Vampireseal

Are Georgia O'Keeffe's Paintings Erotic?

  

  1. 1. For asexuals--Do you find Georgia O'Keefe's art to be erotic?

    • Not at all. (Vaginas? What vaginas?)
      19
    • Slightly erotic. (I can kind of see it)
      12
    • Totally erotic. (I'm looking at pure sex)
      3
    • Not asexual--see second question.
      1
  2. 2. For non-asexuals--Do you find Georgia O'Keefe's art to be erotic?

    • Not at all. (Vaginas? What vaginas?)
      2
    • Slightly erotic. (I can kind of see it)
      3
    • Totally erotic. (I'm looking at pure sex)
      0
    • Asexual--see first question
      30

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

17 posts in this topic

I found this interesting article in Care2 Causes. I just have to say that never in my life have I considered O'Keefe's bones and flowers to be erotic. I just thought they were pretty flowers and cow skulls. Granted, if I was a huge O'Keefe fan, maybe I would have known, but I didn't.

At any rate, according researchers of Muhlenberg College of Pennsylvania, women find O'Keefe are more erotic when they are at their most fertile part of the menstrual cycle.

I was surprised to find the survey at the bottom of article found that 46% of readers found the works erotic as well. Damn, I had no idea, people. People see vaginas everywhere.

So for all my fellow asexuals, here's the requisite survey for ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find some of O'Keefe's flowers to be slightly erotic, but then when you think about it, flowers are basically plants' sex organs. And pollen, well, do I have to spell it out to you what that is? Kind of kinky and disgusting when you think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find some of O'Keefe's flowers to be slightly erotic, but then when you think about it, flowers are basically plants' sex organs. And pollen, well, do I have to spell it out to you what that is? Kind of kinky and disgusting when you think about it.

True--flowers are a plant's sex organs. And flowers have been a yonic symbol for centuries. Still, not every portrayal of a flower is intended to be erotic, and it never occurred to me that O'Keefe's could be or should be intended to be erotic. I wonder if that was her intent, or if she was simply interested in them from a standpoint of a naturist's eye for beauty. I'm just wondering if I'm going to be surprised 20 years from now to learn that Audubon's birds were all sexual symbols?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never heard of them being erotic before, but I can see the slight eroticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does genital-esque imagery HAVE to be considered "erotic"?

According to dictionary.com,

e·rot·ic   /ɪˈrɒtɪk/ Show Spelled

[ih-rot-ik] Show IPA

–adjective Also, e·rot·i·cal.

1. arousing or satisfying sexual desire: an erotic dance.

2. of, pertaining to, or treating of sexual love; amatory: an erotic novel.

3. subject to or marked by strong sexual desire.

So while they look like genitals, I wouldn't say they're erotic. They might arouse or satisfy someone's sexual desire, but whether they do for the majority? I'm doubtful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does genital-esque imagery HAVE to be considered "erotic"?

This is what I was thinking. I see the vajays but I don't find them erotic. They're flowers.. That happen to look like a female's anatomy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this was why people acted strangely that day in art... I remember in passing that my teacher may have said something about them being considered erotic, but I didn't pay attention- it just didn't strike that chord with me. They're bones and flowers... I struggle to see the connection to things that aren't bones and flowers here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely some vulvular imagery in there. Progressive female artist......genitals. Just look at Judy Chicago's work. No wait, don't. -_-

Meep! :blink:

Why did I do it when you clearly said not to!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, most of those pictures did look consistently like female genitalia rofl!

PS thanks Matters of the Heart for using "vulvular", it is my new pet hate when people call the outside a vagina. Isn't there another thread asking if asexuals need sex ed? Answer: yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That many people? :blink: My mind. It is blown.

I just don't get the whole 'seeing penises/vulva' everywhere thing. I mean, seeing faces where there aren't makes sense, considering we use our faces to communicate so much. But genitals? Why does EVERY single object that happens to be a certain shape have to be genitals? (Rhetorical question. I'm sure it has something to do with constantly thinking about sex to ensure the species survival. -_- )

Re: "Does genital-esque imagery have to be considered erotic?" I agree. 'Erotic' is in the eyes of the beholder. Just because an artist creates something featuring or containing nudity (genitals need not be visible) doesn't mean it was meant to be erotic. Of course, just because it wasn't doesn't mean it isn't. (A visual accidental innuendo, if you will.) But still. How erotic something is depends entirely on individual and the culture it's being viewed in. (Ex: Ancient Rome vs. Victorian England vs. rural U.S. vs. urban U.S. 'Scandalizing' is relative.)

I mean, what are anatomy/physiology books, then? More clinical versions of the Karma Sutra? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That many people? :blink: My mind. It is blown.

I just don't get the whole 'seeing penises/vulva' everywhere thing. I mean, seeing faces where there aren't makes sense, considering we use our faces to communicate so much. But genitals? Why does EVERY single object that happens to be a certain shape have to be genitals? (Rhetorical question. I'm sure it has something to do with constantly thinking about sex to ensure the species survival. -_- )

Re: "Does genital-esque imagery have to be considered erotic?" I agree. 'Erotic' is in the eyes of the beholder. Just because an artist creates something featuring or containing nudity (genitals need not be visible) doesn't mean it was meant to be erotic. Of course, just because it wasn't doesn't mean it isn't. (A visual accidental innuendo, if you will.) But still. How erotic something is depends entirely on individual and the culture it's being viewed in. (Ex: Ancient Rome vs. Victorian England vs. rural U.S. vs. urban U.S. 'Scandalizing' is relative.)

I mean, what are anatomy/physiology books, then? More clinical versions of the Karma Sutra? :P

Nice avatar you have there.

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice avatar you have there.

;)

...Thank you? (Sorry, I'm not sure if the compliment is somehow related to my post, or if you quoted for unrelated reasons and are simply complimenting me. :P )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes you see in art what you want to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now