I came across this post, Bewitching "Sexual Color" Photography, from Twitter. (It includes a bunch of large images, so click to the article to see them.) I couldn't help thinking of the "Corporeographies" article we read when I saw these images. It seems that the aim of the photography series is to intentionally emphasize a connection between sexuality and, well, messy fluids. Most of them look like paints in the images shown, though, so there's an artificial element here - whereas it seemed more like Longhurst was referring to fluids naturally produced by the body.
I also noted that most (all?) of the subjects are females, and this plays directly into Longhurst's point about the associative imagery of females as the soft, fluid, not-rigid, (etc.) bodies. In contrast, though, I don't think this photography is depicting such characterization as a negative one. Instead the association is supposed to enhance the sexuality, or more specifically the sexual attractiveness, of the subjects.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So...maybe Longhurst is on to something? Maybe it's not all just theory for theory's sake? Maybe there are different levels - glossed as conscious/unconscious - at play in the way we relate to images, sounds, sensations?
ReplyDelete