What form of art is inherently the most asexual in nature?

[The A Life Team]

If 1% of people are asexual then logically 1% of artists should be asexual as well, so why isn't 1% of art asexual? That is the question on the table on this episode of A Life as well as a recap of some of the more popular fictional characters who may or may not be asexual.

Please do add your thoughts about the subject, but I urge you to listen to the show first. It will considerably clarify the poll and give tons of thought-provoking entertainment. You can find the show here:

http://alifepodcast.wordpress.com/

[Kino]

Well,I figure, it's because 99% of art isn't sexual. A decent part is, but the artists' sexuality doesn't really have to come into play if they're trying to make a completely unrelated point.

This might apply even more so for asexual artists. Their (lack of) sexuality might come up even less in their minds than a sexual artists', so asexual artists may be more likely to focus on non- sexuality related issues.

As a great T-Shirt once said: " Asexuals have other things on their minds."

Another thing that might lower the proportion of asexual art, is that, like you folks pointed out, asexuality is really, REALLY hard to get across in a single frame /portrait. Longer pieces such as books and film, sure. But in a single picture there's too much background information and context that needs to be given.

A really nice example of this is conveinently located in the AVEN store, particularly the 'AVENitions' part. There's lots of asexual art there, but how much of it needs context? If you'd never heard about asexuality before, and were sexual yourself, how much of that would you understand as being 'asexual' without context? In a weird way, AVEN and asexuality are kind of built on context. If you're not asxeual, and don't know much about it, you won't 'get' asexual art.

'course, that kind of implies we shouldn't talk about cake and give it out so much. An idea I wholly disagree with. So it's probably best to ignore that last part.

[------]

Well,I figure, it's because 99% of art isn't sexual.

Just because they aren't explicitly sexual could still mean there's an attachment to sexuality. So let's at least knock it down to 98% just in case. Plus art take a lot of interpretation. I studied Philosophy of Art a few years ago and I'm too lazy to go into it but - on a basic level - it's what you see. If we all look at a Dali painting we'll all see something different and if somebody makes a connexion to something sexual I wouldn't be surprised.

Plus it must be noted that times change. Years ago you wouldn't have television shows and films, novels, whatever, featuring sexual content so obviously the majority of that would be un-sexual... and of course the art for children, made by children.

I usually agree with Henrik on most issues he brings up in the podcast. He generally makes sense. Not this time. At 12,46 when you're going through the 'most artists are sexual, so most art is sexual' nope you've already lost me. Plus asexuals can do art about sex... like me. :D Because I like sex. Doesn't make me sexual... damn close though.

I don't find non-sexual art is naturally asexual. Just because it's not hot doesn't make it cold.

Putting labels onto art irritates me as both a philosopher and an artist.

You American; it's Van Gogh. It's said the same way as 'loch', doubt you can say that properly either.

I'm instantly reminded of S37E03 of Have I Got News For You. *shrugs*

... *stops listening at 18mins* *shrugs*

I don't particularly have a point at all in this post.

[KAGU143]

I would say that still life paintings of bowls of fruit and flowers are fairly asexual, and the same could be said of landscapes, most cityscapes and etc.

A lot of western art is more or less asexual. How about nature-based woodcarving?

Essentially, I don't think that any particular form, or medium is asexual, but an asexual subject can be rendered in any medium by a person of any sexuality.

-gb

[Sally]

If 1% of people are asexual then logically 1% of artists should be asexual as well

Didn't listen to the thing but that's not logical. Artists are a particular subset of people with particular interests and talents, not just a random group of people.

[Trolley Girl]

I just had to go with pottery, because as far as I am concerned, it has the least to do with people in a visual sense.

[UraNepu]

It depends totally on the subject

I voted for Theater.

for example if a documentary is for bees then you'll get to see how they pick up honey/whatever, if you watch a documentary with the sexual life of animals you'll get to see animals having sex.

a painting with flowers is non-sexual one, a painting with a nude woman though can be sexual

same goes with all different kinds of art depends on the subject

Pop culture is full of sex because the target group is every other average person.

those of us who seek the difference we have to search for it

[Hpets]

The people who went with pottery clearly never saw the film "Ghost." ;)