|[||Tags|||||ad hominem, apostrophe, condescending, douche, fine art, folksonomy, metadata, mikon, misperception, photography, pornography, riposte, semantic, sex, sex in art, smut, stephen swartz, tags, taxonomy||]|
It start with this line: Lovely work by Dutch photographer Stephen Swartz.
Responded obnoxiously with these lines:
Perception is a bitch. One person can look at a thing and see nothing but pure beauty Another person can look at the same thing and see nothing but ugliness, And yet others, who seem to fall in the vast majority, can observe the aforementioned thing and only see sex. I am not so surprised, seeing as how sex is one of the most motivating forces in our modern society and how, due to the ease of the information age, that notion has taken on a life of it’s own.
This misperception has become a creature; linked, emailed, posted, downloaded and referenced through the infinity of the electronic void. It is a parasite of sort sinking it’s (sic) claws and teeth into anyone who can and chooses to nourish it. This creature knows no bounds; it can reach across the planet and back. No one is safe.
Few can resist the urge to pet this enigmatic creature Though it is parasitic to it’s (sic) core, it’s (sic) façade looks so lovely and you think to yourself, surely one small stroke won’t hurt. Unfortunately that’s all it takes, a moment of defenselessness, to become lost in it’s (sic) grasp. The creature, had simply been waiting for you to get close enough so it could pounce and drag you into it’s (sic) servitude. Forever a slave to the misperception.
The only one that can save you is you. Fight. Struggle. Choose not to give in to the misperception. See things for what they are and the misperception will hold no power over you. The bonds of false categorization can never bind those who seek knowledge and truth.
The truth? The truth is, nothing here has anything to do with sex. The figures within are indeed nude but nudity doesn’t automatically equate sex. But that’s my truth and of course this is my site so that’s the only truth that matters. If you are looking for masturbatory fodder then please look elsewhere. If you can get beyond the misperception of nudity equating sex and would like to explore a different world of perception, then I invite you to explore his fine art site.
One more thing, I’m not Dutch.
Sex in Art: because we dig art and we dig sex. That’s the tag line for website that linked the “photography” website which distinctly tagged as photography. Not pornography. And obviously not sex. The taxonomy of Stephen Swartz is defined in Sex in Art entry with one category: photography. It can be tag profusely with the photographer’s own definition of fine art: human aesthetic photography, sexless creature of nature in camera obscura, pixilated beauty sans titillation and hormone inducing subject, chaste flesh encapsulated in space and time on the unadulterated canvas of the oxymoron prude nude-photographer
This is not misperception of false categorization. This is the Web 2.0 tagging gone laconic instead of those condescending verbosity.
In the past entry I advised:
If tagging isn’t your cup of tea, please incline to categorize, and I don’t mean being prejudice. Be impartial in its implicit nature. Explicitly the better, as stark as Lady Godiva.
[Source: Metadataethics And Mobchaos]
The metaphor of dominatrix-parasitic sex creature is unwarranted; sex is not objet trouvé in the smut bordello. It’s innate and ethereal, and sex is not confined to fornication and genital – there’s air of eroticism and passion. Michelangelo marble sculpture of David is the symbol of humanity and strength despite its stark nature. The subject of Stephen Swartz is in flesh and blood, with mind and emotion it exudes more than just “knowledge and truth” of sexless creature.
For someone who took liberty to use metaphor and understand the use of semantic; taking sex literally in Sex in Art title equating it as a smut peddler of net kingdom is disconcerting with the aforementioned fact.
SexinArt.net is not about hardcore pornography (although you may find some on the site), It’s about the way we as humans portray sex, through our most creative outlets, art in all it’s infinite forms, from painting, to art photography, to industrial design, to self portraits taken at arms length with digital cameras (just to name a few).
Patronizing the patron of fine art is insulting.
Using the apostrophe (’) as contraction of “it is” instead of possessive “its”; is insulting to the insulted patron of fine art to that patronizing snob’s website. Where the only truth is his:
But that’s my truth and of course this is my site so that’s the only truth that matters.
Where the only misperception is the blatant abused of apostrophe – both in term of possessive and contraction. Where the perception of the other apostrophe (Greek ἀποστροφή, apostrophé) exist in form of imaginary masturbatory fodder predator.
One more thing, you’re a douche (this is ad hominem).
AKAB labelling system is a good example of laissez-faire folksonomy of gastronomic disorder. At Semusim Di Neraka (Halcyon Hades). Tonight, we dine nasi kandar with beer! Fuzakeruna! (ふざけるな！)