Bartleby
Moderator
I know right? I mean, as much as I understand the sight of those posteriors potentially arousing a viewer in a sexual way, I believe they’re not the work of a pervert hehe, they (in my view) are meant to and can be appreciated for aesthetic value alone, for beauty in sight of all of creation; as in Whitman’s view that every man and every woman, every body is beautiful; that’s why I’m dying to read Death in Venice; I may be proven wrong, but I reckon people view Aschenbach’s astonishment by that boy’s beauty as erotic, i.e. his wanting to start a romantic relationship with the lad; but it may just be the fact of being struck by beauty, wherever it comes from, as opposed to something like Humbert Humbert’s condition... but then it could be argued that everything granting pleasure is erotic: a handshake, the sight of a beautiful flower, the reading of an arresting passage in a book, a nun’s ecstatic state etc...I don't know, my friend, I just google-searched his art and all I keep seeing is young men's delightful posteriors,
Last edited: