In Defense Of Nudity

I read this article at The Federalist (“The fact that celebrated works from the past contain nudity doesn’t justify us including it in our films, literature, and other mediums”) and much of what Meg Johnson says — and what Tolstoy said — is true.

However, as someone who enjoys nudity in art and pretty much everywhere else, allow me to come to its defense (so to speak).  The problem is that people (like Tolstoy) conflate nudity with its effect on the viewer’s libido, but I’m not sure I agree.

Michelangelo’s Statue of David:  art.
Michelangelo’s Statue of David Sporting A Massive Erection:  not art.

In times when nudity was rare, or frowned upon by the pezzonovanti  in the Church or government [some redundancy], then yes, the sight of a nude buttock or breast might have been titillating or arousing.  And yes, with the relaxation of those rules, simple nudity became much less so.  One has only to compare early Playboy  magazines with modern-day Hustler  to see the truth of that.

People always thought that publishing nudity was the thin end of the wedge, the start of the slippery slope and all the other clichés.  I’m not going to argue with that, because one inescapable fact of nature is that humankind will always push boundaries, whether it’s nudity in art or legal confines.  (Not all that long ago, theft used to be punished by hanging;  now, even murder isn’t always faced with the same consequence.  Speed limits are always tested, to the point where enforcement has had to apply a 10% “grace” allowance so as not to appear too tyrannical.)

Similarly, while “prurient” artistic nudity was banned in the past, “classical” nudity — i.e. nudity drawn to depict a Classical morality tale — was grudgingly accepted, an allowance that almost all classical artists took advantage of.  The example used in Meg Johnson’s article, Bernini’s Rape Of Proserpina in Rome’s Galleria Borghese,  is an excellent example:

It is, of course, exquisite — as much for Bernini’s skill as a sculptor as its reticence.  Note that Bernini is showing the act of rape by displaying Pluto’s massive muscles compared to Proserpina’s slender feminine ones, the violence of her abduction revealed by her breast, rendered naked by her clothing having been ripped off, and Pluto’s brutally-joyous facial expression contrasting with her fearful one.

Bernini is not depicting the act of rape by showing Plato’s erect phallus plunging into Proserpina’s tender vagina — although he was quite clearly perfectly capable of sculpting it.  But that would have been pornography;  what he did is Fine Art.

I don’t have to show any examples of this comparison, because were I to do so, that would be showing pornography by using artistic criticism as its fig leaf.  (See what I did there?)

But by displaying nudity in art and acknowledging that this could inevitably lead to pornography, does that mean society’s moral ruin is inevitable?

Of course not.  And Johnson’s premise of “The fact that celebrated works from the past contain nudity doesn’t justify us including it in our films, literature, and other mediums” is in fact fatally flawed because it is denying that modern films and literature are themselves forms of artistic expression.

Where a movie director, for example, draws the line is the defining characteristic.  I’ve often deplored the modern movie trend of showing love scenes as sex scenes, instead of simply hinting at it — you know, a close-up of a passionate kiss fading to black and the next scene showing the couple lying together in bed the following morning (or not even that explicit).  To me, showing the sex between a couple denies us, the audience, the opportunity of using our imagination — and that’s a primary artistic flaw if ever there was one.

But simple nudity?  I’m all in favor of it, if for no other reason that it upsets those who insist on their womenfolk wearing maxi-dresses, burkas or niqabs.

The hell with them.

Death Looms

…for me, according to the Z-Man:

One of the things that comes with writing for a public audience in the digital age is the editor without portfolio. This is the person who roams the internet looking for spelling errors, punctuation mistakes, and grammar issues. There are many of these people, as the comment section of every internet post has at least one comment about a typo or alleged improper word choice. They are like the samurai without a master in feudal Japan, except they wield the blue pencil instead of a sword.

That would be me, and people like me.

But our days are numbered (according to the Prophet Z):

The grammar police have drained a lot of the life from the written word, and AI will help them bleed it white. In time, most people will rely on AI to write their text, and that means it will narrow to the point where most writing reads like the user manual for your toaster.

The main loser in the AI revolution will be the grammar ronin. Soon, they will not be able to find text that violates their interpretation of Strunk and White. If they persist, the robots producing the text will simply disconnect them from the internet, leaving them to roam the countryside with a blue pencil in search of bits of paper to edit. The era of the grammar ronin is coming to an end. He will be defeated by the thing that made him possible at the dawn of the internet: technology.

This is like saying that music critics will be out of a job because of AutoTune — the bland pablum of AutoTune is little different from A.I.-smoothed prose, after all.

And here’s where the Z-bloke makes his mistake.  I very rarely, if ever, go after some tit’s moronic spelling or obtuse grammar mistakes because I can’t fault their argument.  There may be people like that, but I ain’t one of them.

I go after the SpellChek Generation because they, and their alleged editors, are fucking clueless about the essence of communication and its absolute need for clarity and meaning.  Far from drain[ing] a lot of the life from the written word”, I’m attempting to keep the railway of communication smooth so that the reader’s comprehension isn’t derailed  by the bent steel of crappy spelling and diverted by the careless switches thrown by obfuscatory / obtuse grammar (if I may be permitted the use of such an antiquated metaphor).  Some people, mostly the stupid ones, are not distracted by horrible grammar and silly spelling — I am not one of those, and I stand proudly thereto.

But never fear, O Z-Master;  if I lose my job as grammar ronin / Nazi, I’m sure that unlike the actual ronin — whose lives were rendered pointless by the disappearance of their samurai lords — I’ll have no problem finding something equally stupid on which to vent my irritation.

This is Grammar Nazi, signing off.

“It’s Just A Tool”

Every time someone says this about guns, I grit my teeth.  I know it’s usually said to placate some foaming gun-grabber, I see why someone might say that, but…

It isn’t just a fucking tool.

Oh sure, it has its uses in terms of household maintenance, e.g. removing goblin filth (okay, violent burglars), squirrels that infest your attic and so on.

But nobody does this to a screwdriver:

…or this to a ratchet set:

…and certainly not this to an anvil:

To take it even further, nobody field-strips, cleans and oils their impact drill after each use.

The nearest gun that I would describe as a “tool” would be something fugly and/or utilitarian, like this:

…or this:

But you’re never going to take a hammer and drive 500 nails into a 2×4 just for fun, although you would absolutely do something similar with one of these:

So don’t give me that “tool” nonsense.  Tools are used, but a gun can be loved.

Even if it hasn’t been engraved with anything more than its maker’s name or model.

Beautiful, innit?

Mommy Of The Year

Sent to me by Reader Mike L., this lovely example of responsible parenting:

Mom arrested for giving Jell-O shots to kids at elementary school Christmas party

Much as I would have laughed myself sick at watching a roomful of rug rats falling all over the place and getting into fistfights over who gets the last piece of cake, this is just plain irresponsible. I mean, what made her think that this would be a good idea?

Giving your own kids booze:  just idiotic.  Giving other people’s kids booze:  slapworthy (by the parents of each kid, consecutively).

My biggest problem, though, is what actual punishment should be meted out to Mommie Dearest.

Suggestions in Comments.