Sunday, June 09, 2013

twitlonger don't work

 The best def u provide is: "Nothing to see in their work work except the male body, reduced to an object of lust for the enjoyment of other same-sex-attracted males." That doesn't cancel homoeroticism as a valid element in art; in fact, you find it acceptable within the rigorous moral context of a Wilde. However, I don't see how a rigorous moral context is not also a part of Michelangelo and Caravaggio's respective BACCHUS; Bacchus is NOT the idealized man that David is; nor should he be. In other words, I would argue a moral and metaphysical component to those works' "homoerotic" approach. Anyway, those are the examples you provide in your book but am curious to know what you think of contemporary gay cinema. I offer a list of the best films which I do not believe reduce the male body to objects of lust for the enjoyment of other same-sex-attracted males (much, as I've observed, to the disappointment of gay film fest audiences). 

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home