-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of joanna bujes Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 7:49 PM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: [lbo-talk] RE: Theory of Porn
Ken writes: "*** Roman floor mosaics were probably for fertility... Whatever such images were about, it wasn't pornographic in anything but the most banal and generic sense. Certainly not part of the pornographic genre."
Wait a second, I was in Pompei in June. Are you telling me all the whore houses were covered with fertility symbols?
I've never been to Pompei so I couldn't tell you what the whore houses were covered with. However I'll recommend this: Clarke, J.R. "Just like us": cultural constructions of sexuality and race in Roman art. The Art Bulletin v. 78 (December 1996) p. 599-603.
Clarke argues that if we look at visual representations of lovemaking, what we moderns understand to be erotic, we'll find that for a Roman viewer such images have an entirely different meaning. He uses the example (which I've never seen) of a cut, dated 62-79 CE, from a wall of the House of Caecilius Iucundus at Pompeii. It was deemed obscene and carted off to the Pornographic Collection of the Naples Archaeological Museum (which remains barred to the public, apparently). Clarke argues if we consider the location of the picture, the imagery it spells status, not sex. He also notes that modern scholars tend to ignore the culture of Roman entertainment and the meaning of the picture itself. It is too often assumed the painting is for the bedroom.. since we associate the bedroom with intimacy. The ancient Romans, Clarke argues, viewed the entire Roman house as a place of business - "privacy" - he notes, is a concept that does not exist in Roman language or thought. The picture, apparently, shows an image of upper-class luxury - a rich bed, gentle curves, delicate fingers... a woman's hesitation and a man's forward grace. There is a servant in the background, along with gold touches to highlight the fabric and the images jewels. All in all - a context the upper-class pretensions of the owner, luxury not lust. Many of the mosaics Clarke discusses appear to be erotic in nature, but when situated in their culture appear very differently - he concludes by saying we think falsely when we think the Romans are "just like us." Illustrations about sex weren't about sex, they were expressions of power. I can send you the article if your interested.
ken