From: LouisFors <LouisFors@aol.com>
Message-Id: <78b22002.34fb4ce6@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 19:20:52 EST
To: emweb@fmgmt.mgmt.utoronto.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Chicken of the Sea
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-emweb@fmgmt.mgmt.utoronto.ca
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: emweb@fmgmt.mgmt.utoronto.ca
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

In a message dated 98-03-02 17:17:36 EST, Cynthia Hallen wrote:

> 
>  Yes, but sexality in nature is contextualized, not fixated, 
>  objectified, or denigrated.  The body is more than a phallic symbol.  
>  Creation subsumes procreation, and not the other way around.  Some 
>  ED images are erotic, but her works are not bawdy.  She has decorum.
>  
You are certainly right that ED has decorum, although I wonder if she
stretched the rules of her day?  From the little I have read, she may have.
But, honestly asked, should one criticizing her work strive for equal decorum,
if that is even possible?

Louis Forsdale