I don't what you mean by this. I don't know anyone on this thread who resorts to immature retorts. I'm sorry you see my reply as an intent to be so.
In which case I will not expect any change.
Well, then an art critic would call it "good" or "bad" art. And one art critic would love it and another would hate it. In any case, it's still art.
They wouldn't even, and they don't, entertain it as "art", period.
Relevance?
Well, there are nudes in an art gallery and earlier in this thread we talked about Malplethorpe. There's the Sex Museum in New York and the AVN awards which give out awards for the best scenes and performances like the Academy Awards.
None of which are openly posited as pornography.
But you definition just confirmed it for me. Since one of the definitions of porn is
Lurid or sensational material
... qualified by example thus: "Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the ... pornography of the era" (Morris Dickstein).
Please explain how the porn we're discussing here fits into that particular, third-ranked context.
Then I say again: The intent of my art (a medium of artistic expression) is to use the medium of porn (lurid or sensational material) to show beauty of a humans when they express pleasure. That's my intent. If you get aroused or not, viewing it, then that's you. It is not my intent to arouse.
Then I repeat: please explain how the porn we're discussing here fits into that particular, third-ranked context.
You may not like my art. Some people may call it bad art. But it's my art none the less.
I haven't seen your productions. But this discussion isn't restricted to your productions (unless you want it to be) - it concerns pornography generally, by the most commonly used meaning (unless you have a more restrictive meaning in mind, in which case please clarify).
By the way, just wanted to point out that because you used an actual definition that gives not even a hint that pornography is an art form, you might as well as cited a definition of "desperate".
You mean the definition of "pornography" that I posted simply to show that, by the most commonly use meaning of "pornography", its "primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal"? I fail to see where the question of pornography being an art form logically fits into that, and, quite frankly, I think that you do, too.
Clearly, you still either don't appreciate the art of my porn or this is simply an immature retort. It certainly reads like the latter in any event
I was simply showing that by your argument
all "actual" child pornography could be passed off as art. Are you claiming that's a valid proposition, notwithstanding that children are harmed? If not, why not? What's the difference?
Don't you? You mean, that a design of even how this forum works isn't artistic? The very similes you use aren't artistic?
No, I don't see art in everything. Far from it - many things are purely functional.
I don't know. I'm asking you. That's why I asked.
Go figure.
Besides, Lenny Bruce went to jail for his art. Seems to me that if someone killed someone else simply as an artistic expression, then even though that person goes to jail and it's unethical to do so, it's still an artistic expression.
I don't know anything about this case, but I suggest that you read up on law and try to figure out why somebody who kills another will probably fail in their defense of "just for artistic expression".
I am not willing to repeat myself right now. If you don't understand, I suggest you re-read the thread to understand the difference between your definition and the actual definition.
I think you've realized that my definition is a definition of child porn, and hence completely irrelevant to this branch of the discussion. I suspect, but I'm not sure, that you've realized that there's no such thing as an "actual definition".
It is clear you do not comprehend what I have clearly stated. May I politely suggest you re-read your own definition because that is what I am referring to.
See above.
No, I understand your definition clearly. I am sorry to say that it is you who doesn't understand at all.
See above -
child pornography.
I've posted a definition of murder. It relies on "intent" and "state of mind". We both know the answer to the question, whether you choose to immaturely avert it or not.
Now, it's obvious to me that your main intention is to be obnoxious, which, I have to admit, you are succeeding if not excelling at. I suspect you're bored with this thread and have no desire for any further meaningful discussion. If you persist then I'm done here. I'm happy to carry on in a mature, adult manner, if you are, although if the main topic of discussion revolves around whether porn is art then I suggest we've reached the end of the line anyhow. It's your call now, JFrankA.
