Another from my series of ancient-historical erotic fetish pastiches. This one was originally titled "A Roman Plaything." It's hard to imagine for us in our current culture (or perhaps not) but this is a slave who was a "property" just like an exotic animal or in modern times, an expensive car. You would have to feed and keep her like a pet, if you were a "good" master. Nowadays, with the renewed abolitionist interest in human trafficking and modern slavery, maybe pictures like this are in bad taste. Or perhaps not.
Mixed media on brown paper, 10" x 7", winter 1994.
2 comments:
Cheeky!
Interesting summation on your picture. I have been asking this question of myself alot , altely, and of others. How much do you separate the context of art, be it visual, written, etc from the artist or the period? I've been reading the poetry of Aleister Crowely, for example, and I can imagine some saying "How can you read his work?! He called himself the beast!" That being said, I will NOT listen to the works of such people as Domer was it? I serial killer who wrote music. I try not too get caught up in context too much, but I still think there's a limit.
You caught an interesting demureness here, for lack of a better word, but I thought to myself "is this a body element I want to see? The body language of the supplication of a slave to her master? Aesthetically, one can appreciate that the artist caught that, but again, is that what one wants to capture, in the end. I guess that's the ultimate question "What should or shouldn't be done just for arts's sake?"
Post a Comment