We adore you too

"While Playboy Mexico never meant for the cover or images to offend anyone, we recognize that it has created offense, and we as well as Playboy Mexico offer our sincerest apologies."

"The image is not and never was intended to portray the Virgin of Guadalupe or any other religious figure. The intent was to reflect a Renaissance-like mood on the cover."

So reads Playboy's mea culpa after this cover enraged Catholics everywhere.

Our response: "Yeah, right." The Playboy response is such obvious backpeddling bullshit. Larry Flynt would have just told everyone to suck eggs.

The stained-glass, the robe, the December timing, "We adore you Mary"....only an idiot would believe no reference to a the Virgin was intended.

But like the people who've already purchased over 80,000 copies of the issue, we're not offended. We're more offended by the easy self-righteous editorializing exemplified, for example, by the Los Angeles Times.

 

Originally published 12/23/0

What Direction is Your Head Supposed to Face When You Sleep?

(I'm sleepy and I can't remember.)

3/30/11, 7:18 AM  Censored by AdSense

Original comments:

Daurade March 30, 2011 at 9:38 AM

Hahaha. Millions of loyal LoS readers screw up their faces in bewilderment....all that painting needs is Justin Bieber and an Army Ranger peeping on and we'd be all set!

Daurade March 31, 2011 at 7:50 PM

When I Googled "painting of two fleshy nudes on a bed" I didn't really expect this to pop up. But it did. And now I know the answer to my question. (A: Courbet)

Self-censorship

Some time ago I got an AdSense notification that my regular site, Laws of Silence, was in violation of their policies.  Specifically, pornography.  I looked into it and what they objected to was this:

Now, one could argue that this is pornographic, I suppose.  It's certainly salacious and was probably originally used to titillate.  But pornographic?  It's a pretty faithful rendering of  descriptions of a Black Mass.  To me, it's an invaluable historical document.  I didn't put it in gratuitously.  My post included a discussion of Satanic Ritual Abuse and while it wasn't absolutely necessary to the article, the image was important in that it shows how Satanism is perceived -- and misconception plays an important part in the kind of moral panic I was describing.

So, my question was, do I censor myself, or do I drop AdSense?  While I think their take on this is wrong, I do see their angle.  If Google allowed pornographers to use Blogger with ads, they'd be inundated with millions of new blogs consisting of nothing but clips from porn films, xxx photos and ads.  It could go beyond their capacity.  And even if that wasn't a problem, a company giving away a service and hosting it on their servers can decide whatever they want.

I decided the change the image, feeling cowardly, until I figured out what to do next.  In the meantime, I changed the photo to this:

The photo might even be more appropriate to the article and doesn't violate the AdSense policy. 

I kind of forgot all about all this but in the last month or two I had to temporarily bring two other posts back into "draft" status because they too had violated the rule.  Basically, any image of bare breasts breaks the rules.  Google isn't going to fuck about making case-by-case decisions.  They have standard and that's that.  One can always drop AdSense or go some place else.

What I've done is create this blog in order to re-post those articles with images one isn't allowed to use with AdSense.  I don't keep intentionally breaking the policy.  These were posted before I got the first notification.  I'd just forgotten they were violations.

So for the moment any LoS undesirable will be re-posted here and if I do any further posts with explicit images, I'll put it here.

Portrait of the First Lady as a Young Slave

Magazine Fuera de Serie, 2012

Portrait d'une négresse (1800)

Spanish magazine Magazine Fuera de Serie has courted controversy by digitally altering an old portrait of a breast-bearing Janet Jackson slave so that she has the head of Michelle Obama.  Or digitally-altered the head of Michelle Obama so that she has the body of a breast-baring slave.

Or both.

Some people are not impressed. 

According to the first the article I read about this artistic kerfuffle, this is one in a series of portraits of famous personalities' heads superimposed onto nudes.  Others will include Princess Di and beer-swilling Barack "the Red" Obama, as well as fearless vampire killer and broadsword duelist Abraham Lincoln.  As for this latter, we have it on good authority that this so-called "President" was in fact the real Abe's doppelganger!  Honest.

I don't know the intentions of the artist who did this po-mo montage; certainly controversy stokes curiosity and sales, but it makes me think of the evolution of African-American status since the abolition of slavery a relatively short 150 years ago, through the harsh years of Jim Crow and the failure of "separate but equal."  America is still rife with racial tensions, but hey, what other non-African nation has elected a black President or Prime Minister?  You've come a long way, baby.

It's not hard to see why this will offend, even if the article itself (10 Oct.) begins with a reminder of the old proverb "behind every great man is an even greater woman."  It's not the whole text, but it appears from my crooked Spanish to be a prelude to a positive examination of the First Lady.  Which may only exacerbate objections that she be depicted as a slave.

Then again, perhaps some credit can be given for the choice of which original painting to manipulate.  Marie-Guillemine Benoist was a rarity for her time, a woman artist respected enough that this portrait was exhibited in the Louvre's annual Salon in 1800.  Both she and her sister, artist Marie-Élisabeth Laville-Leroux, studied under Jacques-Louis David beginning in 1781, just after he'd been made a member of the Royal Academy and been privileged by the King with lodgings in the Louvre.  According to Wiki-wack, the painting "became a symbol for women's emancipation and black people's rights."  Portrait d'une négresse was purchased by King Louis XVIII in 1818, despite the fact that the artist had been commissioned for an official portrait of Napoleon, definitely persona non grata among the Bourbons, a few years after it was painted.  These were good times for her, as she won a gold medal at the salon in 1804.

The good times of didn't last long for Benoist (nor for most women in France, who only gained suffrage in 1944), whose image of emancipation, as evinced by the King's purchase, was more acceptable than the fact that the medium in this case, was the message; that is to say, a painting by a woman..

Wikipedia: 

Her career was harmed by political developments, however, when her husband, the convinced royalist count Benoist, was nominated in the Conseil d'État during the post-1814 monarchy come-back called the Bourbon Restoration. Despite being at the height of her popularity, she had to abandon her career, both painting and exposing, due to her devoir de réserve [duty of reserve] and the strongly enforced conservatism of the reactionary regime. 

Somehow that seems a twisted-to-fit metaphor for what many liberals fear about a Romney/Ryan presidency.  Maybe this discredits the choice, or maybe it is a warning of sorts by the Spanish editors of Magazine.

As had been the case with most women artists working at the time, Benoist fit the middle and upper class ideal of "womanhood" in her conforming to the social expectations of women to marry, raise children, and forego a career.  (See link below).

A cautionary tale?  When the negresse was painted, the artist was at the height of her powers and recognition.  A decade or so later she had to put aside her career to be the dutiful wife.  For Benoist, the clock was turned back on progress towards womens' equality.

So we present this here, a bit befuddled, in the tradition of our series of posts about odd political imagery.  Our most recent entry here also includes links to previous photos.

For a lengthy examination of this painting, have a read of: Slavery is a Woman:  Race, Gender, and Visuality in Marie Benoist's Portrait d'une négresse (1800) by James Smalls.

Originally published 8/29/12

I hear you calling, Marianne....

Back in April LoS reported (Putain, con! Quelles loloches!) on a titillating affair in Neuville-en-Ferrain, where a busty bust of Marianne was removed due to the local citizenry's apparent unease over her generous bosom.  It was replaced with another version modeled on French actress Laetitia Casta. 

Brief aside....this reminds me of SNL's "E. Buzz Miller's Art Classics" sketch:

"Now, the first one here is called Venus of Urbizo, or; I'm sorry, that's Urbino, and it was painted in 1538 by a guy in Venice. And this is for real his name is spelled t-i-t-i-a-n. Titian! Honest to god!" 

Sophomoric wit aside, the Casta version was considered an ironic replacement because she is known for her ample curves.

I came across a photo-montage (of pic a and pic b) the other day which I suspect originated on this Portuguese blog, about how Casta served as a model for the new Marianne.  I think it illustrates the irony of replacing a too-busty Marianne with hers quite nicely.

At the risk of offending my female readers, I must say, damn.....just....damn....

For your edification, I include this photo of other versions from France Diplomatie along with another of the Casta version.

        


        Vive la France!

Originally published 8/20/11