[Milton-L] O Eve, in evil hour...
rastrier at uchicago.edu
Wed Nov 23 17:47:18 EST 2005
Responses (such as they are):
Good for Aers and Hodge's student-- a bit of real life honesty enters
the world of literary studies!
Certainly there is a difference between a Degas and a photo in
Hustler, but I don't think that there's a coherent formulation of the
difference to be had. My point is that nothing should censored
because there is no adequate theory of censorship to be had. I don't
think that any legal formulation that would eliminate some
representations wouldn't also eliminate some genuine art. But I
admit that the logic that leads me to think that nothing should be
censored could also be taken to lead to the bizarre idea that almost
everything should be. However, I think that the "everything should
be censored" view is more liable to absurd extremes-- certainly
nudity (and nakedness, IF there's a difference), and then scanty
clothing, and then revealing clothing, and then suggestive clothing,
and then bright-colored clothing (suggesting passion), and then soft
textures, and then exposed ankles, exposed arms, hair, faces ....
I must say that this topic is stirring things up nicely, and
producing some interesting material.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Milton-L