Artist Sig Waller has given Dangerous Minds an exclusive preview of her latest work—3 drawings that form part of her Parlour Games series. The drawings are adapted from 18th century engravings (used to illustrate books by the Marquis de Sade), which are drawn in ink directly onto vintage napkins and antimacassars.
The Park is a disturbing art book by photographer Kohei Yoshiyuki which was originally published in 1980.
In the early 1970s, Yoshiyuki (not his real name) joined the throngs of voyeurs who would do their “peeping” in Tokyo’s Yoyogi Park, but not to peep himself (or so he says!), rather he was there to document the goings on with his camera and infra-red film. It would sometimes take him hours of waiting to get his shot. The photographs were blown up into life-size black and white prints and shown at the Komai Gallery in 1979 along with examples of amateur porn left behind in Tokyo’s hourly sex hotels. Post modern in the extreme—dig the triple transgression of the exhibitionist couplings, the peeping toms and the photographer capturing both—the show was a sensation in Japan.
Eventually Yoshiyuki’s paranoia got the best of him and he quit shooting the peepers, destroyed many of his negatives and began working in family portraiture(!). In 2005 the New York-based Yossi Milo Gallery contacted the artist and convinced him to reprint from the remaining negatives.
Characteristically serene and sweet, diarist and erotic writer Anaïs Nin waxes poetic on some of her favorite rebellious women, including psychoanalyst Lou Andreas-Salomé (who could hold her own against Freud and Nietzsche) and Caresse Crosby, the infamous libertine, anti-war crusader and publisher of Joyce, Kay Boyle, Hemingway, Hart Crane, D. H. Lawrence, René Crevel, T. S. Eliot, and Ezra Pound.
Nin expounds on her penchant for female rabble-rousers, as well as peacemakers, leading into her LSD experience (the drug was administered by Dr. Oscar Janiger) “a world accessible to the poet, accessible to the artist,” in which she “became gold.”
Blog of Zontar the thing from Venus posted some rather hilarious 70s porn movie paperback tie-ins. The one for Defiance!... is that an actual novelization of a porn movie? (I wonder how many of those there were?)
A few of these are so absurd, they’re just… absurd.
This Valentine’s Day, Vermont Teddy Bears is pushing their “Big Hunka Love Bear,” a four and a half foot high fluffy compensation, with the promise of decent, monogamous, heterosexual sex. What’s compelling about their pitch, though, is their attempt to rebrand the Teddy Bear; no longer is it a floating signifier for innocence and childhood! No, Vermont Teddy Bears wants you to get that teddy bears are pure sex. The attempt is valiant.
Watch the commercial below, as TV-sexy women float sublimely with a slow-motion etherealness befitting of a 90s R and B music video, men are lead to believe that not only is getting a giant teddy bear a good way to ensure coital consummation, it is the best way.
”Guys, this Valentine’s Day, size really does matter.”
Your penis is insufficient. This woman even carries a ruler, to scientifically prove it. Note her castrating gaze. She will tell all the other women you are inadequate. She is laughing at you.
”You wanna’ score big points with your Valentine? Go big, with the Big Hunka Love Bear from Vermont Teddy Bears.”
This stuffed animal will confuse your sexual target, obfuscating your obvious short-comings.
“This guy is a four and a half foot pile of awesomeness.”
We are employing youthful dialect here to relate to your obvious virility. Dane Cook wants you to buy this bear. So does Andrew WK.
”He’s big. He’s soft. And let’s face it—no girl can resists a teddy bear that’s this adorable.”
All female sexualities are permanently frozen in girlhood, and, contrary to popular belief, they would rather have something soft than hard.
”Who wants to spend a lot of money on flowers that will die in days?”
The goal of affection should always be one of permanent accumulation.
”Chocolates taste good for a few seconds, but then she’s gonna’ ask if she looks too fat.”
Bitches love chocolate, but bitches hate their bodies. Amiright, bros?!?
“…order your Valentine the giant Big Hunka Love Bear for this special limited time offer, of only $99.”
Capitalism dictates that, eventually, all sexual economies will use Teddy Bears as currency. You best get on that shit
”Get her this bear, and she’ll think of you every time she sees it. And when you aren’t around, her bear will be there to keep her company and to keep her thinking about you.”
It will be the fuzzy little guard to your panopticon of love.
”If you want the big reaction, and the big reward…”
Buy bear, receive pussy. Cannot stress this enough, dudes.
“It’s a great gift for her, and it’s sure to pay off for you”
The subscribership of Playgirl has always been a mystery to me. Their brand management has said their readers are about half women, half gay men, but that still offers little to no insight into the head-scratching randomness of Playgirl’s featured “eye-candy.”
In what appears to be no particular order (and additionally, no particular theme), we have Ted Turner (who would later monopolize US media and journalism), Calvin Klein (who would later date a male porn star), Woody Allen (who would later marry his girlfriend’s adopted daughter), and OJ Simpson (who would later murder his wife).
The next pages fare slightly better. You have Burt Reynolds (sure, why not?), Bruce Springsteen (totally respectable!), Alan Bates (first actor to do full frontal in a major studio movie in Women in Love), Johnny Carson (what?), Ted Kennedy, and Jerry Brown (there had to be politicians with more sex appeal).
Of course, this is the same magazine that did a feature of former Enron employees, after they had “lost their shirts.”
I hate to be judgmental, but Playgirl, you have really bad taste in men.
I found Stephen Smith, who presented this investigation into Vladimir Nabokov and his relationship to his infamous novel Lolita, an irritating prick. His opening premise that he can’t talk about Lolita to his friends without their prissy censure, explains much of what is wrong with Smith’s approach to documentary-making. When dealing with a subject as important, as controversial, and as difficult as Nabokov, what Smith or his friends think is irrelevant.
‘I want to be able to carry this around in public,’ Smith exclaims. ‘Read bits out to friends. Maybe not take it out at a parents’ evening, but feel comfortable with it—but I can’t. And that’s crazy fifty years after little Lolita first appeared.’
The problem is Smith’s petite bourgeois values infect everything he says. ‘What kind of person lives in a hotel,’ he asks, almost in sub-Lady Bracknell, before venturing onto what really interests him—the ‘conga-line of young women shimmering through the pages, particularly the latter pages, of Nabokov.’ He then tries to find the ‘missing link’ between Nabokov’s private life and that of his ‘aroused anti-heroes’.
Smith attempts to create a sense of Nabokov as some shady character (perhaps on-the-run?), hiding out in hotels, so that he can postulate about him being a dirty old man. He also asks trivial and facetious questions. For example, his opener to the bar man at the Montreux Palace, where the writer lived in his later years, is not ‘what sort of man was Nabokov?’ but rather, ‘was he a snob?’ which he followed-up with ‘did he tip?’
Whether intentional or not, Smith wanders round this whole documentary like some second-fiddle Nabokovian character, sweaty, charmless, petty, narrow-minded, and grossly bourgeois. It would be funny, if Smith did not clog-up so much of what should be interesting with his trite psycho-analysis (what would Nabokov make of that?) and his penchant for stating the-bleedin’-obvious. His conclusion is where he should have started, but then this would have been a documentary about why Stephen Smith thinks about Nabokov the way he does, and that would never have filled an hour.
What is good about this documentary is the original archive and interviews with Nabokov, and if you want to read the great man discussing Lolita and much more, then check out this excellent interview from the Paris Review
That’s pretty much the long and short of it! (zing)
It’s actually a really impressive campaign. It’s aware enough to know that 1) safe sex campaigns need to be tailored to specific communities, especially with regard to race and class, and 2) safe sex campaigns need to start with age groups that are probably not yet having sex. As some one from abstinence-only middle America, it’s a little mind-blowing to see such a frank effort to destigmatize youth-based sex education.
The campaign started in the 80s with a single comic, but it was apparently so well-liked, the 2 Spirits Project (a queer aborginal sex education group) and Queensland Health just released a second issue with an updated look, and a new STD-fighting partner—Lubelicious. Lube prevents condom rips, folks!
It might look a bit cheesy (and slightly absurd), but the dedication and insight of the activists involved is definitely not in question. Check out the Facebook! They dress up!
The fabulous chanteuse Anne Pigalle returns with a new exhibition of artwork, Is There Life After Sex?, which will be on show at Natalie Galustian Rare Books, 22 Cecil Court, London, from February 1st-21st.
Following on from the great success of Miss Pigalle’s last exhibition (at the Michael Hoppen Gallery), Is There Life After Sex? is a must-see show which will continue her discourse on relationships and the important role of sexuality in our lives.
Miss Pigalle will also be holding one of her legendary Salons, on February 14th, where Anne will perform a choice selection from her acclaimed erotic poems L’Ame Erotique. For those who wish to experience something new, important and very special, I suggest they go along to see the Last Chanteuse Ms. Anne Pigalle. Check here for details
Dangerous Minds is a compendium of oddities, pop culture treasures, high weirdness, punk rock and politics drawn from the outer reaches of pop culture. Our editorial policy, such that it is, reflects the interests, whimsies and peculiarities of the individual writers. And sometimes it doesn't. Very often the idea is just "Here's what so and so said, take a look and see what you think."
I'll repeat that: We're not necessarily endorsing everything you'll find here, we're merely saying "Here it is." We think human beings are very strange and often totally hilarious. We enjoy weird and inexplicable things very much. We believe things have to change and change swiftly. It's got to be about the common good or it's no good at all. We like to get suggestions of fun/serious things from our good-looking, high IQ readers. We are your favorite distraction.