You ask, “Would I never think of all these questions if I wasn’t a heterosexual man”, and I want to tell you that as a gay man, I think I do think these thoughts too! Art is art becuase it elicits a feeling beyond what it is showing you purely visually. And for me, the beauty of women in art makes my heart leap into my throat, not for romantic or erotic reasons, but for an appreciation of the human form.
I’m an artist, and i adore anatomy, because it allows me to appreciate the incredible complexity of the human form. There is something awe inspiring about how we are made physically, in all our varied and wonderful ways! I wonder if this is kind of what you were getting at?
Thank you for adding your perspective--I had stupidly been closed-minded when thinking of all this, because my perspective is all I know, really. I'm glad that this art is also moving to you! I agree with you that it is the mere appreciation of the human form which ideal inspired my post.
I agree with you, and perhaps your question is in line with my original thinking.
This is beautiful in its vulnerability and staggering in scope. I’m honoured to have inspired even a sliver of it.
What you’re asking has a certain gravity that deserves to be answered not with platitudes or self-flagellating caveats, but with the kind of careful thinking you’ve already begun. You’re not alone in this wondering, how to look without consuming, to adore without possessing, to witness without reducing. The line between reverence and objectification is not always drawn in the gaze itself but in the attitude behind it. You seem to know this instinctively.
Your question whether something can be loved just for being beautiful makes me think of Simone Weil, who said, “To love purely is to consent to distance, it is to adore the distance between ourselves and that which we love”. That’s the difference, isn’t it? Porn collapses distance, art honours it, reverence contains restraint, and desire (real, erotic, sacred desire) is not the bulldozer we’ve been taught to fear, but a prism. It refracts the divine into form, into curve, into stillness. Sometimes into marble.
I appreciated how you layered autism into this, as a lens (not as a diagnosis) because I too believe that perception, especially when neurologically particular, can produce a kind of metaphysical sincerity that’s lost in the clutter of neurotypical noise. What you described isn’t objectification but orientation toward wonder.
So let’s keep wondering! Because in the end, it may not be the nude form that’s erotic, but the unknown soul behind the veil, what draws us is not what’s seen, but the impossibility of ever fully seeing. That’s what keeps the gaze sacred. That’s what keeps art alive.
Hi, Tamara! I in turn am honoured by you reading, and for your insightful comment.
Thank you for validating that my wonders are pure--I tend to over-question and self-deprecate by nature, I suppose. Glad to know that I am not alone.
I like Weil's quote very much. I guess another question I have is, if art like this were to be as available and normalized/plasticized as pornography, would its effects be lost? Would the distance be collapsed if folk appreciated this as often? But then again I feel that past-beauty is held with...passiveness, if this makes sense. Rarely are most folks truly *stunned* by things of the past---unless this is only my issues with emotional processing projecting.
Ah, orientation towards wonder...I like that, too. That's pretty much my whole drive as a human.
Thank you for the wisdom and contemplation in that final sentence! I'll pursue that gladly.
Thanks for your comment, Randolph! I resonate with and relate to what you're writing very much. It makes a lot of sense, and is a genuine feeling of what my thought-process is.
You ask, “Would I never think of all these questions if I wasn’t a heterosexual man”, and I want to tell you that as a gay man, I think I do think these thoughts too! Art is art becuase it elicits a feeling beyond what it is showing you purely visually. And for me, the beauty of women in art makes my heart leap into my throat, not for romantic or erotic reasons, but for an appreciation of the human form.
I’m an artist, and i adore anatomy, because it allows me to appreciate the incredible complexity of the human form. There is something awe inspiring about how we are made physically, in all our varied and wonderful ways! I wonder if this is kind of what you were getting at?
Thank you for adding your perspective--I had stupidly been closed-minded when thinking of all this, because my perspective is all I know, really. I'm glad that this art is also moving to you! I agree with you that it is the mere appreciation of the human form which ideal inspired my post.
I agree with you, and perhaps your question is in line with my original thinking.
Perhaps you were a little close minded, but within your article it was so sensitive and personal it made something really insightful and unique!
Ah! Thank you. :)
Subscribed!
This is beautiful in its vulnerability and staggering in scope. I’m honoured to have inspired even a sliver of it.
What you’re asking has a certain gravity that deserves to be answered not with platitudes or self-flagellating caveats, but with the kind of careful thinking you’ve already begun. You’re not alone in this wondering, how to look without consuming, to adore without possessing, to witness without reducing. The line between reverence and objectification is not always drawn in the gaze itself but in the attitude behind it. You seem to know this instinctively.
Your question whether something can be loved just for being beautiful makes me think of Simone Weil, who said, “To love purely is to consent to distance, it is to adore the distance between ourselves and that which we love”. That’s the difference, isn’t it? Porn collapses distance, art honours it, reverence contains restraint, and desire (real, erotic, sacred desire) is not the bulldozer we’ve been taught to fear, but a prism. It refracts the divine into form, into curve, into stillness. Sometimes into marble.
I appreciated how you layered autism into this, as a lens (not as a diagnosis) because I too believe that perception, especially when neurologically particular, can produce a kind of metaphysical sincerity that’s lost in the clutter of neurotypical noise. What you described isn’t objectification but orientation toward wonder.
So let’s keep wondering! Because in the end, it may not be the nude form that’s erotic, but the unknown soul behind the veil, what draws us is not what’s seen, but the impossibility of ever fully seeing. That’s what keeps the gaze sacred. That’s what keeps art alive.
Hi, Tamara! I in turn am honoured by you reading, and for your insightful comment.
Thank you for validating that my wonders are pure--I tend to over-question and self-deprecate by nature, I suppose. Glad to know that I am not alone.
I like Weil's quote very much. I guess another question I have is, if art like this were to be as available and normalized/plasticized as pornography, would its effects be lost? Would the distance be collapsed if folk appreciated this as often? But then again I feel that past-beauty is held with...passiveness, if this makes sense. Rarely are most folks truly *stunned* by things of the past---unless this is only my issues with emotional processing projecting.
Ah, orientation towards wonder...I like that, too. That's pretty much my whole drive as a human.
Thank you for the wisdom and contemplation in that final sentence! I'll pursue that gladly.
This was lovely to read Mitch, and was written by someone with integrity.
A rare thing to witness especially so vulnerably written.
For what it’s worth, as a woman, I can feel the difference when someone is gazing in adoration and when someone is extracting.
Though at 41 I am looked at much less these days, and as a lesser conventionlly beautiful woman, it’s more often the gaze of wonder an awe.
Thanks for your reply, Sara.
Thanks for your comment, Randolph! I resonate with and relate to what you're writing very much. It makes a lot of sense, and is a genuine feeling of what my thought-process is.