“The internet is a toilet.” …..Plumb away!
Background: There’s a hugely anticipated Frazetta auction due in early December 2015. Some nudie art could not be included in the printed catalog (and online) on the advice of the auction company and its lawyers. The chattering classes were rife with rumors and speculation. What could possibly be so disgusting that it could be auctioned but not included in the printed catalog? Surely nothing as pathetic as cunnilingus, female ejaculation, or facials. So perhaps bestiality or necrophilia? Don’t those horrible Europeans also sell Crepax doggy art? What’s wrong with that? As it turns out, it was nothing quite so gross, just a “simple” case of white slavery (+/- rape).
I wanted to preserve these on HU since the site is periodically interested in such things. I mean both Frazetta and the obvious.(The below is NSFW, if you hadn’t figured that out already.)
____
The “For Sale” signs were added by Roy Lichtenstein and Edward Ruscha in 1998.
Here’s the description from the blog that first published these images (link is temporary):
“Frank has always had a strong interest, a fetish of sorts, in black sexual stereotypes. Why would he spend so much time extolling the virtue of black sexuality if he disliked blacks? Makes no sense. What is his intent? The joy and delight inherent in sex. One must see the totality of these stories to appreciate fully their intent and idiosyncratic approach. He has other erotic art dealing with just whites, no blacks. A superficial and prosaic understanding is really worthless in appreciating this material.”
I don’t think this statement needs to be dismantled in any sustained fashion except to say that if you think Thomas Jefferson must have liked blacks because he had sex with Sally Hemings, then this art is for you.
My first thought when I saw these newly revealed images was why people needed to see them to realize that Frazetta had real problems with Africans (and perhaps blacks in general). The white slavery/inter-racial trope is a small corner of the porn world and usually presented in the spirit of fun and games; a fetish which Frazetta would no doubt have approved and appreciated. These new images, on the other hand, bring to mind Robert Crumb’s “When the Niggers take over America,” a work which has been interpreted with diminishing amounts of charity in recent years.
The illustration below, for example, is widely considered one of Frazetta’s greatest pen and ink works.
There is nothing subtle about the content here which makes its wide acceptance altogether more distasteful. The Frazetta “porn” is a shameful business which we can all collectively shake ours heads at but the same worldview was ladled out generously in much of his oeuvre.
The Tarzan of the comics (let’s forget about Burroughs for the moment) was, of course, deeply invested in white supremacy and purity; with the great apes afforded an even greater status than the Africans who appeared in them periodically. Hal Foster certainly couldn’t escape the siren (and, yes, racist) call at the core of the Tarzan narrative when he famously drew the character in the newspapers back in the 30s.
His acolytes like Frazetta could be seen trafficking in similar imagery in the pages of Thun’da towards the latter half of the 20th century. Russ Heath in the story, “Yellow Heat,” is yet another famous exemplar of this trend in adventure and horror comics. If there is any desire to heap praise on the laughable civil rights comics of the EC line, then one can look no further than these comics for their counter examples.
The standard defense for these images is that Africans “really” were that way—in that they really sharpened their teeth and really ate people. And, yes, were generally crowd surfed by white people (metaphorically speaking of course). Presumably, the images on display in Frazetta’s porn stash will be diagnosed as an acute insight into black sexuality or at the very least a liberating moment of self-revelation and self-parody; a plumbing of the very depths of the human soul. On this last point, at least, I think we can all find some space for agreement.
__________
Update: In comments, Frazetta’s images above have been compared to the tradition of Asian erotic temple art of which the most famous example must be the reliefs at Khajuraho. I guess there are worse ways to insult the Indians.
The whole point behind Conan and RE Howard and that whole man-boy loincloth-sword-muscles fantasizing was the repressed sexual aspect.
Sex sells, especially rubbish. There’s no analysis needed here, just follow the money.
“The Tarzan of the comics (let’s forget about Burroughs for the moment) was, of course, deeply invested in white supremacy and purity; with the great apes afforded an even greater status than the Africans who appeared in them periodically.”
In what way do you assert that the apes had “greater status than the Africans?”
Even one concrete example would be a welcome change.
Is this being asked out of genuine interest or mere irritation?
If the former, I refer you to the Hal Foster sequence from the beginning of his run (2-7-1932 to 4-3-1932) in which an entire tribe of Africans are depicted as idiots duped by a blonde white Viking “priestess”, hapless miscreants; do a “dum-dum”-like fire dance which establishes them as cannibals (but not so for Tarzan’s apes earlier in Foster’s run), and, finally, are opposed by the noble and intelligent apes led by Tarzan. I suppose you disagree with this interpretation.
I don’t think it’s correct to take a single incident from one Tarzan continuity and assert that it was standard across the board. Cite several, along the same line, and then you’ve got something.
I remember the sequence you describe, though I would have to see it again to see if I agree that the apes are extolled over the black natives. I would say that your case is stronger just for the base idea of the “white goddess” trope; at the very least, the trope certainly isn’t terribly complimentary. FWIW Burroughs does show white primitives believing in godlike outsiders as well, but I guess one could argue that they are just blacks in whiteface.
Going strictly by the excerpts from the porn art seen here, I don’t see racism going on here. I see Frazetta drawing a handful of Black Africans as lustful characters, maybe even with predominantly brutish features, but that may be part of the erotic thing going on here, whatever it meant to Frazetta himself. I think that’s a little different from making fun of Blacks for filing their teeth and dumping missionaries in cook-pots, which would, like the “white goddess” thing, suggest a complete and irreversible primitivism.
Nice, how you snuck in that shot at the EC comics.
You asked for a single example, Gene. He provided one.
You’re argument about Frazetta is preposterous, Gene. good grief.
I said that a single concrete example would be a welcome change, not that I thought it would prove sufficient as proof.
“About Frazetta?” I really didn’t say anything about Frazetta; only that I don’t think these images are automatically racist, and that all the stuff about Tarzan et al is irrelevant.
Do you define racism as any sort of negative generalization about a given ethnicity? Or can it include positive generalizations as well?
The Big Black Dude does seem to be positively enjoying himself…
Positive stereotypes are very much a part of racism, in part because they often have negative consequences. And yes, the sexualization of black men has had really big downsides, like lynching.
Edit: removed unnecessary snark.
I’m not sure how one could look at those drawings and not see them as racist. Setting aside questions about these fit into the man’s oeuvre, the physiognomy recalls 18th and 19th century caricatures in their proximity to the simian. Does this make Frazetta a racist? I don’t know enough about the guy, his work or the circumstances behind these drawings to say… For all I know, he was prepping for a scathing critique of colonialism that we never got to read. But on their own, presented as art pieces or reflections of the man’s world view, they come across as racist. If they didn’t, the guy that posted them wouldn’t have twisted himself into knots telling us why they aren’t.
Hello friends of the Hooded Utilitarian!
So, Gene: positive racism is still racism and is still a negative. Also/Moreso: these images aren’t “positive” in the first place.
Have. A. Lovely. Day~
“Positive stereotypes are very much a part of racism, in part because they often have negative consequences. And yes, the sexualization of black men has had really big downsides, like lynching.”
Nice of you to change “generalizations” to “stereotypes,” but I’m gonna reiterate my word because I don’t think all generalizations are stereotypes.
For instance, if black filmmaker Jamaa Fanaka fetishizes the size of black men’s wangs in terms even more graphic than Frazetta does here– is he guilty of racism too?
By the way, you never said precisely what was “preposterous” about my observations. In what way were they more “preposterous” than Ng’s automatic assumption that they exist to simply degrade the Black Man– all the while saying nothing whatever about the origin of the drawings; whether they were something the artist did for private amusement or to sell to interested parties.
Nate A.,
Apparently Mr. Ng is more confident than you about pronouncing Frazetta a racist. Apparently the sin of participating in the Tarzan mythology makes it a slam-dunk in Ng’s world.
^ Confusing intention with effect. Subtract “exist to.”
For that matter, subtract “simply,” which means “Even if he was degrading the black man, if he was doing anything else in addition, then it’s like he wasn’t degrading the black man after all.”
Gene, this isn’t “in some cases.” The association of black men with animal sexuality was one of the main excuses for lynching for decades, and remains embedded in discussions about black criminality which have led to our current prison monstrosity. If you’re question is, can black people use these invidious stereotypes? the answer is, of course; W.E.B. Dubois and many other black leaders bought into the stereotypes around lynching, which was really bad. I haven’t seen the filmmaker you’re referring to, so I can’t speak to that, but the Frazetta pieces are right there, and they are not especially complicated.
“discussions about black criminality which have led to our current prison monstrosity” Well, that’s one of the things that have led to it.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/02/mass_incarceration_a_provocative_new_theory_for_why_so_many_americans_are.html
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/29/the_truth_about_mandatory_minimums_the_lefts_painful_but_necessary_conversation_about_crime_punishment/
“For instance, if black filmmaker Jamaa Fanaka fetishizes the size of black men’s wangs in terms even more graphic than Frazetta does here– is he guilty of racism too?”
Yes.
Graham; I’ve talked to John Pfaff for several articles! He’s great; very perceptive guy.
Graham said: ‘For that matter, subtract “simply,” which means “Even if he was degrading the black man, if he was doing anything else in addition, then it’s like he wasn’t degrading the black man after all.’
No. In the sentence I wrote, I’m stating that Ng has imputed to Frazetta a desire to “degrade the Black Man;” a desire which is “simply” that and nothing more, being supposedly uninformed by any other motive.
Nate A.,
“For all I know, he was prepping for a scathing critique of colonialism that we never got to read. But on their own, presented as art pieces or reflections of the man’s world view, they come across as racist.”
So you could only accept these images if they were being used for ideological purposes? I suspect that you’re missing the point of what they actually convey– which isn’t, as Noah claims, a particular vision of Negroid “animal sexuality,” but “human sexuality” as a whole, which ought to be pretty damn animalistic when it’s done right.
While you’re all reading into the images whatever you please, you might at least confirm that they don’t make reference, as Ng falsely claims, to “slavery.” There are none of the visual tropes of MANDINGO-style erotica: no whips, no slave blocks, no period attire– or any attire. All we know from these particular images is that the white woman is willing and the black guys are ardent if not particularly attractive by European standards.
They look pretty ape-like to me.
The images are being used for ideological purposes. Can’t get away from ideology in art.
Does anyone want to talk about the almost see-through white woman (gonna go with the singular here) or is she just an unimportant cum dump?
The thing about BBC (which is of course racist), is that this is an uncomfortably common fantasy, for white men almost exclusively. Like way more common than anyone talks about but once you see it, it’s rather pervasive. For example, most obviously in this instance, it’s in Frazetta’s work everywhere anyway. ;)
So I wanna know, in all earnestness, should I be more offended by the bestial black man (singular, cuz mythic) or the spread metahumanesque white woman (equally bestial, imo), or the fact that it’s a white guy (the non-marked) who arguably has taken the two social classes immediately in service to him and decided they’re both crazed sex animals cuz *he* is obsessed with the two and (really) lusts after them both and/but/because neither is ‘as human’ as he.
Also, is it a problem that this is considered the most taboo? That when one hears something is unusually bad in porn, one’s mind immediately goes to bestiality or necrophilia (me, too!), only to discover as often as not that it’s a black guy with a white woman as imagined by a white guy? Is there bad faith in this?
As a blonde online domme, I don’t list BBC as an offering… but even not listing it, it’s one of my top requests. The fantasy is me and a black dude coupling as a white man’s demise and the end of all social order, the birth of a new order where white men are slaves to our pleasure. I’ve engaged this fantasy in my career (despite not listing it; there’s only one other fetish I have this relationship with) so far because: 1) It’s really common but no one talks about it; engaging it gives me a chance to talk about it and try to figure out what it’s all about; 2) As a white woman with a massive chip on my shoulder about white men, I do intellectually/emotionally enjoy this fantasy in certain very striking/satisfying respects; and 3) Not talking about it, or simply saying ‘no, that’s racist’ to the request, seems worse to me socially/politically/psychologically than saying yes and trying to understand it and/or fuck with it (if possible… I actually try to slip history and politics in to see if I can contextualize this white man obsession for him, and humanize both myself and the mythic black dude in these fantasies.)
But, then, maybe all those excuses are bs. Maybe I’m just being an apologist for my own white racist self? I don’t know. And in saying I don’t know, I’m not copping out or letting myself off the hook. I really don’t know, and I’ve thought on this a lot.
I am quite certain that BBC is more complicated than people might think and links up to a bunch of other fetishes/fantasies that create something like a psychic constellation which is rather illuminating as pertains to white masculinity, because BBC is really about white guys.
Also, I think it’s telling that no one thinks about the white chick getting fucked. At no point is her representation ever questioned or ever a problem (i guess, unless she’s getting raped? if i understand correctly?)
@Nix66 Well, you thought about it.
Hey Nix. This is really thoughtful, and I don’t know that I have a lot of insight to offer. I need to think about it some more. I think there may be some parallels with pop music, and the way that white performers often adopt black styles as a way of being sexy/appealing/exciting.
I’d also say that there’s at least a bit of a difference when you participate in these fantasies in that the white woman (who as you say is largely erased, and almost invisible here) has a voice. I think what Nate was maybe trying to say before was that it’s always possible to use sterotypes and tropes against themselves in some ways. I don’t really see Frazetta doing that here, though.
Thanks Noah and Graham. I have thought a lot, and it keeps me up at night uncomfortably. Currently, I have a limit with engaging the BBC fetish where I will not be a lady narrator for only black male actors… like in rape fantasies where the white man is the victim. I’ve been asked. And I told the person to hire a black male sex worker to tell the story so there was at least a voice, some chance to speak back or at least make a real live buck. He said no, it didn’t work like that. And I said, I’m sorry I can’t help you. (good lord, if you understood how popular this fantasy is…)
I guess I’m saying: Trying to navigate this responsibly is really hard, does not feel good, and yet seems absolutely necessary because denial would be even worse. And I do think to myself, if I can’t disrupt these codes just a little (and I have an insane amount of access), who can?
With that said, I’m a white woman raised in a white supremacist culture and that’s me taking on some weird hero role, so I’m constantly interrogating myself while feeling unable to walk away. But then, for me, I do get that political kick from saying to a white man for pay… ‘Yes! Black men are better in all respects! Better providers, better lovers, better men. It is YOU who are the artificial woman and he and I shall rule. You have been living off our divine labors for too long, loser!’
So, I hope you can see, this is a really complicated mess from my vantage. Like if you care about gender, sex, and race… BBC offers this nest of problems, all of which are terribly uncomfortable. (and where are the black women?… holy, holy it’s complex. what does this mean about femininity and intersectionality? ugh.)
PS — No. Frazetta is definitely not subverting anything. This is pretty classic.
PPS — This is sorta why I think porn is more interesting/important than art.
But is it a hero role since I am always getting fucked in the fantasies I engage in? This totally affects me too. See? Complicated!
This is a little off topic, but there was a tcj.com thread about stereotypes in which one guy, who had lived in South Korea, claimed South Koreans have a thing about white American men being hyper masculine, gargantuan-dicked studs who are intellectually/evolutionarily inferior to Asians. (Another poster replied, “At last, a place where white people are cool.”) I guess it’s somewhat cuter or less disturbing because South Korea doesn’t have a history of enslaving and lynching white people.
“The images are being used for ideological purposes. Can’t get away from ideology in art.”
(1) Neither you, Ng, nor anyone else has offered any comment on the provenance of these drawings, so I doubt that any of you has the slightest idea as to what they were meant to be “used for.” Certainly Ng is trying to use them for ideological purposes, but there’s no evidence that Frazetta did– while one Frazetta blog I’ve found indicates that the artist produced copious erotic drawings with other, less inflammatory ethnic combinations, for no reason but because he liked doing so.
(2) Just keep telling yourself that, Noah.
Yeah… There’s also a handful of men doing private research in to kiddie porn, too. “Research.” ;)
@gene
I think what Noah was trying to convey (please correct me if I’m wrong here, Noah) was that all art implies and expresses ideology, regardless of whether the purpose of its creation was ideological. Frazetta really could have been just trying to get himself off on images of gargantuanly hung black men and sexually submissive/servile white women. But so are Nix’s clients who ask her to indulge a racist ethnicized fantasy, and their fantasies still imply, express, and impose a particular ideology. You cannot get away from ideology in art because all art expresses ideology, and the ideology this art expresses is racist, perhaps even regardless of Frazetta’s actual intent.
Petar, yes, that’s correct. Gene knows all that. He rejects it for ideological reasons.
Nix, I feel like I should have something useful to say, but I feel like you’ve just thought about this a ton more than I have.
I guess just quickly, I do think that it makes a difference who is creating the art/fantasy. That’s somewhat unpopular to say…but I think the artist is always actually part of the art. Frazetta’s work is about his own sexuality/gaze; the meaning of those images isn’t separable from the fact that you know it’s a white guy fantasizing about envying/being/being with a black man (and about envying/being/being with a white woman.)
I think it works somewhat differently if, like you say, it’s a white woman as the artist. In part because the artist is a position of power. Frazetta’s art is always about his virtuosity, so these images are about him giving up control and still being the awesome dude in control. He’s topping from the bottom; he still controls the world. Things are a little different if it’s a woman who has the artistic control (though the fact that sex work isn’t seen as art messes with that a little too, right? Your not in a position where your virtuosity is going to be generally admired in the same way, unfortunately.)
You should read Shulameth Firestone’s Dialectic of Sex? She has a lot in there about the relationship between white male oppression of black men and white women and the way that’s tangled together. I can’t remember exactly what she says (I read it a ways back) and I think I didn’t agree with all of it, but she’s brilliant and maybe even disagreeing with her woudl be helpful.
Amiri Baraka talks about this too, I’m almost positive, but I’ve read less of him and am somewhat less of a fan…
Thanks for those references, Noah. I’ll try to check them out soon.
I’d only add, as pertains to art/craft/porn/commodity/ideology/sales pitch, that the consumer of the product or addressee matters at least as much as the creator, and complicates the politics of all of this. We like to think art is sovereign. (but never.)
So there’s always this uncomfortable negotiation between supply and demand (and in my case, I feel, satisfaction and subversion) with regards to who, also, is asking for the fantasy. (
nb: from my perspective as a sw-er, what i’ve said here is the tip of the iceberg… maybe 1/2 of it… so we are deep… it just goes deeper, ime, is all.)
I think you nailed it with Frazetta’s identifications within the production of the work, itself… and fuck yeah, he’s topping from the bottom (which irks me no end, personally; talk about spoiled brats!), but also… importantly, I think… he is also his own audience. The audience matters at least as much, I think.
PS — I’m more psychologue than artiste. Like my cam/fetish porn work (I feel/know cuz I intend to get better) is crap and I don’t know what I’m doing. But I can tell a bang up story. There are different types of artistry/craft. I know we all know this. I just feel the need to stress this technicality in this convo. You can be great in some respects (like Frazetta or Lovecraft or Celine — that’s my racist dude, if you wanna know) but utter trash in others. This, again, seems really important as pertains to the porn / art divide and notions of quality, decency, value, merit, worth, and representation.
Again, half or quarter echoing Noah, I think the producer and consumer (those assumed identities) are at least as important as the work, itself.
‘Yeah… There’s also a handful of men doing private research in to kiddie porn, too. “Research.”’
Not sure if that’s a response to me, since I didn’t use the word ‘research.’
I can’t tell from your earlier posts whether or not you agree with Ng’s assertion that these drawings have something to do with “white slavery (+/- rape). As I said earlier, in these pictures they’re no evidence of compulsion on either side of the sex-equation. But only *if* there were such evidence would there be any possible comparison to the criminal activity of “kiddie porn,” so your comparison seems non-sequitur at best.
Also, said criminal activity would pertain primarily to the subspecies of “kiddie porn” in which actual kid actors are forced to appear. One can go back and forth on other ethical matters about things like the Australian case of some years ago, involving Simpsons kiddie porn, but no one can say that a cartoon character was forced to do something against its will– because (surprise, surprise) cartoons don’t have will.
Also, I see the white woman eagerly participating in the sex-act: waving at her buttocks and smiling as she’s being fucked. If you don’t enjoy the drawings because the focus is on the guy’s pleasure, that’s valid, for you. But the woman in the equation is not “invisible.”
“I guess just quickly, I do think that it makes a difference who is creating the art/fantasy. That’s somewhat unpopular to say…”
Unpopular where, at Fox News? Certainly not anywhere in the ultraliberal blogosphere. Does no one remember last year’s incredible idiocy: “Manara-Buttgate?” One of the blockheads at THE MARY SUE expressly said that it wasn’t OK for Manara to draw big butts, but perfectly OK if a female artist did the same thing.
“He rejects it for ideological reasons.”
Cute, but the correct word is “non-ideological,” as in, “those things in life that are not strictly reducible to ideological means and ends.”
“Frazetta’s art is always about his virtuosity, so these images are about him giving up control and still being the awesome dude in control.”
And a female artist isn’t “in control” because– yeah, reasons.
“I think what Noah was trying to convey (please correct me if I’m wrong here, Noah) was that all art implies and expresses ideology, regardless of whether the purpose of its creation was ideological.”
It’s one thing to note that ideological aspects may have sneaked their way into a work with no express ideological purpose. It’s another to try to fit everything into a Procrustean bed, which is the usual practice here at HU.
What’s really at issue in Ng’s article? That Frazetta fantasized about either being a hung black dude, or about laying waste to black dudes in the persona of Tarzan? No, none of you don’t care about Frazetta’s inner demons. You care about the fact that these erotic drawings, which you (incorrectly) deem racist, are going to sell for a lot of money– and that there’s nothing you can do about that, any more than you can go back in time and convince people about the racial injustices of Tarzan.
I really you could find some real injustices to tilt at. But there’s one positive thing. At least you’re illustrating the fallacies of taking even a liberal viewpoint too far into la-la land.
“none of you care,” naturally
a) I am so relieved, gene, that you see the enthusiastic white woman waving at her buttocks. I feel so fucking represented and seen right now!
b) “Non-ideological.” lol.
c) You’re right. I don’t give a fuck about some white male artists’ inner demons. Indeed, I am bored to DEATH with their inner demons! It’s the same goddamned demons every time. And every single one of these tormented bastards imagines himself artiste. But you know, there are other species of demon. Like the outer variety. I want to talk about outer demons, gene.
d) And finally, for performative purposes only: ‘Money! Money! Money! I can’t do a thing! Money! Me claim racism *and* sexism…. Big scary, liberal sorcery. But you really sensitive artist soul, gene. me, ingrate.’
I would like to rename these Frazetta sketches:
“Fear not Black Men and White Women. The White Man sees you. And it is very important to him that you have a good time.”
Hell, I bet they did a tap dance number after, huh?
I have no problem with art about white men’s inner demons, and I think it’s dumb to say they’re all the same; I don’t think I have the same issues as some Iraq veteran with PTSD, for example. But was Frazetta really deep enough to have any inner demons? I know he was talented, but his work was about sullen bad-ass guys with swords fighting monsters and scoring with naked chicks–the stuff nerdy teenage boys (and I was way nerdier than most) obsess about. In Frazetta’s TCJ interview, he and Groth discussed Frazetta’s admiration for Steven Segal and Rush Limbaugh. (Weirdly enough, the same issue included a tribute to Frazetta by TCJ’s resident philosopher Kenneth Smith.) Overall, he was kind of a dope, wasn’t he? His porn just emphasizes that impression for me.
Nix,
You got any plans to justify your non-sequitur “kiddie porn” remark?
No, gene. It was a gross abuse of a serious issue and in no way related to the issue at hand which is one of concerning a discreet white man’s pleasure and the applaud and acclaim he receives when he indulges it lackadaisically during his downtime. The sexual abuse of children has nothing to do with that.
Well, my grammar sucks. Please forgive that. I’m rather upset.
Late to respond to Gene… First, I was kidding. Second, the joke was that these were prep work, not a finished product, so even if I had been serious I’d have only a guess as to whether theses images could work as critique (and by implication whether I’d be ok with them in that instance). If I had to guess, I’d say they wouldn’t work as critique, and as such I would not be ok with them.
Since a couple people seem confused, I think Ng’s point was that Frazetta was no stranger to problematic imagery of the white male power fantasy variety, and that these private drawings are of a piece with that. I do think his art was hyper ideological in that regard, which (contra Gene) doesn’t mean it’s reducible to ideology, but does make it fair game for ideological critique. As to the portrayal of the woman, Nix is totally right that I failed to see her on first read, and now I can’t stop seeing her… If that isn’t ideology, I don’t know what is.
“Late to respond to [Gene]… First, I was kidding. Second, the joke was that these were prep work, not a finished product, so even if I had been serious I’d have only a guess as to whether theses images could work as critique (and by implication whether I’d be ok with them in that instance). If I had to guess, I’d say they wouldn’t work as critique, and as such I would not be ok with them.”
Then are you saying that (1) the images do not work for you as just plain pornographic material, and that (2) no one should be able to take pleasure in them because they are ideologically offensive?
Is that a fair summation of your position?
“Since a couple people seem confused, I think Ng’s point was that Frazetta was no stranger to problematic imagery of the white male power fantasy variety, and that these private drawings are of a piece with that. I do think his art was hyper ideological in that regard, which (contra Gene) doesn’t mean it’s reducible to ideology, but does make it fair game for ideological critique. As to the portrayal of the woman, Nix is totally right that I failed to see her on first read, and now I can’t stop seeing her… If that isn’t ideology, I don’t know what is.”
If you’re saying that the material is not totally reducible to ideology, as Ng did, then that’s not contrary to my basic position. I’ve stated above that I can see *some* ideological content in certain scenarios, like the “white goddess” trope mentioned earlier. I don’t think simple pornographic drawings are automatically implicated in whatever ideological content *may* be present in Tarzan narratives though, so that really would be a “contra.”
“Plain pornographic material”? You mean, the non-ideological kind? :p
“And a female artist isn’t “in control” because– yeah, reasons.”
??? no, female artists are also in control, or can be. Artists figure themselves in different ways in their art. But Nicki Minaj, as one example, definitely uses her standing as artist to signal she’s in control in various ways.
I also like that gene is foaming at the mouth at the suggestion anyone could read anyting at all into Frazetta’s work, but then indulges in ideological mind-reading about what other people on the thread care and don’t carea bout.
fwiw, the possible sale value of these things never even crossed my mind. People spend money on lots of stupid things; that’s capitalism. I’m curious to know if Jung is a big old capitalist, though, Gene. Our ur-fantasies tell us deep truths about our souls, but only if they can sell for a decent price at auction? I eagerly await your championing of Horatio Alger Skywalker porn.
Jack, I think Nix is talking about the prominent (but boring) white male fantasy of black men having sex with white women. It’s so widely distributed, and so banal, it’s weird to think of it as an inner demon…but inner demons are often pretty banal, is the truth.
Pingback: Who's Afraid of Black Sexuality? | Herpes Survival Kit
Gene, are you saying that pornography is not ideological? Or that pleasure is nonideological? I think both of those things are really not the case.
Saying that these are racist images doesn’t mean that someone who takes pleasure in them is evil. It just means that the images are racist. Not because Frazetta hated black people (we can’t see his soul), but because reproducing racist stereotypes means you’re reproducing racist stereotypes. Sometimes, some people reproduce racist stereotypes in order to undermine them, or to think about them, or to critique them, or reclaim them. Frazetta doesn’t seem to be doing any of that. He just thinks racist imagery is sexy and funny. That doesn’t make him a monster, but it does make him, (a) boring, (b) dumb (c) in these particular drawings, racist (and hey, sexist also, as Nix points out.)
If you dont’ think the drawings are racist, you need to do a bit more than say that the characters are enjoying themselves. The black slaves in Gone With the Wind enjoy their servitude; that doesn’t mean it’s not racist. In lots of rape fantasies, the fantasy is that the woman enjoys the rape, so the fact that the woman here seems to enjoy being reduced to little more than the marker sexy-white-woman doesn’t change the fact that these are sexist either.
There are various ways for artists to deal with their control of the art too. Frazetta is pretty straightforward; his presence in the art is pretty much always, “hey, I”m a badass”. In this case, that comes off meaning, hey, I’m a badass because I can take this black guy and this white woman and bang them together for my pleasure.
It’s interesting that you don’t actually have an alternate reading, Gene. It’s just, “oh, porn, that can’t mean anything, la-dee-dah, sex is just sex, black men, white woman, means nothing.” If the pairing doesn’t matter, why is it repeated obsessively? If sex has no meaning, why represent it? Keep telling yourself that dollar signs aren’t symbols, though, if it makes art easier to bear for you.
OK. So maybe we should talk about those dollar signs. Also, and related, when I first read this piece, I was immediately impressed and relieved to see Lichtenstein and Ruscha’s add-on intervention of “For Sale,” which I did take to be a critique, or at least acknowledgment, of the sale value of these two figures, both individually and in union, as well as how terribly cliched these images/representations are. (who is a subject, who is a commodity, who is a consumer. this is all quite standard. and in art maybe especially.)
PS – Almost certainly when I say ‘art,’ I intend for it to have scare quotes, fwiw. I think most classical art is porn, actually. It’s not that porn is degraded or unappreciated art, but that art is socially acceptable porn. Where a work or creator gets classified, and for what reasons, is very curious to me.
“Then are you saying that (1) the images do not work for you as just plain pornographic material, and that (2) no one should be able to take pleasure in them because they are ideologically offensive?”
I’m not sure what you mean when you ask whether these images work for me as “just plain pornographic material.” Based on question 2, I’m assuming you’re asking whether I can accept these as “pure porn,” which might have an ideological component but that others might enjoy… The answer to that is, I guess, is that I don’t think they’re meant to function publicly as porn (Frazetta did them in private, and I’m not a mind reader nor am I a time traveller, and moreover I don’t hold the man in high enough regard to waste brain cells reading into these drawings). The next question, then, is now that they’re public, do I begrudge someone from taking pleasure in them? No. However, I think it’s intellectually dishonest and morally suspect to argue that because something turns you on or because you enjoy it you can ignore its ideological dimensions. To use Noah’s “Gone With the Wind” analogy, a lot of people here in Atlanta love the book, but recognize that its ideologically suspect.
its=it’s… Still haven’t finished that first cup of coffee.
Suat:
I’m sure that you know this, of course, but Hal Foster was a commercial illustrator who started “eating ape,” as he put it, because of the depression. He found the Tarzan scripts incredibly dumb, so, he did what he could with the material that was handed to him. This doesn’t excuse anything, though…
Noah:
I can’t, for the life of me, find an actual quote, but I remember you liking an interpretation of a Frazetta drawing with cannibals denying it to be racist. Some kind of Derridadian nonsense, I guess…
” I remember you liking an interpretation of a Frazetta drawing with cannibals denying it to be racist. Some kind of Derridadian nonsense, I guess…”
!!! really? I guess anything’s possible, but that sounds odd. I guess I could see liking an interpretation while thinking it was wrong…? I don’t think I’ve changed my mind about him; I’ve never cared about him much one way or the other, but his use of pulp tropes always seems pretty simplistic, which means when he has black people in his drawings, he’s generally just reproducing racist tropes.
I found it: https://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2013/02/i-prefer-him-as-a-cartoonist/ You are right: I’m sure that it’s the elegant form of Briany’s reading that you like, Noah. I can appreciate the cleverness of transposing the racism from the producer to the character, but it’s just a cheap trick, methinks. The conventions of genre work work against it: a hero is a hero is a hero.
Ah, okay, that makes sense.
Noah: “??? no, female artists are also in control, or can be. Artists figure themselves in different ways in their art. But Nicki Minaj, as one example, definitely uses her standing as artist to signal she’s in control in various ways.”
But you’re not demonizing her for being in control, as you are when you describe Frazetta being in control of his own sexual fantasies. If you sarcastically refer to Frazetta wanting to fantasize about being an “awesome dude,” why don’t you adopt the exact same sarcasm with regard to Minaj?
Speaking for myself, I demonize him for being a bore. With that said, I really do think the world would be a better place if we all read “Journey to the End of the Night” and “Death on the Installment Plan.” Also, this convo sorta has me curious why Celine is more famous for Anti-Semitism than these two very good novels but we are actually having this discussion over someone as mediocre (to my tastes, of course) as Frazetta. Boo.
PS — No one should take me personally at all right now. I am a bit unwell at the moment. It’s really not personal.
… like at the same historical point, Celine v Frazetta. I understand that history’s value is always being re-written. ;)
PPS — I actually think I know the answer to my own query so I’m going to answer myself. By the end of Celine’s life, he had alienated pretty much everybody. I mean he was a vociferous, rabid, irrational Anti-Semite… but he fucking hated everyone, Jews just especial. He had no servants to wash his laundry, I guess, is my thesis.
Gene, your last was basically an admission that you’re engaged in bad faith trolling. I deleted it, and will delete other posts by you on the thread. Maybe you can come to talk to us about something else at some point, but you’ve worn out your welcome on this one.
My impression is that Celine is a lot more respected as an artist than Frank Frazetta and that his work is still appreciated. People probably focus on Celine’s anti-semitism because he was publishing anti-semitic, pro-Nazi stuff in occupied France while the Holocaust was actually happening, which puts him way beyond a run-of-the-mill anti-Semite. (I think Herge was doing the same in Belgium with his hook-nosed Jewish Tintin villains, by the way.)
Thanks, Jack. Well, Mitterand said he couldn’t be included on a 20th century French best-of for writers (I believe?) because of his Anti-Semitism. And I haven’t read his Anti-Semitic pamphlets which is probably why I can be so casual about it. The thing is, France was collaborationist during WWII. Like, ya know, Petain and shit. Everyone loves to make epic sprawling romance movies about La (fucking) Resistance but that’s just nonsense. So, I guess from my perspective, I could rattle off lots of Anti-Semitic French writers during WWII… and I haven’t touched the Germans. I mean, so many critical theorists are implicated we should all be shocked and appalled.
But yeah, you’re right… Celine apparently produced a lot of that crap later, like actively and formally and all. And I haven’t read it which is probably why I could sorta wonder it aloud.
“Journey To” and “Death on” are very good, but Céline’s greatest work is the Castle trilogy, which he wrote after the anti-Semitic pamphlets.
France was conquered during WWII – because the citizens of a certain superpower preferred to wait a bit longer and hope that Hitler would somehow magically go away without us having to do anything, instead of saving a fellow republic facing 2-to-1 odds from getting crushed.
Any opinion by Americans on how well or badly the French acted after being conquered that doesn’t acknowledge those circumstances is an exercise in self congratulation.
Graham, I don’t have a quibble with any of that. And I’ll check out the Castle trilogy.
You’re seriously saying that I shouldn’t judge Celine for cheering on the Nazis without adding that the US didn’t enter the war early enough?
@Jack
No, I’m saying you should’t judge the French people. Céline is not the French people, just as Frazetta is not the American people. Their virtues and their vices are their own. (Céline’s virtues and vices both massively exceed Frazetta’s.)
Well, okay, then. As you were.
“Noah. I can appreciate the cleverness of transposing the racism from the producer to the character, but it’s just a cheap trick, methinks.”
(about an appraisal of some published Frazetta work under discussion in that other thread referred to.)
That transposition is your own. I was saying it’s good art because it illuminates.
Authorial intent is another matter. The art effectively communicates something which we can understand. That we can understand it is in itself illuminating and the art, as an artificial object in the world, plays a crucial part in the gleaning of that awareness.
It is quite a Derridean approach, yes. I’m not sure that transferring an attitude from author to fictional character is Derridean – maybe it is, I’m all ears.
Excluding authorial intent in favour of transductive efficacy could maybe work as a ‘cheap trick’ – in a devious scheme aimed at indefinitely deferring evaluation/judgement of an artist’s implied politics rather than projecting feelings onto a voiceless corpse. More of a Barthesian move, really.
Just clarifying, cos I got too close to being misquoted back there.
Not sure what I think about these particular drawings here. They are obscene, of course. Publishing and/or distributing them would be a shit thing to do.
Where were they found, under a mattress? Such prurience.