iconic redux

on monday i speculated about the way that icons--like close-up images in porn--removed the subjectivity of the depicted. a reader asked: "do you mean that the portions of their individual personality are obliterated in favor of what is transcendent and holy in their personality?" yes, horny reader. that is exactly what i meant. thanks for helping to clarify!

in most iconography, it is difficult to get any sense of the personality because the faces are so stylized. and deliberately so, i believe. the icon was to convey a timeless, transcendent, and spiritual message, not a human and temporal one; a holy reality accessible to all, not the local drama of personality and mortality. this is what makes an icon different from a realistic painting--one "moves in" toward personality and precision, the other avoids it.

another way to think of this is to compare a caricature with a photograph. the caricature closes in on a specific meaning. the artist deliberately exaggerates in order to send a specific message. tom of finland images are caricatures. they move toward definition and specificity, toward capturing an essence of the personalities involved--usually some aspect of personality that looms larger than life! ha! love it!

but other types of porn images--close-up images, images with faces covered or cropped out--these kinds of images move away from the specific and toward the universal. there is not an individual personality involved as much as an abstraction. and the more the subjectivity is removed, the more the image becomes abstract and available for diverse interpretations. the more, also, it becomes available for vicarious enjoyment in the sense that the image could be any one of us!