Sex Compared With Sexuality And Creativity

Have you ever wondered why this blog is titled “Sexuality In The Arts” instead of “Sex In Art”?

There are many reasons.

For starters, while I’m interested in sexual portrayals in art, I am more interested in broader concerns of sexuality in art.

I once tried to start an article on Wikipedia about sexuality in art, so that people could discuss those aspects of art.  The article did not last long because some super-genius editor merged the article into “Erotic Art,” thinking the two discussions were sufficiently similar.

Erotic art is many things, but it may be primarily an examination of arousing sexual representations.  And while I’m interested in arousing sexual representations, that alone is not as broad or important (in my opinion) as examining sexuality in the arts.

If you’ve read this blog carefully for very long, you may have noticed some unexpected themes.  This blog genuinely is interested in healthy sexual patterns that can endure and prosper.  There is little discussion of sex as an act independent of longer term relational concerns.  The discussion of sexuality on this blog intends to inform people of patterns and perspectives that may allow them to more fully realize and to not be ashamed of sexual and creative components of their lives.

 

The last two days I’ve been reading Daniel J. Boorstin’s book “The Creators”.  Reading the book will teach you many terms, creation philosophies, and fascinating histories.  But if like me, you’re looking for a book to address questions of:  What drives us to create?  or What leads to healthy creations?  Unfortunately, this is probably not the best book to address those questions. 

I don’t write reviews for artworks I don’t strongly recommend, so I didn’t write a review for this book.

It’s somewhat apropos that the book has a painting by Michelangelo on the cover.  I’ve studied Michelangelo in some depth.  His artwork is a beautiful example to illustrate some of the distinctions I’m trying to highlight in the post.

Michelangelo knew the male human figure.
He understood colors.
He understood composition.
He understood drama.
He understood painting.
He understood proportion.
He understood depth.
He understood musculature.
He understood depression.
He understood mourning.
He understood historical influence.
He understood politics.
He understood homosexuality.
He understood rebellion.
He understood the importance of notoriety.

Michelangelo is immortal.  He understood more universal and important qualities than I will likely ever understand.  At the center of Catholic didactic rule, he brilliantly painted on the ceiling scenes of doubt.  In the high temple to a supposed gateway to Heaven, he illustrated human suffering here on Earth. 

But after years of studying Michelangelo, his artwork still often leaves me numb.  Underlying many of his works, there are some falsehoods and facades.  I only criticize him so strongly for two reasons:  I praise him so highly, and he’s dead.

Michelangelo did not have a great understanding of femininity.  He was flawed at drawing and painting women.  Examine the female breasts he portrays.  His women often look like men on whom someone placed two halves of a perfectly round nippled orange on each side of the chest.  His women often have male proportions, bone structure, and musculature.

Which brings me back to my critique of Boorstin’s book ”The Creators”. 

Often the “one thing” that undoes a person is the one thing they know exists, and they know should be a part of a discussion in order for a discussion to be comprehensive, poignant, and honest, but they avoid examining or discussing that one thing.

In Michelangelo’s case, his work avoids visual truths for half the human race. 

In Boorstin’s case, he too often avoids emotional components and psychological speculation into the nature of creativity.  In a full and honest discussion of a topic like “Creators”, it is not enough to list with historical accuracy a very long list comparing and contrasting creative actions.

Which brings be back to the topic of this post.  This blog does not aspire to simply list very many instances of artworks that discuss or represent some aspect of sexuality.  This blog adds a human and subjective element.  It expresses opinions – ideas that cannot be proven to be fact, ideas that cannot be called Truth.  The blog attempts to speculate where answers may never be found because that kind of speculation can not only be healthfully provocative, but it can share a balanced sense of doubt and faith that can help others find some happiness and peace of mind in the midst of possibly eternal unknowns.

Returning to topic: 

Intercourse (sometimes referred to simply as “sex”) is often defined as two people exchanging physical arousal and bodily fluids.

Sexuality more often encompasses more of a person’s exploration, definitions, and actions to relate intimately with others.

There are moments in social settings where two people see each other, and for whatever reasons, they strongly have a desire to “have sex” together.  More power to ‘em.  That’s an important and fascinating world to investigate.

But this blog is more about this investigation:  There are moments in life when a person realizes there is chemistry with another person that not only arouses them sexually, but also they realize the other person may be a person with whom they would like to explore, define, and create artworks, maybe create children (who combine the positive chemistry of both of them), and create jointly fashioned environments they would like to perpetuate.

The latter is more rare and harder to sustain.

For some people, there are points in their life where they realize:  I have found another person with whom I would literally, emotionally, and effortfully like to exchange significant parts of myself with them in order to create new things that will last for the rest of my life or maybe even longer.  These things can be artworks, children, influences, stories, homes, organizations, movements, and more.

I don’t know if you’ve ever met someone with whom for reasons you may not fully understand (some call it “finding a soulmate”) you want to create permanent and growing things with them.  I understand that feeling on fairly complex emotional and intellectual levels.  It’s a feeling that drives me, draws me, bothers me, and arouses me often.

Returning to Boorstin’s book The Creators.  It is a very good encyclopedia about creators and their creations.  It is probably far better than I’m even able to intelligently critique.  But if I’d been his editor, at the end of reading his book, I probably would have said something like this:  “It’s an excellent scholarly work.  It’s good that it does not express too many speculative opinions in the course of representing historical facts.  But would you consider adding an appendix where you express primarily speculative opinions?  After studying all these creative actions, would you please synthesize thoughts from your informed mind and hypothesize on the nature of creativity, its possible motivations, and its possibly intended objectives?

This blog is kind of a personal Wikipedia of ideas that move me.  But this blog is not a provable encyclopedia.  It ventures into the mysterious, the artful, the emotional, and the unquantifiable.  It ventures there because for reasons I clearly cannot fully explain, those are places I have personally found intense pleasure and happiness.

I’m not as interested in the orgasm of intercourse as much as I am interested in the pleasure of knowing I’m involved with people in whose chemistry I really enjoy regularly creating enduring artworks, environments, ideas, and worlds.

I have “seen” marvelous emotional and sexual things, and I wish to share those incredibly good feelings and ideas with others.

- – - -

Most Recent Artworks   All the Artists’ Artworks Index   my43things