香港新浪網 MySinaBlog
羅卓睿 | 7th Jan 2014 | MICHAEL ANDREW LAW | (1 Reads)
Note:All Michael Andrew law artworks, names, images, likenesses, slogans, gestures, trademarks, logos and copyrights are the exclusive property of LAW CHEUK YUI and its subsidiaries. All other trademarks, logos and copyrights are the property of their respective owners. c 2011 Michael Andrew Law, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
The textual, photographic, video, audio, and combined audiovisual programs and products resulting from Michael Andrew Law's Artworks and products including the material contained in this web site, are protected under Hong Kong,SAR,China and international laws as copyrighted works. Anyone who displays, reproduces, copies, creates derivative works, or sells our textual, photographic, video or audiovisual programs for commercial or non-commercial purposes without our permission violates the copyright laws and is liable for copyright infringement
2014 Workshops
In 2014, I am holding workshop at Central, Hong Kong's NatureArt Gallery.
If you're considering a workshop for paintings, email me with any questions. I hope to paint with you in 2014.
If you're interested, view all my Current Painting Auctions and Available Paintings.
在 2014年,我每星期也在中環,香港NatureArt舉行繪畫工作坊。
如果你正在考慮為一個學畫的工作室,可立即發電子郵件給我。我希望能在 2014與你
如果你有興趣,亦請查看我所有的當前正進行之繪畫拍賣原畫/海報出售
FREE Michael Andrew Law painting Poster for You

In case you missed it, I released my new FREE poster/desktop wallpaper download for your tablet or smart phone. 
Hope you enjoy it, and feel free to share it with your friends.
免費Michael Andrew Law桌面海報送俾你:
我發布了我新的免費桌報/桌面壁紙,請即為您的平板電腦或智能手機下載。

希望你喜歡它,並歡迎隨時與朋友分享。
Best,

羅卓睿 | 7th Jan 2014 | MICHAEL ANDREW LAW
 ©2013 michael andrew law./Law Cheuk Yui. All rights reserved.
©2013 michael andrew law./Law Cheuk Yui. All rights reserved.


羅卓睿 | 7th Jan 2014 | MICHAEL ANDREW LAW

 ©2013 michael andrew law./Law Cheuk Yui. All rights reserved.
©2013 michael andrew law./Law Cheuk Yui. All rights reserved.

羅卓睿 | 7th Jan 2014 | MICHAEL ANDREW LAW

   You‘d think something that works its way into so much of our advertising, art and general conversations — “sexiness” — would be easier to nail down. But when Esquire, a men’s magazine that has ostensibly printed enough “sexy” covers since 1933 to know, asked a man and a woman to answer the question “What is sexy?” as part of a “fair and balanced investigation” into the notion, the responses that came back are, to traffic in cliché, about as clear as mud.
Plugged Up: Meet The Man With A Constipation Fetish
Tom is a 30-something married man; well-spoken, articulate, and easygoing. He also gets off on constipated women. Read…
But you don’t have to read it to discover what sexy is, because I can tell you what is sexy: Everything. Anything. Everything is sexy. Anything is sexy. I really mean it. It’s not all sexy to you or to me, of course, but pretty much everything is sexy to someone. Or even a lot of someones. (I know you will be able to trot out some horrible/depraved thing that is not sexy at all, and I have to say, remember the guy with the constipation fetish? Alright then.)

Perhaps this is why it’s so hard to define, and so hard to talk about accurately. What is sexy is like asking what is pretty — the answer is, it depends. There are lots of things most people think of as sexy, but no one definitive thing that amounts to sexy in the eyes of everyone, or even at all times. And that’s probably for a very simple reason: sexiness is in our DNA, so the sheer number of things we could find sexy are truly unfathomable. It is so subjective, so whimsical, so dependent on a particular confluence of experiences, images, and cultural conditioning, to say nothing of circumstance, that no one notion of sexiness is quite going to get it.

As a culture, we are constantly striving to define “sexy.” If you just Google “what is sexy,” the most recent results are roundups that place in sexy’s mailbox behaviors ranging from being affectionate to laughing at a guy’s jokes to being nice, to being modest.

We tell men things like, real sexiness is when you do the dishes, and we tell women things like, real sexiness is when you have bulletproof confidence. But real sexiness is both everywhere and elusive, and could be any of the following items from this extremely impartial list:

Sexy-insecure
Sexy-ugly
Sexy-portly
Sexy-scrawny
Sexy-androgynous
Sexy-dumb
Sexy-smart
Sexy-funny
Sexy-serious
Sexy-nice
Sexy-mean
Sexy-controlling
Sexy-generous
Sexy-clean
Sexy-dirty
Sexy-goofy
Sexy-bored
You get the point. The sheer range of what could be considered sexy is so vast, so expansive, because at our core, most of us want to have sex at some point or another, meaning, it behooves to not be limited in what turns us on, no? It would be problematic, population-wise, if the only thing we thought was sexy was, say, the smell of jasmine on Saturdays in July for a five-minute window.

And when you are a sex-having people, it would seem then that inclusivity would be a good thing. But don’t go looking for that over in Esquire’s thing — but should you want to read it anyhow, go for it. It involves a dude talking to a bunch of models and a woman who doesn’t think men should Care about how they look. Sure, I love when investigations turn over precisely one leaf, and one leaf only. But nowhere are the following obviously sexy things covered:

Avocados
Volcanoes
The word desiderata
Reading out loud
Screeds
Drawers that open slowly
The explaining of scientific/sophisticated concepts in lay terms
Big, long, tedious, nuanced debates
Old books
Handwritten letters
People who are willing to talk about handwritten letters
Fog
I could go on. We haven’t even started talking about knee socks or people who have good watch arms or elbow patches on tweed blazers or the way hair that isn’t supposed to be messy looks when it gets accidentally messy?

The Problem With All These Half-Naked Pop Stars
Miley Cyrus in a thong. Ke$ha in a thong. Rihanna in a thong. Lady Gaga in a thong. Miley Cyrus in pasties. Nicki Minaj in pasties. Miley… Read…
These things are sexy. You could put all these things in a room and I might never be pulled from that room. The takeaway here is not to send me a care package of avocados and old letters, though you totally can, it’s that sexy is a construct, and unfortunately, in this world, it’s a very very very unimaginative, narrow, boring one that fails to address many sexy things and focuses on other, boring things that have been sexy for so long I’m willing to suggest right here they might have even lost some of their sexy. (Boring can be sexy, truth told.) Maybe it’s all the hot body fatigue, but I’m really looking forward to sweaters.

Here’s the thing: If you think about the first thing you thought was sexy, it might be the silliest thing in the world. I think one of the first things I thought was sexy was a guy on the cover of an old Sweet Valley High book, just some preppy guy with like, an oxford shirt? But this image had been framed for me, through the books targeted to me, through current fashion, through the way other girls I knew coveted them, to the way the very stories written about them encoded their desirability for me, ready-made, as ideal. Also, he was a cute guy?

But the point is, almost nothing happens in a vacuum, especially our notions of what’s appealing. That is to say, your idea of sexy is a mash-up of images, ideas, cultural conditioning, particular preferences, and your own specific experiences in the world. We know that notions of sexy over time have changed alongside fashion — women’s weight, men’s facial hair — thus explaining the ability to go back and find photos of bearded Civil War soldiers super hot without even having to visit Brooklyn.

What bugs me is that when people think anything that isn’t a Victoria’s Secret model/George Clooney isn’t sexy, they feel like they are the exception to the sexy rule, that their taste is somehow offbeat. I do it all the time, and then I catch myself: there’s nothing offbeat about being drawn to regular humans with all their flaws and peccadilloes. What’s weirder is that we’re so conditioned toward the fake image that it is has become normalized as Definitively Sexy.

That said, there’s another big contradiction in the discussion: What we say looks sexy and what actually looks and, more importantly, feels sexy are often two entirely different things. Soft, fleshy skin looks and feels lovely to me — I am one of those people who almost always prefers the look, instant-judgment style, of the before picture of the woman over the really gaunt, zero-body fat after-woman I know I’m supposed to want to be. But the general perception is there’s this one version of sexy, and only one.

Then there is not what merely looks or feels sexy, but what sounds sexy and also stimulates the mind. For an easy example of what I’m talking about, see Sarah Polley’s brilliant film Take This Waltz, a movie that swims in the idea of sex and sexiness without indulging in it, at least, not like you’d expect. One of the sexiest scenes in the very lushly shot movie involves no actual sex, it’s Daniel (Luke Kirby) describing in sweet-yet-simultaneously-pornographic language what he would do to Margot (Michelle Williams), if he were, in fact, able to do with her what he pleased. And it all happens at 2 p.m. in a bar with martinis on the table that are never consumed. Sexy is sitting there telling someone how you want to explore them, even when you are not touching.

Of course, yeah, those are good-looking people in movies. It’s going to be sexy regardless I guess. But this, to me, seems closer to real life than the majority of what is sold to me as sexy — hyper-groomed, hyper-cultivated, antiseptic images of sexy perfection that don’t allow for flaws, quirks, or most of the time, even words.

Not that images aren’t perfectly sexy. It’s just for every person to decide, and it might be of use to consider how unexpected sexiness can be. On that note, I leave you with an essay someone sent me a while back that I still think about sometimes. I doubt it’s the sort of thing most people conjure when they think about sexiness, and it would never make it into most men’s mags to be heralded as such, but it’s a pretty radical read on seeing a sex surrogate from the perspective of a quadriplegic that forced me to reconsider my ideas about this whole sexy business. Perhaps it will for you, too.



羅卓睿 | 7th Jan 2014 | MICHAEL ANDREW LAW
   You'd think something that works its way into so much of our advertising, art and general conversations — "sexiness" — would be easier to nail down. But when Esquire, a men's magazine that has ostensibly printed enough "sexy" covers since 1933 to know, asked a man and a woman to answer the question "What is sexy?" as part of a "fair and balanced investigation" into the notion, the responses that came back are, to traffic in cliché, about as clear as mud.
Plugged Up: Meet The Man With A Constipation Fetish
Tom is a 30-something married man; well-spoken, articulate, and easygoing. He also gets off on constipated women. Read…
But you don't have to read it to discover what sexy is, because I can tell you what is sexy: Everything. Anything. Everything is sexy. Anything is sexy. I really mean it. It's not all sexy to you or to me, of course, but pretty much everything is sexy to someone. Or even a lot of someones. (I know you will be able to trot out some horrible/depraved thing that is not sexy at all, and I have to say, remember the guy with the constipation fetish? Alright then.)

Perhaps this is why it's so hard to define, and so hard to talk about accurately. What is sexy is like asking what is pretty — the answer is, it depends. There are lots of things most people think of as sexy, but no one definitive thing that amounts to sexy in the eyes of everyone, or even at all times. And that's probably for a very simple reason: sexiness is in our DNA, so the sheer number of things we could find sexy are truly unfathomable. It is so subjective, so whimsical, so dependent on a particular confluence of experiences, images, and cultural conditioning, to say nothing of circumstance, that no one notion of sexiness is quite going to get it.

As a culture, we are constantly striving to define "sexy." If you just Google "what is sexy," the most recent results are roundups that place in sexy's mailbox behaviors ranging from being affectionate to laughing at a guy's jokes to being nice, to being modest.

We tell men things like, real sexiness is when you do the dishes, and we tell women things like, real sexiness is when you have bulletproof confidence. But real sexiness is both everywhere and elusive, and could be any of the following items from this extremely impartial list:

Sexy-insecure
Sexy-ugly
Sexy-portly
Sexy-scrawny
Sexy-androgynous
Sexy-dumb
Sexy-smart
Sexy-funny
Sexy-serious
Sexy-nice
Sexy-mean
Sexy-controlling
Sexy-generous
Sexy-clean
Sexy-dirty
Sexy-goofy
Sexy-bored
You get the point. The sheer range of what could be considered sexy is so vast, so expansive, because at our core, most of us want to have sex at some point or another, meaning, it behooves to not be limited in what turns us on, no? It would be problematic, population-wise, if the only thing we thought was sexy was, say, the smell of jasmine on Saturdays in July for a five-minute window.

And when you are a sex-having people, it would seem then that inclusivity would be a good thing. But don't go looking for that over in Esquire's thing — but should you want to read it anyhow, go for it. It involves a dude talking to a bunch of models and a woman who doesn't think men should Care about how they look. Sure, I love when investigations turn over precisely one leaf, and one leaf only. But nowhere are the following obviously sexy things covered:

Avocados
Volcanoes
The word desiderata
Reading out loud
Screeds
Drawers that open slowly
The explaining of scientific/sophisticated concepts in lay terms
Big, long, tedious, nuanced debates
Old books
Handwritten letters
People who are willing to talk about handwritten letters
Fog
I could go on. We haven't even started talking about knee socks or people who have good watch arms or elbow patches on tweed blazers or the way hair that isn't supposed to be messy looks when it gets accidentally messy?

The Problem With All These Half-Naked Pop Stars
Miley Cyrus in a thong. Ke$ha in a thong. Rihanna in a thong. Lady Gaga in a thong. Miley Cyrus in pasties. Nicki Minaj in pasties. Miley… Read…
These things are sexy. You could put all these things in a room and I might never be pulled from that room. The takeaway here is not to send me a care package of avocados and old letters, though you totally can, it's that sexy is a construct, and unfortunately, in this world, it's a very very very unimaginative, narrow, boring one that fails to address many sexy things and focuses on other, boring things that have been sexy for so long I'm willing to suggest right here they might have even lost some of their sexy. (Boring can be sexy, truth told.) Maybe it's all the hot body fatigue, but I'm really looking forward to sweaters.

Here's the thing: If you think about the first thing you thought was sexy, it might be the silliest thing in the world. I think one of the first things I thought was sexy was a guy on the cover of an old Sweet Valley High book, just some preppy guy with like, an oxford shirt? But this image had been framed for me, through the books targeted to me, through current fashion, through the way other girls I knew coveted them, to the way the very stories written about them encoded their desirability for me, ready-made, as ideal. Also, he was a cute guy?

But the point is, almost nothing happens in a vacuum, especially our notions of what's appealing. That is to say, your idea of sexy is a mash-up of images, ideas, cultural conditioning, particular preferences, and your own specific experiences in the world. We know that notions of sexy over time have changed alongside fashion — women's weight, men's facial hair — thus explaining the ability to go back and find photos of bearded Civil War soldiers super hot without even having to visit Brooklyn.

What bugs me is that when people think anything that isn't a Victoria's Secret model/George Clooney isn't sexy, they feel like they are the exception to the sexy rule, that their taste is somehow offbeat. I do it all the time, and then I catch myself: there's nothing offbeat about being drawn to regular humans with all their flaws and peccadilloes. What's weirder is that we're so conditioned toward the fake image that it is has become normalized as Definitively Sexy.

That said, there's another big contradiction in the discussion: What we say looks sexy and what actually looks and, more importantly, feels sexy are often two entirely different things. Soft, fleshy skin looks and feels lovely to me — I am one of those people who almost always prefers the look, instant-judgment style, of the before picture of the woman over the really gaunt, zero-body fat after-woman I know I'm supposed to want to be. But the general perception is there's this one version of sexy, and only one.

Then there is not what merely looks or feels sexy, but what sounds sexy and also stimulates the mind. For an easy example of what I'm talking about, see Sarah Polley's brilliant film Take This Waltz, a movie that swims in the idea of sex and sexiness without indulging in it, at least, not like you'd expect. One of the sexiest scenes in the very lushly shot movie involves no actual sex, it's Daniel (Luke Kirby) describing in sweet-yet-simultaneously-pornographic language what he would do to Margot (Michelle Williams), if he were, in fact, able to do with her what he pleased. And it all happens at 2 p.m. in a bar with martinis on the table that are never consumed. Sexy is sitting there telling someone how you want to explore them, even when you are not touching.

Of course, yeah, those are good-looking people in movies. It's going to be sexy regardless I guess. But this, to me, seems closer to real life than the majority of what is sold to me as sexy — hyper-groomed, hyper-cultivated, antiseptic images of sexy perfection that don't allow for flaws, quirks, or most of the time, even words.

Not that images aren't perfectly sexy. It's just for every person to decide, and it might be of use to consider how unexpected sexiness can be. On that note, I leave you with an essay someone sent me a while back that I still think about sometimes. I doubt it's the sort of thing most people conjure when they think about sexiness, and it would never make it into most men's mags to be heralded as such, but it's a pretty radical read on seeing a sex surrogate from the perspective of a quadriplegic that forced me to reconsider my ideas about this whole sexy business. Perhaps it will for you, too.

羅卓睿 | 7th Jan 2014 | MICHAEL ANDREW LAW | (2 Reads)
   Although I generally like to research a topic before writing on it (to make sure I’m fully “informed”), for this post I purposely avoided doing so. Why? Well, ultimately, this whole area seemed so subjective to me–the criteria used for distinguishing between the erotic and pornographic so steeped in personalmoral, aesthetic, and religious values–that I feared immersing myself in the controversial literature might end up “diluting” my own viewpoint. Even though many people regard these two orientations to human sexuality as overlapping (and some even as identical), I see them as existing on essentially different planes. And in this brief essay I’ll attempt to explain why.
   It’s not a coincidence that when scholars reflect on eroticism in the fine arts, they’re frequently considering the human form as the artist has more or less idealized it. Whether the visual medium is drawing, engraving, lithography, painting, sculpture, photography, or film, they view the creator as striving to capture a certain almost inexpressible beauty about the human anatomy, or the act of love. And since the very perception of beauty–or that which is aesthetic–is ultimately subjective, they’re generally aware that one artist’s sense of the beautiful might actually be another’s plain or homely. Further, they can appreciate that an artist’s perception of beauty might have as much to do with innerattractiveness, charm, or loveliness than with any outward glamour or seductiveness. What is laudable may not be “skin-deep” at all.
The key element here isn’t whether the composition of the face or figure is anatomically correct, or whether the art object’s style is realistic, impressionistic, expressionistic, or anything else. If the work has been executed erotically, it’s generally assumed that the creator viewed the subject matter as praiseworthy. Something to take pleasure in, celebrate, exalt, glorify. . . . And in this sense, the erotic and the aesthetic merge.
Not to say that the artist’s work–similar to pornography–isn’t also evocative. But, unlike pornography, it doesn’t appeal exclusively to our senses or carnal appetites. It also engages our aesthetic sense, our judgment about how this or that figure illustrates an ideal of human beauty. The rendering may border on the abstract, or be as real as an untouched photograph. It may be black and white, or in color. Male or female. The humans portrayed may be contemporary and real, ancient or mythic. What finally determines the work’s eroticism is how the artist (or, for that matter, author or composer) approaches their subject.

All art is interpretive, just as what’s perceived as erotic is interpretive. And if eroticism represents a kind of beauty–though of a more alluring, provocative sort, and one that can engender a certain longing or desire–then erotic works actually can be seen as a “subset” of art in general. And if artists don’t view their subjects as erotically beautiful–don’t in some way betray their love (even lustful adoration) for them–it’s unlikely that you’ll be so moved either. But assuming their creative intentions have been realized, you may be made privy to a joyful sensuality that feels at once exciting and enriching.

There’s substantially more overlap between the aesthetic and the erotic than the erotic and the pornographic. Unquestionably, erotica and pornography both present the human organism in a manner that’s sexually compelling. But the aim of the pornographer is hardly to help his or her (most likely his) audience rejoice in the human form–or in some way honor physical intimacy, or the joys of the flesh. Rather, the objective (typically leaving little or nothing to the imagination) is to “turn on” the viewer. It’s less evocative or suggestive thanexhibitionist. The unabashed goal is simple and straightforward: titillation and immediate, intense arousal (skip the foreplay, please!). Or, to put it even more bluntly, an instantaneous stirring of the genitals.

Admittedly, the erotic might end up having the same effect. Still, the ideal behind erotica is to transcend its literally provocative subject–to add a third dimension, if you will. In aspiring to celebrate the varieties of sexual bliss, and the universal desire for carnal union (which, deep within, just might carry hints of the divine), the eroticist seeks to portray a vision of both human pulchritude and the potential ecstasy that humans–through sexually joining–can share. One that won’t grow old, or become stale over time (as pornographic images generally do).

Also, with pornography, it’s basically “sex for sale.” Artists pursue eroticism, I think, as they pursue beauty. It may sell, but if their goal is genuinely to transmit what they apprehend as almost ethereal in its beguiling sensuality (i.e., is fine art rather than commercial art), then the work’s ‘s monetary value must remain a secondary consideration to them. Pornographers, on the other hand, are far less motivated by the desire to faithfully represent what they may (or may not) regard as beautiful or aesthetic. Rather, their undertaking is contrived to “produce” what they believe will turn the largest possible profit.
Besides pornography’s being principally a money-making venture, the very word pornography (or better, porn) almost invariably connotes a certain exploitation–at times degradation or desecration– of human sexuality. Many writers (particularly feminists) have rightfully complained that pornography, by objectifying women, reduces them to sex objects whose core value is to satisfy a man’s libidinous needs.

But I believe it actually does much more than that. For I see pornographic literature, songs, images, or films as inevitably cheapening–for both sexes–the whole experience of physical intimacy. It takes acts that may express affection, love, adoration, or even profound caring, and dehumanizes them into something animalistic. Acts that combine love with lust, that can value giving quite as much as receiving–acts in which our partner’s pleasure can be every bit as important as our own–are “mechanized” into mere outlets for alleviating stress or sexual tension. That which we humans aspire to make almost spiritual is derogated to an exploit almost barbaric in its egoistic lack of caring and concern. Pornography is literally sex sans relationship.
If the erotic celebrates sexuality, placing it on a plateau above any essentially masturbatory act of copulation, then it can be seen as diverging markedly from the pornographic. Pornography proposes a temporary “fix” for our sexual frustrations; eroticism offers us something more elusive–an opportunity to experience sensuous delight of a higher order.

Something, perhaps, like gazing (hopefully, not leering!) at Michelangelo’s physically arresting statue of the youth, David, and–even as we’re reacting to its captivating depiction of naked sensuality–simultaneously feeling uplifted by the sight. On the contrary, pornography directs its appeal to our more savage carnal instincts, its portrayal of human flesh calculated to arouse our most primitive appetites.
Not that the pornographic might not revealsome interest in beauty–but only insofar as it serves to heighten sexual allure. Obviously, human beauty can have both aesthetic and sensually enticing dimensions, but the purpose of artistically creating such beauty (vs. employing it to effect materialistic ends) is to express something revelatory, something that allows us to see and experience what, in everyday reality, is all too rare. On the contrary, pornography doesn’t so much pay tribute to universal yearnings as “capitalize” on them.
Finally, what differentiates the erotic from the pornographic isn’t whether or not it’s hard-core explicit, graphically delineating any of the whole gamut of sexual acts. For, historically, erotica has hardly refrained from depicting male and female genitalia, or just about any sexual act (or position!) you might think of–and not just with heterosexuals but with gays and lesbians as well.
Nor is the distinction whether the visual, written, or even musical stimulus appeals to our more prurient interest.
No, what in general separates the erotic from the pornographic is anattitude toward sex and human sexuality that can be inferred from looking (dare I use the word, “objectively”?) at the finished product. If the subjects are portrayed in a manner that focuses on their inner and outer radiance, their fleshy vitality, and the work itself seems to manifest a passionate and powerful affirmation of life and the pleasures of this world, then I think we’re talking erotic. If, however, the subjects seem reduced to so many body parts, if any beauty appears subordinate to the overriding purpose of arousal, if the sex depicted seems depersonalized, controlling, non-mutual, and devoid of fun or play (but rather seems about “getting down to business” and “getting off”)–and if the sex acts pictured contain not a hint of human caring or emotional connectedness to them–that, to me, would definitely secure the work’s place in the realm of pornography.
I welcome your comments on this extremely controversial topic. No matter how hard I’ve tried to avoid it, I’m sure my discussion has in some ways oversimplified its subject. After all, what is one individual’s erotica may well be another’s pornography . . . and vice verse. And what is beckoning or exciting to one person–for it appears to dynamically illustrate ,may yet be offensive, obscene, and repugnant to another. So I invite you to express your own thoughts on the matter. Whatever they are, I guarantee that they’ll have their own (subjective) validity.


羅卓睿 | 7th Jan 2014 | MICHAEL ANDREW LAW
   Although I generally like to research a topic before writing on it (to make sure I'm fully "informed"), for this post I purposely avoided doing so. Why? Well, ultimately, this whole area seemed so subjective to me--the criteria used for distinguishing between the erotic and pornographic so steeped in personalmoral, aesthetic, and religious values--that I feared immersing myself in the controversial literature might end up "diluting" my own viewpoint. Even though many people regard these two orientations to human sexuality as overlapping (and some even as identical), I see them as existing on essentially different planes. And in this brief essay I'll attempt to explain why.
   It's not a coincidence that when scholars reflect on eroticism in the fine arts, they're frequently considering the human form as the artist has more or less idealized it. Whether the visual medium is drawing, engraving, lithography, painting, sculpture, photography, or film, they view the creator as striving to capture a certain almost inexpressible beauty about the human anatomy, or the act of love. And since the very perception of beauty--or that which is aesthetic--is ultimately subjective, they're generally aware that one artist's sense of the beautiful might actually be another's plain or homely. Further, they can appreciate that an artist's perception of beauty might have as much to do with innerattractiveness, charm, or loveliness than with any outward glamour or seductiveness. What is laudable may not be "skin-deep" at all.
The key element here isn't whether the composition of the face or figure is anatomically correct, or whether the art object's style is realistic, impressionistic, expressionistic, or anything else. If the work has been executed erotically, it's generally assumed that the creator viewed the subject matter as praiseworthy. Something to take pleasure in, celebrate, exalt, glorify. . . . And in this sense, the erotic and the aesthetic merge.
Not to say that the artist's work--similar to pornography--isn't also evocative. But, unlike pornography, it doesn't appeal exclusively to our senses or carnal appetites. It also engages our aesthetic sense, our judgment about how this or that figure illustrates an ideal of human beauty. The rendering may border on the abstract, or be as real as an untouched photograph. It may be black and white, or in color. Male or female. The humans portrayed may be contemporary and real, ancient or mythic. What finally determines the work's eroticism is how the artist (or, for that matter, author or composer) approaches their subject.

All art is interpretive, just as what's perceived as erotic is interpretive. And if eroticism represents a kind of beauty--though of a more alluring, provocative sort, and one that can engender a certain longing or desire--then erotic works actually can be seen as a "subset" of art in general. And if artists don't view their subjects as erotically beautiful--don't in some way betray their love (even lustful adoration) for them--it's unlikely that you'll be so moved either. But assuming their creative intentions have been realized, you may be made privy to a joyful sensuality that feels at once exciting and enriching.

There's substantially more overlap between the aesthetic and the erotic than the erotic and the pornographic. Unquestionably, erotica and pornography both present the human organism in a manner that's sexually compelling. But the aim of the pornographer is hardly to help his or her (most likely his) audience rejoice in the human form--or in some way honor physical intimacy, or the joys of the flesh. Rather, the objective (typically leaving little or nothing to the imagination) is to "turn on" the viewer. It's less evocative or suggestive thanexhibitionist. The unabashed goal is simple and straightforward: titillation and immediate, intense arousal (skip the foreplay, please!). Or, to put it even more bluntly, an instantaneous stirring of the genitals.

Admittedly, the erotic might end up having the same effect. Still, the ideal behind erotica is to transcend its literally provocative subject--to add a third dimension, if you will. In aspiring to celebrate the varieties of sexual bliss, and the universal desire for carnal union (which, deep within, just might carry hints of the divine), the eroticist seeks to portray a vision of both human pulchritude and the potential ecstasy that humans--through sexually joining--can share. One that won't grow old, or become stale over time (as pornographic images generally do).

Also, with pornography, it's basically "sex for sale." Artists pursue eroticism, I think, as they pursue beauty. It may sell, but if their goal is genuinely to transmit what they apprehend as almost ethereal in its beguiling sensuality (i.e., is fine art rather than commercial art), then the work's 's monetary value must remain a secondary consideration to them. Pornographers, on the other hand, are far less motivated by the desire to faithfully represent what they may (or may not) regard as beautiful or aesthetic. Rather, their undertaking is contrived to "produce" what they believe will turn the largest possible profit.
Besides pornography's being principally a money-making venture, the very word pornography (or better, porn) almost invariably connotes a certain exploitation--at times degradation or desecration-- of human sexuality. Many writers (particularly feminists) have rightfully complained that pornography, by objectifying women, reduces them to sex objects whose core value is to satisfy a man's libidinous needs.

But I believe it actually does much more than that. For I see pornographic literature, songs, images, or films as inevitably cheapening--for both sexes--the whole experience of physical intimacy. It takes acts that may express affection, love, adoration, or even profound caring, and dehumanizes them into something animalistic. Acts that combine love with lust, that can value giving quite as much as receiving--acts in which our partner's pleasure can be every bit as important as our own--are "mechanized" into mere outlets for alleviating stress or sexual tension. That which we humans aspire to make almost spiritual is derogated to an exploit almost barbaric in its egoistic lack of caring and concern. Pornography is literally sex sans relationship.
If the erotic celebrates sexuality, placing it on a plateau above any essentially masturbatory act of copulation, then it can be seen as diverging markedly from the pornographic. Pornography proposes a temporary "fix" for our sexual frustrations; eroticism offers us something more elusive--an opportunity to experience sensuous delight of a higher order.

Something, perhaps, like gazing (hopefully, not leering!) at Michelangelo's physically arresting statue of the youth, David, and--even as we're reacting to its captivating depiction of naked sensuality--simultaneously feeling uplifted by the sight. On the contrary, pornography directs its appeal to our more savage carnal instincts, its portrayal of human flesh calculated to arouse our most primitive appetites.
Not that the pornographic might not revealsome interest in beauty--but only insofar as it serves to heighten sexual allure. Obviously, human beauty can have both aesthetic and sensually enticing dimensions, but the purpose of artistically creating such beauty (vs. employing it to effect materialistic ends) is to express something revelatory, something that allows us to see and experience what, in everyday reality, is all too rare. On the contrary, pornography doesn't so much pay tribute to universal yearnings as "capitalize" on them.
Finally, what differentiates the erotic from the pornographic isn't whether or not it's hard-core explicit, graphically delineating any of the whole gamut of sexual acts. For, historically, erotica has hardly refrained from depicting male and female genitalia, or just about any sexual act (or position!) you might think of--and not just with heterosexuals but with gays and lesbians as well.

Nor is the distinction whether the visual, written, or even musical stimulus appeals to our more prurient interest.
No, what in general separates the erotic from the pornographic is anattitude toward sex and human sexuality that can be inferred from looking (dare I use the word, "objectively"?) at the finished product. If the subjects are portrayed in a manner that focuses on their inner and outer radiance, their fleshy vitality, and the work itself seems to manifest a passionate and powerful affirmation of life and the pleasures of this world, then I think we're talking erotic. If, however, the subjects seem reduced to so many body parts, if any beauty appears subordinate to the overriding purpose of arousal, if the sex depicted seems depersonalized, controlling, non-mutual, and devoid of fun or play (but rather seems about "getting down to business" and "getting off")--and if the sex acts pictured contain not a hint of human caring or emotional connectedness to them--that, to me, would definitely secure the work's place in the realm of pornography.

I welcome your comments on this extremely controversial topic. No matter how hard I've tried to avoid it, I'm sure my discussion has in some ways oversimplified its subject. After all, what is one individual's erotica may well be another's pornography . . . and vice verse. And what is beckoning or exciting to one person--for it appears to dynamically illustrate ,may yet be offensive, obscene, and repugnant to another. So I invite you to express your own thoughts on the matter. Whatever they are, I guarantee that they'll have their own (subjective) validity.


羅卓睿 | 7th Jan 2014 | MICHAEL ANDREW LAW
ABOUT THE WORKS:
The Paled hair girls : Lust and Taste serious employ a visual language that is commu
nicated via a Generation Why perspective that characterizes the obsession with materialism and the vanity surrounding it . The archtectype is prevalent across Hong Kong pop culture since the early 2000s, from literature to movies , fashion and socials methods .
Moreover, Michael Andrew Law has taken the initiative to converse with the world by imbuing the canvas with suggestions of Traditional Chinese calligraphy and no longer confines himself to nostalgic traditional Classical-realism oil painting (which he spents 5 years in training) and achieves a breakthrough by including Abstract expressionism-like patterns and cartoonish line art which are familiar to a wider audience.
The paintings transport us into a chaotic figurative art populated with overlapping chinese calligraphy ,Action painting , Color field , casual but innocent girls or sometimes erotic ladies figures , glitter and clustered with object that symbolizing the love and hate relationship build between Hong Kong’s Post-80s generation and the chinese nation and traditions .
Michael Andrew Law is an artist who builds his singularity by observe and commentate the TYPICAL Generation Why (Post-80s Generation) conflicts between what he love and obsessed but afraid to show the love and to possess the quailty they long for  ; he projects his desire as one of the Generation Why and displays this Hypocriticism through the paled hair girls , a legendary clan of female goddess who are untouchable from anyone whom obsessed with the vanity world , though they have everything they stand for is a vanity world’s obsessed the most.
For Michael Andrew Law ,theres always a question about the value judgments by persons who obsessed with vanity was often false and hypocritical , conflicting and incompatible . 
Michael Andrew Law is drawn to young figures which often represents the psychological symbols of trust and innocent ,yet,  which is also a part of hypocritical and conflicting act itself , thus,  this act of hypocritical and conflicting gesture becomes his artist concept as much as an aesthetic principle , using young female , action paint and symbolism as a mode of expression ; Michael Andrew Law overcomes his own awkwardness and human fragility through his creative expression ,to embrace as a part of hypocritical and conflicting world of vanity .
Wrapped under the delicate and adorable features of hyperused of glitter effects and golden colours , as a metaphysical reference to a Gen Y pop-culture ,and a post-tv age reference .
Michael Andrew Law nevers hidess his love through the stone cold technique from his Classical-Realism trained background , highy influenced by artist like William-Adolphe Bouguereau for his figures painting,  to the more social-commtating modern artists such as banksy , Michael Andrew Law ‘s Paled hair girl are simultaneously reflections of his solitude and a smoke of the complex emotions that lingers in his Generation Why Expressions .
Armaggddon Child :
A spin-off from the Pale-haired series, paintings used a Widescreen style composition ,as a commentary and question to the so called Rules of the sociality.
Michael Andrew Law nevers hidess his love through the stone cold technique from his Classical-Realism trained background , highy influenced by artist like William-Adolphe Bouguereau for his figures painting,  to the more social-commtating modern artists such as banksy , Michael Andrew Law ‘s Paled hair girl are simultaneously reflections of his solitude and a smoke of the complex emotions that lingers in his Generation Why Expressions .
Armaggddon Child :
A spin-off from the Pale-haired series, paintings used a Widescreen style composition ,as a commentary and question to the so called Rules of the sociality.
Membership:
Nex-Gen Artist Association of Guangzhou
Hong Kong Arts Administrators Association
Selected Awards and Nominations:
Publishers Weekly Best illustrated ‘s Coffe Art Book 2004 ( Peter Perry )
The Salt and The Light -Church ‘s Children Art Book 2004 (Mars)
Borders Original Voices nominee 2006 (Dear Fish Eye)
Publisher’s Weekly Best Children’s Book list 2004 (China the Beautiful)
Communication Digital Artist — Award of Excellence
Print Weekly Design Annual Awards (2000,2002)
Face to face Dolphin art competition silver award 2006 (Hong Kong)
Art Directors of HKC Award of Merit (2005)
Society of Fine Art — An exhibitor 2005 Society of Newspaper Design Award of Excellence 
Michael and Stephanie Duo Exhibition (2006)
Spectrum Fantastic Art Annual (multiple)
not-for-profit aution for Rotary of HK 2012
Selected Exhibition:
2013 Detour Matters 2013 and December to Remember 2013
2012 Park Central tseung kwan O at Hong Kong 
2011 Art fair at Discovery Bay  , Hong Kong
2011 HK Gold Coast (Book signing exhibition) 
2009 Exhibition The Avenue of Stars 
2008  Group Exhibition of Classical Realism class of 2008 at Manhattan,NY
2007 Hong Kong Art Fair
2007 Guest and ExhibitionThe Peak Galleria Hong Kong 
2007 Invited workshop exhibition, Elements, Hong Kong
2007  Group Exhibition of Classical Realism class of 2007 at Manhattan,NY
2006  Group Exhibition of Classical Realism class of 2006 at East  Village, Manhattan,NY
2006 Collection by Cardinal Zen Ze-kiun and exhibited at Catholic Church of Hong Kong.
2004 – 2007, Exhibition, Hong Kong Central Library.
2005 Illustrator for Kung Kao Po
2004 Group Exhibition, Wanchai Tower
2003 Group Exhibition, Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre.
2003 Winner of I luv Hong Kong Painting Competition, exhibition at The Landmark (Hong Kong).

關於藝術家 :
羅卓睿(Michael Andrew Law)曾隨紐約畫家 Daniel Anderson (1928-2008) 學古典畫,作品橫跨不同媒體 ,包括繪畫,攝影,視頻及服装, 其繪畫將現代人虛偽,崇拜浮華及時尚等概念並列對照 . 藝術家喜愛揭示對謊言及偽裝與文化和價值之間令人着迷而不可分割的關系.
關於作品 :
[白髮系列] 是近年最耗費心思的作品糸列 , 創作計劃早於2006年開始構思和規劃, 創作歷時超過六年並仍在繼續 ,作品包括百多件油畫 ,漫畫 ,照片和視頻 .
創作概念是源於一系列香港上一代對回歸後的新世代之批評和反思 , 對社會新舊世代各自均過份迷信表象,崇拜氛圍和地位 , 然而又各自裝着予道德觀念和自我價值的堅持的有趣現像.
整個系列環繞着觀眾對文化相對物質主義等圖騰的聯想及反應而非畫面本身.
[ 末日的孩子] 是白髮系列中一個以末日為圖騰的組画 ,以闊銀幕式畫面評論及對社會上所謂自上下束成的框框提出質疑.



羅卓睿 | 7th Jan 2014 | MICHAEL ANDREW LAW
ABOUT THE WORKS:
The Paled hair girls : Lust and Taste serious employ a visual language that is commu
nicated via a Generation Why perspective that characterizes the obsession with materialism and the vanity surrounding it . The archtectype is prevalent across Hong Kong pop culture since the early 2000s, from literature to movies , fashion and socials methods .

Moreover, Michael Andrew Law has taken the initiative to converse with the world by imbuing the canvas with suggestions of Traditional Chinese calligraphy and no longer confines himself to nostalgic traditional Classical-realism oil painting (which he spents 5 years in training) and achieves a breakthrough by including Abstract expressionism-like patterns and cartoonish line art which are familiar to a wider audience.
The paintings transport us into a chaotic figurative art populated with overlapping chinese calligraphy ,Action painting , Color field , casual but innocent girls or sometimes erotic ladies figures , glitter and clustered with object that symbolizing the love and hate relationship build between Hong Kong's Post-80s generation and the chinese nation and traditions .

Michael Andrew Law is an artist who builds his singularity by observe and commentate the TYPICAL Generation Why (Post-80s Generation) conflicts between what he love and obsessed but afraid to show the love and to possess the quailty they long for  ; he projects his desire as one of the Generation Why and displays this Hypocriticism through the paled hair girls , a legendary clan of female goddess who are untouchable from anyone whom obsessed with the vanity world , though they have everything they stand for is a vanity world's obsessed the most.

For Michael Andrew Law ,theres always a question about the value judgments by persons who obsessed with vanity was often false and hypocritical , conflicting and incompatible . 

Michael Andrew Law is drawn to young figures which often represents the psychological symbols of trust and innocent ,yet,  which is also a part of hypocritical and conflicting act itself , thus,  this act of hypocritical and conflicting gesture becomes his artist concept as much as an aesthetic principle , using young female , action paint and symbolism as a mode of expression ; Michael Andrew Law overcomes his own awkwardness and human fragility through his creative expression ,to embrace as a part of hypocritical and conflicting world of vanity .

Wrapped under the delicate and adorable features of hyperused of glitter effects and golden colours , as a metaphysical reference to a Gen Y pop-culture ,and a post-tv age reference .

Michael Andrew Law nevers hidess his love through the stone cold technique from his Classical-Realism trained background , highy influenced by artist like William-Adolphe Bouguereau for his figures painting,  to the more social-commtating modern artists such as banksy , Michael Andrew Law 's Paled hair girl are simultaneously reflections of his solitude and a smoke of the complex emotions that lingers in his Generation Why Expressions .

Armaggddon Child :
A spin-off from the Pale-haired series, paintings used a Widescreen style composition ,as a commentary and question to the so called Rules of the sociality.

Michael Andrew Law nevers hidess his love through the stone cold technique from his Classical-Realism trained background , highy influenced by artist like William-Adolphe Bouguereau for his figures painting,  to the more social-commtating modern artists such as banksy , Michael Andrew Law 's Paled hair girl are simultaneously reflections of his solitude and a smoke of the complex emotions that lingers in his Generation Why Expressions .

Armaggddon Child :
A spin-off from the Pale-haired series, paintings used a Widescreen style composition ,as a commentary and question to the so called Rules of the sociality.

Membership:
Nex-Gen Artist Association of Guangzhou
Hong Kong Arts Administrators Association

Selected Awards and Nominations:
Publishers Weekly Best illustrated 's Coffe Art Book 2004 ( Peter Perry )
The Salt and The Light -Church 's Children Art Book 2004 (Mars)
Borders Original Voices nominee 2006 (Dear Fish Eye)
Publisher's Weekly Best Children's Book list 2004 (China the Beautiful)
Communication Digital Artist -- Award of Excellence
Print Weekly Design Annual Awards (2000,2002)
Face to face Dolphin art competition silver award 2006 (Hong Kong)
Art Directors of HKC Award of Merit (2005)
Society of Fine Art -- An exhibitor 2005 Society of Newspaper Design Award of Excellence 
Michael and Stephanie Duo Exhibition (2006)
Spectrum Fantastic Art Annual (multiple)
not-for-profit aution for Rotary of HK 2012

Selected Exhibition:

2013 Detour Matters 2013 and December to Remember 2013
2012 Park Central tseung kwan O at Hong Kong 
2011 Art fair at Discovery Bay  , Hong Kong
2011 HK Gold Coast (Book signing exhibition) 
2009 Exhibition The Avenue of Stars 
2008  Group Exhibition of Classical Realism class of 2008 at Manhattan,NY
2007 Hong Kong Art Fair
2007 Guest and ExhibitionThe Peak Galleria Hong Kong 
2007 Invited workshop exhibition, Elements, Hong Kong
2007  Group Exhibition of Classical Realism class of 2007 at Manhattan,NY
2006  Group Exhibition of Classical Realism class of 2006 at East  Village, Manhattan,NY
2006 Collection by Cardinal Zen Ze-kiun and exhibited at Catholic Church of Hong Kong.
2004 - 2007, Exhibition, Hong Kong Central Library.
2005 Illustrator for Kung Kao Po
2004 Group Exhibition, Wanchai Tower
2003 Group Exhibition, Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre.
2003 Winner of I luv Hong Kong Painting Competition, exhibition at The Landmark (Hong Kong).

關於藝術家 :
羅卓睿(Michael Andrew Law)曾隨紐約畫家 Daniel Anderson (1928-2008) 學古典畫,作品橫跨不同媒體 ,包括繪畫,攝影,視頻及服装, 其繪畫將現代人虛偽,崇拜浮華及時尚等概念並列對照 . 藝術家喜愛揭示對謊言及偽裝與文化和價值之間令人着迷而不可分割的關系.
關於作品 :
[白髮系列] 是近年最耗費心思的作品糸列 , 創作計劃早於2006年開始構思和規劃, 創作歷時超過六年並仍在繼續 ,作品包括百多件油畫 ,漫畫 ,照片和視頻 .
創作概念是源於一系列香港上一代對回歸後的新世代之批評和反思 , 對社會新舊世代各自均過份迷信表象,崇拜氛圍和地位 , 然而又各自裝着予道德觀念和自我價值的堅持的有趣現像.
整個系列環繞着觀眾對文化相對物質主義等圖騰的聯想及反應而非畫面本身.
[ 末日的孩子] 是白髮系列中一個以末日為圖騰的組画 ,以闊銀幕式畫面評論及對社會上所謂自上下束成的框框提出質疑.


羅卓睿 | 7th Jan 2014 | MICHAEL ANDREW LAW
Note:All Michael Andrew law artworks, names, images, likenesses, slogans, gestures, trademarks, logos and copyrights are the exclusive property of LAW CHEUK YUI and its subsidiaries. All other trademarks, logos and copyrights are the property of their respective owners. c 2011 Michael Andrew Law, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
The textual, photographic, video, audio, and combined audiovisual programs and products resulting from Michael Andrew Law’s Artworks and products including the material contained in this web site, are protected under Hong Kong,SAR,China and international laws as copyrighted works. Anyone who displays, reproduces, copies, creates derivative works, or sells our textual, photographic, video or audiovisual programs for commercial or non-commercial purposes without our permission violates the copyright laws and is liable for copyright infringement
2014 Workshops
In 2014, I am holding workshop at Central, Hong Kong’s NatureArt Gallery.
If you’re considering a workshop for paintings, email me with any questions. I hope to paint with you in 2014.
If you’re interested, view all my Current Painting Auctions and Available Paintings.
在 2014年,我每星期也在中環,香港NatureArt舉行繪畫工作坊。
如果你正在考慮為一個學畫的工作室,可立即發電子郵件給我。我希望能在 2014與你
如果你有興趣,亦請查看我所有的當前正進行之繪畫拍賣原畫/海報出售
FREE Michael Andrew Law painting Poster for You

In case you missed it, I released my new FREE poster/desktop wallpaper download for your tablet or smart phone. 
Hope you enjoy it, and feel free to share it with your friends.
免費Michael Andrew Law桌面海報送俾你:
我發布了我新的免費桌報/桌面壁紙,請即為您的平板電腦或智能手機下載。

希望你喜歡它,並歡迎隨時與朋友分享。
Best,


Previous Next