art that declares in bold what is GOOD and what is BAD, and how the audience – by thinking one set of things over another – can go from BAD to GOOD. When I say I worry about this, I mean I am seeing it more and more. Sometimes the BAD and the GOOD are defined by a liberal lens and sometimes by a conservative one, but in both cases the art suffers from its moral simplicity."

- Jen Silverman, "Art and its (in)morality"

(no subject)

here's something that's always bugged me about how creative sites quarantine/ban "noncon" as this neat little box: 

consensual sex looks a hell lot like noncon at times. 

(not always, and no it's not always in a kinky context, but.)
I get writing may be a little more explicit (lol) on this depending on the point of view of characters but strictly speaking as an artist - listen, sex faces are weird, right? when you're getting your brains fucked out in the good way by somebody who knows their shit - or hell even after a great wank - you kinda don't exactly give a shit about plastering a fake smile on. you're most likely either look like you got hit by a 2x4 timber or are drooling (or both lol).

likewise i'm drawing something right now where both of the characters are hilariously into each other, are of age, equal power level, yadda yadda, like this is easily some of the most consensual shit ever (normally i like a splash of dubcon in my work). and the dude's covering the chick's mouth since he's fingering her in a library (nerds) so she doesn't whole-ass bust their cover by making too much noise.  It's a little surprising how dubcon-y it looks on the surface just due to that gesture alone.

that's just the example that got me thinking about this topic - I can see it getting even messier in writing, actually, if it's only written by one POV and if you didn't know the other POV of the character it may track wildly differently to different people. fiction's weird like that.

to get back to the point - legally I distantly get the point the sites are kind of are strong-armed into having to have "something' on paper because somethin' something' paypal and/or advertisers have weird ass rules about "sexual violence" that may have been implemented in good faith but just do not track with the messy reality of posting drawn/written erotica online. it's the kind of thing that inadvertently breeds something worse - since I can see a lot of people going on the 'just put a fake smile on there to get around it to pay the bills' when ... man, that just doesn't even ring as good sex to read/see anymore, you know? it starts feeling incredibly alienating at that point with all the emotional tenderness out.

(cynically: maybe that's the point)