<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Art with a Capital A</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.comstockfilms.com/blog/tony/2008/05/26/art-with-a-capital-a/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.comstockfilms.com/blog/tony/2008/05/26/art-with-a-capital-a/</link>
	<description>Real Talk About Making Real Sex Erotic Documentaries</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:00:44 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: The Comstock Films Agenda&#8230; &#124; The Art &#38; Business of Making Erotic Films</title>
		<link>http://www.comstockfilms.com/blog/tony/2008/05/26/art-with-a-capital-a/#comment-85776</link>
		<dc:creator>The Comstock Films Agenda&#8230; &#124; The Art &#38; Business of Making Erotic Films</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:46:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.comstockfilms.com/blog/tony/2008/05/26/art-with-a-capital-a/#comment-85776</guid>
		<description>[...] week or so ago I made a post in which I said that I make these films because I want to call into question everything we think we know about sex, film, and art. It&#8217;s easy to want. Doing is harder. But this morning, the above comment from aagblog makes me [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] week or so ago I made a post in which I said that I make these films because I want to call into question everything we think we know about sex, film, and art. It&#8217;s easy to want. Doing is harder. But this morning, the above comment from aagblog makes me [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Burning Bridges/Building Bridges, Part 2 &#124; The Art &#38; Business of Making Erotic Films</title>
		<link>http://www.comstockfilms.com/blog/tony/2008/05/26/art-with-a-capital-a/#comment-85449</link>
		<dc:creator>Burning Bridges/Building Bridges, Part 2 &#124; The Art &#38; Business of Making Erotic Films</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 May 2008 16:00:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.comstockfilms.com/blog/tony/2008/05/26/art-with-a-capital-a/#comment-85449</guid>
		<description>[...] the bridge isn&#8217;t burned all the way down. Alison accepted my apology and even commented on my Art with a Capital. And our pointed but civil discusion has continued over at her blog on a post entitled Naked [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the bridge isn&#8217;t burned all the way down. Alison accepted my apology and even commented on my Art with a Capital. And our pointed but civil discusion has continued over at her blog on a post entitled Naked [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tony</title>
		<link>http://www.comstockfilms.com/blog/tony/2008/05/26/art-with-a-capital-a/#comment-85424</link>
		<dc:creator>tony</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 May 2008 02:27:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.comstockfilms.com/blog/tony/2008/05/26/art-with-a-capital-a/#comment-85424</guid>
		<description>Hello Alison, and welcome to my little corner of the internet.

And yes, a sane law would not imbue the camera with the capacity to turn non-criminal activity into criminal activity. But that is how current laws regarding pornography in Australia, or obscenity in the United States read. Under the laws of both your and my country, legal, consentual, wholesome acts can become the foundation of unprotected expression if they are rendered photographically,  and I see invoking "art" as a defense as a perverse affirmation of this belief.

As we've discused privitely and as I stated at least twice in the above essay I believe that a strong defense of the models' parents and Henson can be mounted on the basis that the state should not usurp parental rights except in the most aggredeous cases. I have also said that nothing that has been reported, even by Henson's most vehiment detractors suggests that what happened in the creation of these photographs even begins to rise to that level. Such a defense would completely avoid the unanswerable questions what is and is not art, or what is and is not pornography.  These might be intersting questions for a panel discusion, but they have no place in a court of law.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Alison, and welcome to my little corner of the internet.</p>
<p>And yes, a sane law would not imbue the camera with the capacity to turn non-criminal activity into criminal activity. But that is how current laws regarding pornography in Australia, or obscenity in the United States read. Under the laws of both your and my country, legal, consentual, wholesome acts can become the foundation of unprotected expression if they are rendered photographically,  and I see invoking &#8220;art&#8221; as a defense as a perverse affirmation of this belief.</p>
<p>As we&#8217;ve discused privitely and as I stated at least twice in the above essay I believe that a strong defense of the models&#8217; parents and Henson can be mounted on the basis that the state should not usurp parental rights except in the most aggredeous cases. I have also said that nothing that has been reported, even by Henson&#8217;s most vehiment detractors suggests that what happened in the creation of these photographs even begins to rise to that level. Such a defense would completely avoid the unanswerable questions what is and is not art, or what is and is not pornography.  These might be intersting questions for a panel discusion, but they have no place in a court of law.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alison Croggon</title>
		<link>http://www.comstockfilms.com/blog/tony/2008/05/26/art-with-a-capital-a/#comment-85423</link>
		<dc:creator>Alison Croggon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 May 2008 02:09:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.comstockfilms.com/blog/tony/2008/05/26/art-with-a-capital-a/#comment-85423</guid>
		<description>Hi Tony - the art defence is crucial. What should be the case is that art and sexuality are not considered mutually exclusive, which, as any artist knows, is not the case. A sensible policy would simply outlaw criminal acts - child abuse, rape, cruelty to animals etc - in the making of art and leave the moral decisions to a viewing public.

I should point out that, despite the misleading press coverage, Henson's work is by no means confined to the adolescent girl. Nobody, for reasons that probably bear inquiry, has mentioned the boys. And of course the fact that two thirds of his work is landscape isn't mentioned at all. It's noteworthy too that his models, and their families, have strongly defended Henson's practice.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Tony - the art defence is crucial. What should be the case is that art and sexuality are not considered mutually exclusive, which, as any artist knows, is not the case. A sensible policy would simply outlaw criminal acts - child abuse, rape, cruelty to animals etc - in the making of art and leave the moral decisions to a viewing public.</p>
<p>I should point out that, despite the misleading press coverage, Henson&#8217;s work is by no means confined to the adolescent girl. Nobody, for reasons that probably bear inquiry, has mentioned the boys. And of course the fact that two thirds of his work is landscape isn&#8217;t mentioned at all. It&#8217;s noteworthy too that his models, and their families, have strongly defended Henson&#8217;s practice.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Burning Bridges/Building Bridges (Essin&#8217;Em Reviews DAMON AND HUNTER) &#124; The Art &#38; Business of Making Erotic Films</title>
		<link>http://www.comstockfilms.com/blog/tony/2008/05/26/art-with-a-capital-a/#comment-85365</link>
		<dc:creator>Burning Bridges/Building Bridges (Essin&#8217;Em Reviews DAMON AND HUNTER) &#124; The Art &#38; Business of Making Erotic Films</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2008 19:06:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.comstockfilms.com/blog/tony/2008/05/26/art-with-a-capital-a/#comment-85365</guid>
		<description>[...] couple of days ago I wrote an angry screed about what my films are against, and suddenly people who&#8217;ve always been interested in my [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] couple of days ago I wrote an angry screed about what my films are against, and suddenly people who&#8217;ve always been interested in my [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tony</title>
		<link>http://www.comstockfilms.com/blog/tony/2008/05/26/art-with-a-capital-a/#comment-85266</link>
		<dc:creator>tony</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 12:49:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.comstockfilms.com/blog/tony/2008/05/26/art-with-a-capital-a/#comment-85266</guid>
		<description>Libby, I count my BFA as the most fortuitous investment in my potential I could have made (My first major was math, then music, then finally art.) But that "magical halo" thing has rubbed me the wrong way from the first moment I stepped into my first art class. The pious preciousness of it all just doesn't work for me, and obviousy doesn't fit well with teh work I'm driven to create.

Ms.Naughty, I'm sorry this post comes at your expense. I've been at this for more than 20 years, and you unwittingly stumbled into the very heart of what drives my work. If you hadn't made the mistake of linking to my blog likely the whole episode would have blown by without my knowing about it.

At the risk of telling you you're wrong again, you *can* do something about it. You've just bought a camera. Learn to use it, then use it to make art that refutes the madness represented by this whole tired retread of a controversy. Show us a new way to see, your way, the right way.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Libby, I count my BFA as the most fortuitous investment in my potential I could have made (My first major was math, then music, then finally art.) But that &#8220;magical halo&#8221; thing has rubbed me the wrong way from the first moment I stepped into my first art class. The pious preciousness of it all just doesn&#8217;t work for me, and obviousy doesn&#8217;t fit well with teh work I&#8217;m driven to create.</p>
<p>Ms.Naughty, I&#8217;m sorry this post comes at your expense. I&#8217;ve been at this for more than 20 years, and you unwittingly stumbled into the very heart of what drives my work. If you hadn&#8217;t made the mistake of linking to my blog likely the whole episode would have blown by without my knowing about it.</p>
<p>At the risk of telling you you&#8217;re wrong again, you *can* do something about it. You&#8217;ve just bought a camera. Learn to use it, then use it to make art that refutes the madness represented by this whole tired retread of a controversy. Show us a new way to see, your way, the right way.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ms Naughty</title>
		<link>http://www.comstockfilms.com/blog/tony/2008/05/26/art-with-a-capital-a/#comment-85253</link>
		<dc:creator>Ms Naughty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 01:30:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.comstockfilms.com/blog/tony/2008/05/26/art-with-a-capital-a/#comment-85253</guid>
		<description>Touche. I concede, Mr Comstock. In this discussion, I will be playing the part of the enemy. In trying to discuss the larger issues of thought crime and the message this sends to teen girls about their bodies and sexuality, I should have come up with a better argument. 

And as I have said repeatedly, I completely agree with you about the way art is used to dismiss adult material. I'm ready to move on from this discussion because, as you say, it changes nothing in the grand scheme of things. 

The government is now prosecuting for thought crime. And teen girls are being told that their bodies are a battlefield. And I can't do a damned thing about it. So it's time for me to stop caring and do some work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Touche. I concede, Mr Comstock. In this discussion, I will be playing the part of the enemy. In trying to discuss the larger issues of thought crime and the message this sends to teen girls about their bodies and sexuality, I should have come up with a better argument. </p>
<p>And as I have said repeatedly, I completely agree with you about the way art is used to dismiss adult material. I&#8217;m ready to move on from this discussion because, as you say, it changes nothing in the grand scheme of things. </p>
<p>The government is now prosecuting for thought crime. And teen girls are being told that their bodies are a battlefield. And I can&#8217;t do a damned thing about it. So it&#8217;s time for me to stop caring and do some work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: libby</title>
		<link>http://www.comstockfilms.com/blog/tony/2008/05/26/art-with-a-capital-a/#comment-85252</link>
		<dc:creator>libby</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 00:48:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.comstockfilms.com/blog/tony/2008/05/26/art-with-a-capital-a/#comment-85252</guid>
		<description>"art is vocation" - as an art student, THIS reality is what's missing from the books, lectures and gallery parties. i think this is also the big mystery behind the undying question of what art *is*. it's a trade, it's mastering different skill sets, it's creating objects and products that serve a purpose in the producer's or consumer's life. i don't think there's anything sad or sell-out-ish about this reality, at all. 

art is absolutely no different than any job or hobby a person learns how to do. it just has this magical, overblown, false halo floating over its head. the notion that artists are more connected to some mystic power started during the european renaissance, when the almighty catholic church (which played the role that corporations, government and social trendsters play today) paid gifted artists to represent their "brand." michelangelo, caravaggio, raphael, titian - all those dudes - were the rockstars of their time. before that, artists held lower social ranks than blacksmiths and other trade workers. 

the reason why we can never answer "what is art" is because we expect art to be this magical thing that somehow has more value than, say, the quilts our grandmothers made, or the ham radios our fathers assembled in the basement. there is no magic. there *are* sets of rules, techniques, tricks and a lot of creativity. but even the greatest work of art you've ever seen is, in the end, the result of hard work. 

as for bill henson's work, it makes me think about the quote that "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence." i love the few images i've seen from this SCANDALOUS series, and i think it's an interesting subject to tackle, but the marketing/ad/pr grunt who lives in my brain can't help thinking "this was a good business move - sure to cause a stir and develop some brand recognition." also, i don't have kids and i don't make the kind of work/art you do, so your perspective is engaging. 

this is a fantastic post. thanks for taking the time to write it so eloquently.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;art is vocation&#8221; - as an art student, THIS reality is what&#8217;s missing from the books, lectures and gallery parties. i think this is also the big mystery behind the undying question of what art *is*. it&#8217;s a trade, it&#8217;s mastering different skill sets, it&#8217;s creating objects and products that serve a purpose in the producer&#8217;s or consumer&#8217;s life. i don&#8217;t think there&#8217;s anything sad or sell-out-ish about this reality, at all. </p>
<p>art is absolutely no different than any job or hobby a person learns how to do. it just has this magical, overblown, false halo floating over its head. the notion that artists are more connected to some mystic power started during the european renaissance, when the almighty catholic church (which played the role that corporations, government and social trendsters play today) paid gifted artists to represent their &#8220;brand.&#8221; michelangelo, caravaggio, raphael, titian - all those dudes - were the rockstars of their time. before that, artists held lower social ranks than blacksmiths and other trade workers. </p>
<p>the reason why we can never answer &#8220;what is art&#8221; is because we expect art to be this magical thing that somehow has more value than, say, the quilts our grandmothers made, or the ham radios our fathers assembled in the basement. there is no magic. there *are* sets of rules, techniques, tricks and a lot of creativity. but even the greatest work of art you&#8217;ve ever seen is, in the end, the result of hard work. </p>
<p>as for bill henson&#8217;s work, it makes me think about the quote that &#8220;freedom of speech doesn&#8217;t mean freedom from consequence.&#8221; i love the few images i&#8217;ve seen from this SCANDALOUS series, and i think it&#8217;s an interesting subject to tackle, but the marketing/ad/pr grunt who lives in my brain can&#8217;t help thinking &#8220;this was a good business move - sure to cause a stir and develop some brand recognition.&#8221; also, i don&#8217;t have kids and i don&#8217;t make the kind of work/art you do, so your perspective is engaging. </p>
<p>this is a fantastic post. thanks for taking the time to write it so eloquently.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
