Moonhead
Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009 Status: offline
|
As I'm the bad hat who stated that most of the imagery in BDSM is cliched, stripped threadbare by repetition, and was often banal even when new, I suppose I should address this one. quote:
ORIGINAL: mummyman321 There have been highly imaginative people in BDSM and it has helped shape where BDSM today. The photography work of Irving Klaw (Bettie Page model). The highly creative illustrations of John Willie, Eric Stanton, Robert Bishop, Eric Kroll, Namio Harukawa, Sardax and others. John Sutcliffe and his legacy of Atomage Magazine. Tim Woodward and photographer Grace Lau and their legacy of Skin Two magazine. The highly creative rubber outfits of Keith and Moria Comfort (former owners of Cocoon). And the list goes on and on. There have been highly imaginative people producing pornography aimed at people into S&M, yes. There's also a lot more limp minded plagiarists who make even the best of the originators' work look banal merely by association with their shoddy, heartless pastiches. Several of the people you name fit into this camp, and a couple only resemble John Willie to the same extent that Andrew Lloyd Webber resembles Cole Porter. It's inevitable that anybody who actually produces original imagery will soon be plagiarised half to death, but it's inarguable that a lot of the imagery associated with BDSM has long since been stripped bare and rendered utterly stale by constant repetition by artists with nothing to say besides "I like those photos of Bette Page in bondage". quote:
I have found the world of BDSM to be full of imagination. I feel the mundane is the vanilla lifestyle. I feel people can let their imagination flow and flourish with BDSM. Many people comment that it is not the physical attraction that make BDSM fun it’s the mental aspect. I have found that to be very true. I have found the creativity of the mind is almost limitless. BDSM is based on cliches. The rigorous formalising is actually a big part of the appeal for most. There's no doubt that it's a mental process, but it's one that has almost nothing to do with the type of imagination you were trying to connect a bunch of threadbare power fantasies which almost everybody has harboured at one point or another. The nice thing about cliches, is that the reason they become cliches in the first place is that they signify something to almost everybody. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's a long way from Ray Bradbury. I honestly don't think you can claim to be a great fount of imagination when everything that you imagine is also imagined by millions of other people in pretty much exactly the same terms.
< Message edited by Moonhead -- 6/8/2012 3:22:00 PM >
_____________________________
I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted... (Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)
|