Goddesses

We all channel archetypes during BDSM play, whether consciously or otherwise. They may be the heroes or villains from films, books or real life, characters we’ve absorbed into ourselves and adopted traits and aspects of when we’re in domme or subspace. You may temporarily take the form of a bound Batman or captured gladiator or Penelope Pitstop. You may become an Emperor or Catwoman or Severus Snape in those moments when you lose yourself (or, at least, those moments when you lose every part of yourself that isn’t that archetype). It’s a little like playing a role in a psychodrama of our own making, but somehow more intimate than that. These archetypes are facets of ourselves, worn proudly on the surface when we play, then packed away neatly alongside all our other facets when we’ve finished.

I’ve written about this side of BDSM many times, especially the Egyptian Goddesses whose legends inspire me. Well now I’ve drawn some pictures as well. Below is a small selection of the things you can buy with my drawings of the Goddesses Bast and Sekhmet printed on them, if you so wish. To see more, as well as a bunch of other BDSM art, click here.

bastandsek

Return of Temptation

You’ve got until Sunday 12th October to catch the “Return of Temptation” latex art exhibition in London:

“Patrick John Martin & Lorraine Mary Martin will be showing their Art in Latex. Created from intricately cut Latex Rubber sheet, turning the Art of Appliqué into wall art… The Strand Gallery have invited The Guild of Erotic Artists back to exhibit after their extremely successful exhibition at this venue in 2013. Presenting tasteful, figurative artwork, photographic prints, digital imagery and even some sculptures.”

More information here.

10665857_297376190448027_3382363935169523254_n

But is it Art?

Here’s a chunk of a New Statesman article by Tabatha Leggett on whether porn can ever be art (especially prescient for me, as I’ve just started drawing smut again after a long break):

“…Feminist philosopher Anne Eaton, who writes about this subject often, thinks that expressing a morally dubious message undermines the value of a work of art because it requires its viewers to identify with ethical deformities, which distracts them from appreciating the works as art. Put simply, she reckons that to enjoy porn, you have to (at least temporarily) objectify women, and you can’t do this at the same time as contemplating it as art.

Eaton’s arguments are tendentious. Obviously pornography doesn’t always require viewers to objectify women. That’s simply an accurate, if not particularly astute, observation about the majority of the stuff you’ll find on any teenage boy’s laptop. But she’s wrong to think that you can’t objectify someone in a work of art and contemplate its artistic value at the same time. There are loads of artworks that let you do that. Remember Fiona Banner’s 2002 Turner Prize nominee “Arsewoman in Wonderland”, a pornographic film transcript printed in pink ink on a large canvas? It says things like, “he cums in her face, she moans and rolls over”. You can objectify the woman being described and think about whether it’s art at the same time.

The same goes for basically everything that Jeff Koons ever made. Koons even spoke about the function of the explicit paintings from his 1989 exhibition “Made in Heaven” being twofold: to encourage audiences to form opinions about acceptable expression of sexuality and to get them feeling a little hot under the collar…”

Full article here.