So Welling's "Ecoporn" is based on photography of nature and how it is "sexualized" to be aesthetically pleasing to us humans in terms of female sexualization... Well, I started musing how I could connect this reading with another we have read. Looking at my notes, the ones I wrote for Barthes' essay stuck out because he is talking about how "text" and "writing" loses the Author. Well, then, what about photography; a different medium? Let's unpack.
pho·tog·ra·phy
noun \fə-ˈtä-grə-fē\
: the art, process, or job of taking pictures with a camera
Maybe Barthes' could have used pictures as an example where the "Author" or creator dies because in pictures, namely a landscape or animal, who can say that they own the content in the photos? This is a keen example, for me, that shows how one's work can transcend the name. When you look at at photo, you definitely aren't thinking about who took it. You are observing every curve, stroke, color, ridge, shadow, texture... How the zebra's stripes against the grassy plains are emboldened because of the obscurity of that environment. And the thing is, is there a legitimate argument against the fact that you could say anyone could replicate that same photo? Is picture taking less dimensional than "writing" because texts are a mix from "innumerable centers of culture" (Barthes p.876) and pictures are a click of the camera at the right moment? What do you photographers think about this topic?
To do the inverse thinking, could writing be considered porn? But what would the missing element be, the standard by which writing then becomes "arousing" to each person? How does one know how to write to "arouse" a certain person? (And I'm not talking merely writing erotic texts.) I'm thinking of it like this: Aristotle brought up the notion of the "supreme end" of each concept. For Welling, ecoporn's end is sexualizing nature to look good for humans. For Barthes, it is that "writing" gives way for the text to transcend the author and that none of it can be original. You know, I've just confused myself. I have so many thoughts slamming me at once that trying to write it all down cohesively is difficult!
I believe that there is meaning in everything that we do. That is what makes us humans. Our brains are so developed, it allows us to go beyond our primitive natures and not live like animals do. Perhaps "ecoporn" and "writing" are just ways for us to try to make it our message meaningful to another human. This is something that cannot be helped, and that humans will never stop trying to do: to connect with one another. "Sex" is a universal concept, so it is no surprise to me that we have sexualized nature in PETA ads or wherever, to try to get the message across and understandable to each other. Now I have a legitimate question of Welling's reading I'm not sure of... Was Welling making some sort of argument about "ecoporn" or was his essay just educating us about it? What was his point? Was he calling us to some sort of action?
I think writing could be considered porn because a large aspect of porn is that it is sexualizes an object and causing a response in it's audience.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteMy father described the author Chuck Palahniuk as “trying to shock you with every sentence.” I would say that Palahniuk’s writings could be considered porn of a sort. Stephen King has stated “I am the literary equivalent of a Big Mac and Fries.” His writing is another candidate for being classified as porn.
I think Aristotle’s argument suffers from some faulty logic. As he elaborates that each activity has an end, I find it hard to believe that there is a “supreme end” such as eudaimonia or happiness that trumps all other ends. I think our theories covered would be better termed as “means” rather than “ends.”