I checked out a copy of ponderosa's artwork (I haven't seen elaboration's) which has recently sparked a controversy and caused her to be banned from Livejournal.
Art Review: Why this one?I like it. I'm a former artist with over eight years of art training, my father is a professional art director, mom's an interior designer, my aunt's a set designer for London theatre and professional artist in her own right -- you get the idea.
It's gorgeous work with the candlelit chiaroscuro lighting, striking a balance between cartoon and photo realism. The backgrounds are photo realistic while the main figures have accurate proportions but a comic book quality to the buttery smooth shading and certain details: the length of Snape's hands are deliberately exaggerated, for example.
It's a good choice of style to emphasize the fantasy cartoonish quality of the Harry Potter series (Severus Snape? Rita Skeeter? Muggles?) that have become so real to many people and J. K. Rowling's tongue-in-cheek commentary on many real world issues.
There's an emotional maturity to the piece in how ponderosa's chosen to emphasize gesture and line over objectifying body parts. Too many explicit pieces are all about the sexual position, with overdrawn red cocks aimed at the appropriate orifice and little or no emotional content. Ponderosa's piece is erotic and sensual. The balance of power in the relationship -- and ponderosa somehow manages to convey a relationship rather than a one-time encounter via their linked hands and the obviously pre-planned setting – is shifted to Harry, Snape's face shadowed. Harry is exposed as the central figure, through the light highlighting his chest, despite the fact that compositionally Snape is at center.
Interestingly, she chooses to show Harry only half-hard, which is very unusual in explicitly sexual art which tends to glory in the "great big cock." Sexuality is more effectively conveyed here through Snape's position, stretched out and intent, and Harry's posture. Through her use of light and dark your attention is drawn up Harry's chest to his face which is blurred (emphasizing physical experience over emotion), his head tipped to the side, his posture exposed, open and receptive.
There is an unsettling undercurrent of the "older man" teaching the "younger man" about sex, and a greedy possessiveness to Snape's arms as they coil about Harry – made more greedy by the deliberately elongated fingers. This is underlined by the fact that the viewer knows Snape is Harry's professor. You do not get the impression that Snape is a nice man, though this is offset by the setting, which indicates Snape's gone to some effort, and the gentle line of his hands.
The piece does not look like a depiction of a first time. Harry's legs are relaxed and he seems familiar with sex, though he lacks the easy sexual confidence of someone in their twenties or older.
He's young, but I would guess late teens. This is not kiddie porn.
Those who are calling it child pornography have clearly not seen the image (we all like to have opinions on things we haven't seen or researched), or else they blur "child" and "teenager" together into one category -- which I don't. I know what
I was doing when I was in my late teens, and it was not rated PG.
Generally on the subject of sexually explicit writing and art, I consider it problematic in our culture we're comfortable with images and depictions of violence yet so many are deeply disturbed by sex. I don't agree with that stance at all. I'll add that everyone in my family feels the same way. I was allowed to watch films that featured nudity when I was young, but violence was prohibited. Many of my father's paintings of my mom were nudes (mom was overweight and as mom put it, "he made fat and the way it hangs beautiful"). I've painted plenty of nudes myself in art classes.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
wildernessguru is also sex positive.
For fans of Snape/Harry, ponderosa hits all the right notes. She does not soft-pedal Snape's cantankerous personality. She leaves in that teacher/student edge, playing with the balance of power that for fans of the pairing is its most fascinating aspect. Meanwhile, for those who don't like the pairing, that balance of power is the very reason they find Harry/Snape disturbing.
The piece is erotic yet not flagrant. It seems to me it was reported precisely because it is emotionally powerful rather than just graphically sexual art. It is the best art that causes the strongest reaction.
*smiles* If I posted a Harry/Snape stick figure it wouldn't stir so much as a ripple.
***
( The problem with Livejournal's reaction is not what's been posted but that their policies are vague and inconsistent. I have no idea what the range is myself, and I've tried to figure it out. If it were clear that graphically sexual artwork weren't allowed here, then whether I liked ponderosa's piece or not, I would agree that it was against policy. But no one can make heads or tails of the rules -- including Six Apart. They admit the law is confusing and they seem to have no idea how to apply it. ) Summing this up: Child porn clearly has nothing to do with the banning. Ponderosa's art does not depict a child. Someone seemingly objected to the teenager/adult pairing -- whether Harry is of age or not would be irrelevant to that objection; he's definitely younger than Snape. The issue also has nothing to do with artistic merit -- ponderosa's artwork is artistically superior, and more subtle than most NC-17 art.
The real issue here is Six Apart's policies. They are so vague and confused and erratic in their enforcement that no one knows what can posted or not. Ponderosa cannot be blamed and should not be punished for Six Apart's unclear policy.
ETA: Germany's Der Spiegel (is more or less like Time magazine) has an article about this piece, and they've included a copy of the picture. If you don't read German (I only understand every 10th word) you can run it through Babelfish for a rough translation.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
