JQuest wrote:
If you know it was filmed in 1934 why do you insist on relating it to World War II? If you want to preface it as a precursor, fine, however it had nothing to do with WWII when it was created. Again there is no WE saying anything about this film in regard to the second world war, only you are saying that.

You should probably look up the definition of "propaganda" before labeling Casablanca as such. Casablanca is and remains a classic fictional love story. Full Stop. The creators were not trying to push a political point of view, or glorify war in anyway. It would have worked just as well if based during the Korean War, Vietnam, or the Civil War. Any place and any time where refugees are trying to flee a manipulative municipality would have worked.The war serves only as a background vehicle to advance the plot.

As for the rest of your post, I haven't a clue as to what you're going on about any longer.

After the Second World War, film-maker Leni Riefenstahl argued that political naiveity rather that support for National Socialism was the main reason for her making Triumph of the Will and the later Olympia, about the 1936 Berlin Olympics, but most people didn't buy it and consequently she was never able to successfully re-start her film making career. But I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, am I?

JSouthworth wrote:
After the Second World War, film-maker Leni Riefenstahl argued that political naiveity rather that support for National Socialism was her main motive for making Triumph of the Will and the later Olympia, but most people didn't buy it and consequently she was never able to successfully re-start her film making career.

Thank You Captain;

woodpaint51 wrote:
I'm now sure where someone wanted this whole post to go. From the title, I just imagine the simplest uses in art.  Objects like a big oversized cucumber that a nude female is holding tightly with both hands, and stares at with eyes wide open.   Or female dominance of choice in size: a woman with a tiny baby carrot that she holds off at a distance with just two fingers with a look of disgust and rejection.  Any vegetable or object for that matter that is longer than it is wider, becomes phallic in the hands of a naked woman who manipulates the image by the look in her eyes and her body position. That's an art, for a photographer to get just the intended impression he wants in the picture.

Cucumbers, carrots, and aubergines certainly have phallic qualities, as do many other familiar objects as well as guns, majorette's batons, the list is endless.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
In another thread, I said, "I feel that most photographs of models with guns are inane, especially those of scantily clad or nude women handling military style weapons, high power hunting rifles, or high power handguns in a manner in that is inappropriate." This statement was not well received and a discussion ensued about images which emphasize male dominance over women and a broad category of images that have been demeaned as "gun porn" for decades.

Another member stated that guns can be phallic symbols in response to my comment and the subsequent interaction has decidedly and inappropriately skewed off the topic of the thread involved.  In an attempt to create a thread so that our colleague can defend his admiration of images involving guns and naked women or other images that qualify as gun porn, I feel it is best to redirect the conversation here.

Perhaps in this thread, we can discuss the positive merits and negative impacts that can be associated with depictions of violence towards women and making women sexual objects to enhance the sexual pleasure men may derive from weapons.  Or not.

We can also discuss other phallic symbols and what contribution they make, and if guns are phallic symbols as claimed.

Well actually the original question- your question- was whether guns are phallic symbols. And the answer to the question is yes, they can be considered phallic symbols, or as being symbolically phallic in some contexts.

Some objects with phallic qualities also have other connotations, so for example the sword symbolises authority and justice, the latter as a result of their being used in executions.

"Ich muss straffen die verbrechen als wie recht und richter sprechen"- "I must punish crimes as the law and the judge tell me". An inscription on a German executioner's sword, circa 1500.

JSouthworth wrote:
Well actually the original question- your question- was whether guns are phallic symbols. And the answer to the question is yes, they can be considered phallic symbols, or as being symbolically phallic in some contexts.

Some objects with phallic qualities also have other connotations, so for example the sword symbolises authority and justice, the latter as a result of their being used in executions.

"Ich muss straffen die verbrechen als wie recht und richter sprechen"- "I must punish crimes as the law and the judge tell me". An inscription on a German executioner's sword, circa 1500.

-
-
Going back to the beginning, in the other thread, I stated that firearms are phallic symbols, not with that word, but by describing people posing with guns as people compensating for a lack of manhood.  I have never had a question about guns being phallic.  You disagreed with my conclusion regarding the unworthyness of the images we discussed as art, but you did agree that guns are phallic symbols.  I believe we also agree that the work involving guns is kitsch, though inane still works for me as a descriptor.  I mean, kitsch art may be art, but it is still kitsch.  As eluded to before, if phallic symbols in kitsch art is what you want to produce, feel free. I hope my art can rise above that. Sorry, ladies.

The post you made, herein quoted, is a very poor interpretation of the post you quoted.  If you reread the post you quoted, you will see there are four paragraphs.  Each paragraph suggests different directions that this thread can go.  It is yet again exemplified that guns being phallic symbols had apparently been settled because a phrase in the origination post in the final paragraph stipulates, "if guns are phallic symbols as claimed," and I don't recall anyone denying that guns are phallic symbols in this thread.  The closest you can get to the origination post inviting you to make a kitsch list of phallic symbols was also in the finial paragraph, but the phrases also called for additional action, being, "We can also discuss other phallic symbols and what contribution they make, ...."   I do not recall any discussion of the merits of phallic elements added to art by the introduction of any of the items from the kitsch list you provided. 

You did however, somehow, make the determination that a sword is a phallic symbol and also being a phallic symbol which indicates authority and justice because you found an inscription which you referenced on one sword, even though the sword was a weapon of good and evil alike.  Consequently, your sword analogy could likely mean that law and justice is perceived as nothing more than a big dick. 

I do have to scratch my head regarding anyone who looks at a carrot, a sword, a gun, a variety of household objects, food and items from nature and their first consideration is how that collection of molecules is best described as a phallic symbol.  It seems like an awful lot of mental weight placed on an organ with multiple functions.

Thusly, we arrived here and God knows why this is still going on.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
a discussion ensued about images which emphasize male dominance over women and a broad category of images that have been demeaned as "gun porn" for decades.

Perhaps in this thread, we can discuss the positive merits and negative impacts that can be associated with depictions of violence towards women and making women sexual objects to enhance the sexual pleasure men may derive from weapons.  Or not.

We can also discuss other phallic symbols and what contribution they make, and if guns are phallic symbols as claimed.

The phallus has been part of art as long as there has been art… Visual or otherwise. So has the female form…

I wish I remembered how to post photos… I was in Paris this past fall and there was a gigantic 6 foot tall, marble penis in the window of a very high end gallery along the seine…  It had been part of a sculpture… there were still iron attachments on it… I can only imagine the size of the sculpture it was attached to… the man must have been stories tall…

I know that through out my life I have witnessed things that surprise me over and over… Things that have challenged my assumptions or my schema of the world.

Women (and men for that matter) are not a monolith. I know you know this, but I say that to answer your question. For some, they thrive and actually encourage violence upon themselves. That is their thing. For others the violence is an affront to them and their gender… For some being nude is not about being sexualized, for others being sexualized is their goal. Life occurs as a spectrum of values.

I remember reading a quote by an artist, who basically said… it is the artist’s job to never avert their eyes. That begs the question, what is right? What should be portrayed? For me it is about consent. There are plenty of things I will not paint or even particularity want to even see… but to judge?

So with consent… child ________ fill in the blank… is wrong. There is no consent. Unconscious subjects… either asleep or drugged, etc… again no consent. I am sure there are plenty of other non consensual things others can contribute to that list…

As I write this… Hate might be another topic off limit? But that might be consensual…

Lastly… I read a quote by Dr. Barnes, an amazing art collector, that the greats would steal the soul, but leave the bones. Lots of images are copies of others… to the point of cliche… like caution tape or perhaps girls with guns.

Two Pears Studio wrote:

I have not yet been to the Barnes Foundation museum.  I really should arrange it.  It seems the only times I go to museums is when someone is visiting from other countries. That hasn't happened for a couple of years.  Last time, it was when German family members of friends came to visit their kin, we all went to the Philly Art Museum.  I have heard a lot about Barnes over the years.  I am sure it would be an interesting experience.  I have never been in the Rodin museum there either.

There are somethings in which I agree consent is important.  Using other people's photos.  I respect the copyright.  Hiring a nude model, consent is a must.  Drawing a likeness. of anyone nude.  But I will paint from photos of the street and environment and I do not feel that I need the consent of every person who falls between the corners of the sensors. 

I don't have a problem with nudity in art.  I don't have a problem with sexuality in art.  I probably wouldn't care about sexual art.  There are a few concepts a would like to paint, but I get some resistance from veracious quarters- one of which is the difficulty of displaying pieces.  Like it or not, nudes aren't well accepted. Many concepts can't even be displayed here.  One place I have access to show will not accept anything with a human in it, much less a nude.  That leaves out most of my work., leaving some wildlife options since I usually stick a human into my landscapes.

Among those I would like to get around to doing, there is a couple that could be considered violent, but not violence against women.  I don't want to promote that at all.  There is too much now.  There are a couple that would be worse than the one that Samuel Clemens called vulgar.  Which to me, isn't vulgar at all.  I have no objections to painting nude men.  I was disappointed at a sketch club session when the model finally came out for his first pose and the younger male artists in the group suddenly packed up their supplies and walked out.  I'll draw anyone that will be still. 

I would stick a phallic symbol in a painting in a way that some people might notice and others might not.  I don't want to put phallic symbols hidden away in every painting like Alfred Hitchcock who appeared in every one of his films to the point of distracting the audience, or the bunny ears on a playboy cover.

I am not interested in doing sex organs for the sake of sex organs.  At least not images that do not have plausibly deniability as to them being sex parts.  I wouldn't object to sensitizing many things such as flower parts.  I wouldn't object to doing something like David to Origins of the World but would rather not make career out of either.  I do not want to do anything that would perpetuate hate.  Maybe, I would do something like a mob of white people beating and lynching KKK members.  I had never thought of that before, but I am composing a piece as I write.  "How It Should Have Been."  I bet that would sell well as prints in the south    I wouldn't glorify Nazis, communist, fascists or the destruction of the indigenous people.  I don't think I would romanticize a war.  Part of freedom of speech is choosing not to say somethings and there is a lot to not say.

I don't like art that depicts violence against women, as many efforts which involve nude (and not nude) women and guns portray.  If one particular former neighbor ended up living next door again, I could see myself carving a full saw log (8' long) into something she would find offensive, but a phallic symbol wouldn't be my first choice.  I would rather go towards something that was fine art. Or maybe build a fence with interestingly carved fence posts.  Even then, I would have to temper myself because it isn't worth going to court since first amendment rights aren't absolute.  I am creative enough to piss someone off without having to resort to phallic symbols.  But really, I have no desire to have an acrimonious relationship with anyone.

My art is for me.  I paint what I want to unwind.  I am not trained or educated as an artist. Someone told me I should get an AA from the community college.  I laughed and told her I didn't need another degree.  She said everyone benefits from a degree, without ever asking about my background.   If I ever work full time as an artist in retirement or start to give a crap about creating marketable work, I don't want to be known for being crude, offensive, or for creating shock pieces.  I don't want to be known for kitsch.  I will take being known for telling stories in a painting. 

The piece that Klimt did that I most admire is not what he is best known for.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
I have not yet been to the Barnes Foundation museum.  I really should arrange it.  It seems the only times I go to museums is when someone is visiting from other countries. That hasn't happened for a couple of years.  Last time, it was when German family members of friends came to visit their kin, we all went to the Philly Art Museum.  I have heard a lot about Barnes over the years.  I am sure it would be an interesting experience.  I have never been in the Rodin museum there either.

For me the Barnes Foundation has been a laboratory. I have used it in my consulting work, (organizational dynamics) I’ve used it in marriage and couples therapy, Political discussions, etc… it contains 6000 years of human experience…

I also use it to solve things that I am working out in my own art… not ideas, but perhaps permission contained in the traditions in art for something I’m trying.

I always warn people… it was never designed as a museum. It was a foundation for the exploration of an “objective method” of looking at art. So the collection is very often super frustrating for many museum goers. They do not have labels on any of the art… The walls are made up of installations… and are not bound by artist, time period, genres, etc… and the objects that surround the art are as important as the paintings…

The collection is massive and contains at least six or seven seminal works of modern art… I tell people… the Louvre has the Mona Lisa… The Barnes has at least six modern Mona Lisas…

With that said… they have tried to make it palatable to museum goers by providing an app that you can scan the work and it will tell you all the normal museum stuff…

Some of their speciall exhibits have been mind shattering… The current one is good, but not as rich for someone who uses the place as a laboratory.

If you go with someone… it is worth getting the membership and go during the members hours… (Two hours before the public)

The Rodin is best in the spring and Summer as the outdoors garden is a wonderful place to sit… pre covid they had music and a beer garden. Not sure if that is still the same.