<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div>"For Ullen, this perhaps tacitly understood feature requires more<br>
consideration, and it might explain why some viewers of pornography<br>
are willing to allow the representation in question to get away with<br>
non-verisimilitude, bad acting, repetition, or other boring features,<br>
and that is because the representation itself is not the whole point.<br>
But it also could be that fantasy takes over, where the pornographic<br>
film falls short, and for many the fantasy was spurred by a much<br>
earlier (and at that point novel) viewing of pornography that was once<br>
fresh, new, not boring..."<br><br></div>I think here you are making a point close to mine that fantasy (a disregard of, an escape from monotony, non-verisimilitude or predictability) is crucial in the understanding of the nature of pornography.<br><br>"'m not sure I am on board with treating pleasure as always a positive<br>
arousal, or I suppose I need to hear more on what you mean by<br>
positive. The way pleasure is policed and often tied to shame and<br>
transgression makes me wary of this designation...."<br><br></div>Here again, I think, you are suggesting the importance of transgression in pornograph.<br><br></div>Ciao,<br></div>Murat<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:13 PM, John Stadler <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:john.paul.stadler@gmail.com" target="_blank">john.paul.stadler@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------<br>
Hi again, everyone:<br>
<br>
I am late to the game! Sorry for the delay. I should have some more<br>
directed responses Murat's previous messages that I'll try to write up<br>
later today, but I wanted to respond to Ben's post first. Also, I<br>
don't want to derail our discussion into just being about pornography,<br>
as boredom is our object this month.<br>
<br>
That said, I think we need to be careful not to essentialize<br>
pornography. I would not want to declare all pornography as boring or<br>
lacking complexity or interest, but at the same time, I am still<br>
compelled by boredom's relationship to pornography. It's important to<br>
note that pornography's address, function, and reception has changed<br>
over time, and is contingent on numerous factors. In the era of porno<br>
chic that I first mentioned, the act of going to see pornography<br>
required going to a theater and was actually done with a social<br>
function in mind. This was a water-cooler event. Johnny Carson was<br>
talking about it on TV. Famous stars were seen going to see "Deep<br>
Throa. The film was also stirring controversy, too, so it was walking<br>
a fine line between popular entertainment and scandal. Within a gay<br>
milieu at this time, going to see a gay pornographic film was often<br>
also tied to cruising for sex (you may not end up seeing much of the<br>
film in question), and it also served as a kind of social and indeed<br>
an identity-forming function, but for a more marginalized audience. So<br>
in some of these instances, boredom becomes a less vital force than<br>
other consideration. I mention all of this to say simply that when<br>
we're talking about what the intentions are of the porn-maker and the<br>
intentions of the porn-viewer, that that's a really hard question to<br>
answer (and likely there as many answers as there are people who make<br>
and watch pornography), and one that will vary over time based not<br>
just on historical and cultural conditions, but also on things like<br>
how technology changes its production and distribution.<br>
<br>
When we're talking about the attention of the porn-viewer waning<br>
during the act of watching, a scholar like Magnus Ullen would want us<br>
to be more overt in recognizing that the act of watching pornography<br>
is tied to the masturbatory act. Ullen locates this as very much<br>
related to pornography's proliferation online and a return to viewing<br>
pornography in private spaces. See his article at Jump Cut here:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/jc51.2009/UllenPorn/" target="_blank">http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/jc51.2009/UllenPorn/</a><br>
<br>
For Ullen, this perhaps tacitly understood feature requires more<br>
consideration, and it might explain why some viewers of pornography<br>
are willing to allow the representation in question to get away with<br>
non-verisimilitude, bad acting, repetition, or other boring features,<br>
and that is because the representation itself is not the whole point.<br>
But it also could be that fantasy takes over, where the pornographic<br>
film falls short, and for many the fantasy was spurred by a much<br>
earlier (and at that point novel) viewing of pornography that was once<br>
fresh, new, not boring. It would be interesting to think about this<br>
aspect more in relation to other "body genres" like horror, comedy,<br>
and tear jerkers, all of which are read in relationship to their<br>
ability to affect a bodily response. For instance, do we come to<br>
pornography with a certain cultural bias that we don't anymore to<br>
these other body genres, each of which in the past have been<br>
disparaged or treated as un-interesting, too?<br>
<span class=""><br>
Ben, you write:<br>
> Pleasure is a positive arousal, and thus requires a ground of boredom to<br>
> occur. For the same reason, fear as a negative arousal requires a<br>
> baseline of boredom.<br>
<br>
</span>I'm not sure I am on board with treating pleasure as always a positive<br>
arousal, or I suppose I need to hear more on what you mean by<br>
positive. The way pleasure is policed and often tied to shame and<br>
transgression makes me wary of this designation. I think pleasure is<br>
complicated, and part of what pornography does is provide an insight<br>
into that complexity, so I would want to think more about what is<br>
foreclosed if we only position pleasure as positive arousal, in the<br>
same way that I'm questioning of boredom as only a negative valence.<br>
<br>
More later! best,<br>
<br>
John<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
empyre forum<br>
<a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
<a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>