The above photo and those below show the lovely U.S. model and singer Colleen Farrington, who we saw on a paperback cover not long ago. There are many frames from this session floating around online, and over time we developed a narrative about them. In our heads Farrington was a little nervous at first, and was like, “Maybe a drink and a smoke will relax me.” Ten minutes later: “Let’s show it all!” She even went so far as to give a glimpse of what was most assuredly a massive bush. Farrington became Playboy‘s October 1957 centerfold—which was around the time these images were made—and about eight years later brought into the world Diane Lane, whose movie The Big Town we discussed last year.
Publishing nude actresses brings criticism our way occasionally. We received such an e-mail a while back when we mentioned feminist themes in Leslie Ford’s fiction and posted a Reiko Ike nude on the same day, a juxtaposition which we admit invites scrutiny. The e-mail, which actually was mostly positive, suggested that female nudity is exploitative unless, perhaps, shot by other women. We disagree with that perspective, but it at least tacitly acknowledges the validity of erotic photography. There are some out there who see female nudity as exploitative no matter who shoots it, and believe that the concept of artistic nudity is just a fig leaf for the same old gender repression. But as we’ve said before, when artful nudity becomes taboo, control over what constitutes normal sex is ceded to the porn industry. How’s that working out?
We think whether a nude female image is exploitative depends on myriad considerations: who made it and when; who financed it and what was paid, if anything; who appeared in it and why; whether they appeared willingly (even if it was only for money); what the art was trying to depict or say; the context in which it was disseminated or displayed;
and whether it succeeded purely as a discrete piece of art. With all those factors in play, it’s easier to just condemn everything. The final consideration, though, is key: the successful execution of the piece. Good art, as long as it was never intended to harm or subjugate, immediately or eventually sheds cultural criticisms like a duck sheds water.
and whether it succeeded purely as a discrete piece of art. With all those factors in play, it’s easier to just condemn everything. The final consideration, though, is key: the successful execution of the piece. Good art, as long as it was never intended to harm or subjugate, immediately or eventually sheds cultural criticisms like a duck sheds water.Sexual desire is encoded in our DNA. Erotic art will rebound from the new puritanism and will always exist, but with the inclusion of fresh points of view. Arguably, it’s already happening. Art is an appropriate realm for exploring sexual ideas. Erotic photography is pulp-related due to the sexual subtext of so much pulp literature and film noir, the evolution of men’s adventure magazines into nudie mags, and the popularity of cheesecake pin-ups. The relationship between sexual subtext and a nude is exactly the same as the relationship between a word, and a definition of that word. We offer some definitions here at Pulp Intl. and will continue making the connection between what is hinted at versus what can be shown, even if for the time being sharing nudes means we’re swimming upstream.
