3
sentences describing the author's argument in “Filthy Funnies:
Notes on the Body in Animated
Pornography” by José
B. Capino
What's the author
arguing FOR as a flavour overall?
Capino appears to
be arguing FOR animation as a medium for everything including
pornography – not necessarily pornographic cartoons as high art,
but as a valid form of animation and a good use of the medium (“if
we see cartoons as a medium for all ages... we would have no problem
linking animated porn to allied traditions of erotic illustration”).
The “unreal” nature of cartoons complements the exaggeration of
live-action pornography perfectly (“hypersexuality par
excellence”). Capino argues against viewing animated porn as
a lesser version of its live-action counterpart and instead considers
I a new means of exploring human sexuality, using Algis Makas' Show
Biz as an example: live-action footage gaining new energy*
through being rotoscoped.
*More human? -->
Clay
*Technical aspects,
but also broader ideas + relationship between the two
A question that was
not fully (or satisfactorily) answered by the text** – an inquiry;
open question
Relates to one's
practice as an animator (not necessarily technically)
You don't have to
answer it – it's harder to get questions than answers
Should animated
porn replace real pornography, or simply co-exist with it?
Capino comments on the latter's lack of ability to depict female
pleasure, as well as the former's potential to provide surreal
physical comedy; one could put two and two together but Capino never
explicitly states that one is “superior” to the other. He
definitely argues the validity of animated pornography, but
what about its superior- or inferiority to live action? What does
Capino think as an academic OR a viewer of animation?
**The kind of
question you might get for your first year essay
Avoid language like
“we; they” - be SPECIFIC – a time and place
How do you support
your own opinion? Self-analyse!
No comments:
Post a Comment