Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[Matthew Best]

Just as expected.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Usually how it works is that when someone asks you to clarify what your argument is, you tell them. I guess that's not your way.

He seems far more interested in countering arguments than he is in anyone's comprehension of his position.

 

[Southwind17]

He seems far more interested in countering arguments than he is in anyone's comprehension of his position.

That makes perfect sense to me - thanks for the endorsement. Successfully countering others' arguments serves to strengthen mine. Helping others whose comprehension isn't conducive to complex debating, whilst altruistically admirable, isn't my raison d'etre here.

 

[Matthew Best]

Successfully countering others' arguments serves to strengthen mine.

Well, it would, if you would just let people know what that argument was....

 

[JFrankA]

That makes perfect sense to me - thanks for the endorsement. Successfully countering others' arguments serves to strengthen mine. Helping others whose comprehension isn't conducive to complex debating, whilst altruistically admirable, isn't my raison d'etre here.

 

[Southwind17]

Well, it would, if you would just let people know what that argument was....

Well, for this latest branch of the thread I suggest you start at Post #2750 then. Whilst not an argument as such, that post's pretty clear what's going on right now.

 

[Southwind17]

When all else fails turn to humour eh. Can't "argue" with that!

 

[JFrankA]

In which case I will not expect any change.

You get what you look for, I guess....

They wouldn't even, and they don't, entertain it as "art", period.

Again, I ask: are you an art critic? Seems to me that you are making a presumption on what others may think. And not just one art critic, you are making a presumption on all art critics.

Relevance?

See above.

None of which are openly posited as pornography.

The word may not been used exactly, but the warnings to parents telling them that they may not want their children to see certainly says that something in there is something that they may deem pornographic. If you are going to take the stance that if the word pornographic is not in the warning, then X-rated films are not pornographic.

from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-rated

In the United States, the X-rating originally referred to a non-trademarked rating that indicated a film contained content unsuitable for minors such as extreme violence or explicit sex and thus was for adults only.

When the MPAA film rating system began on November 1, 1968 in the U.S., the X-rating was given to a film by the MPAA if submitted to them or, due to its non-trademarked status, it could be self-applied to a film by a distributor who knew beforehand that their film contained content unsuitable for minors. In the late 1960s to mid 1980s, several mainstream films were released with an X-rating such as Midnight Cowboy, A Clockwork Orange, Fritz the Cat and Last Tango in Paris.

Because the X-rating was not trademarked, anybody could apply it to their films, including pornographers, which many began to do in the 1970s. As pornography began to become chic and more legally tolerated, pornographers placed an X-rating on their films to emphasize the adult nature of them. Some even started using multiple X's (i.e. XX, XXX, etc.) to give the impression that their film contained more graphic sexual content than the simple X-rating. In some cases, the X ratings were applied by reviewers or film scholars, e.g. William Rotsler, who wrote "The XXX-rating means hard-core, the XX-rating is for simulation, and an X-rating is for comparatively cool films." [2]Nothing beyond the simple X-rating has ever been officially recognized by the MPAA.

Because of the heavy use of the X-rating by pornographers, it became associated largely with pornographic films and thus non-pornographic films given a X-rating would have fewer theaters willing to book them and fewer avenues for advertising. This led to a number of films being released unrated sometimes with a warning that the film contained content for adults only. In response, the MPAA eventually agreed in 1990 to a new NC-17 rating that would be trademarked and could only be applied by the MPAA itself.

... 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).

Well, I have said that my fetish includes something that could be considered dangerous if left unchecked. Plenty of models even refused to do my art because they felt it endangered them. Now I may not be on the level of Hitler, and I'm proud of that, but considering the type of fetish I am into, I think the definition stands.

Please explain how the porn we're discussing here fits into that particular, third-ranked context.

You asked the question. I'm merely explaining my answer.

Then I repeat: please explain how the porn we're discussing here fits into that particular, third-ranked context.

If you don't remember your question, I politely ask that you read back.

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).

Again, you asked the question I am discussing. Again, I am politely asking you to read back to find the question I am answering.

One other thing. If you haven't seen my porn, how do you know it's third-rate? How do you know what an art critic would say? Are you a mind reader? Are you someone who claims to see the future? Maybe you should apply for the million dollar challenge?

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.

You think so? And I respond post after post that I disagree with you. Where you've even asked me if I see art in everything and I responded positively. That's a very interesting conclusion.

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?

Yes it could. The thing with Brooke Sheilds for one was art. Did you read the article or did you just process it with your powers?

No, I don't see art in everything. Far from it - many things are purely functional.

So how do they function? Someone had to sit down and design them. Create a way things work together, most times make them esthetically pleasing. Create ways to easily fix them if they break down. Look how pretty a stop light is.

I'm sorry. It seems to me that you are very jaded.

Go figure.

So you don't know? If you don't, that's okay. You could have just said so.

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

The point is this: he goes to jail for killing someone, so? It's still his art. People have gone to jail for their art before, and what they produce is still art.

Why does going to jail constitute the cancellation of something being art? Does something have to be legal to be artistic??

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".

I wasn't talking about that definition. Sorry. Read back.

See above.


See above - child pornography.

Clearly, you don't even comprehend what I am saying.

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.

I have told you straight out what my intentions are throughout these last few posts, yet each time you believe them to be something different. Since you believe you are correct, even after out and out telling you, then I guess I have to say that I cannot convince you otherwise, and you are going to choose to percieve what my intentions are.

I am sorry you have chosen to see my intentions the way you have.

 

[Southwind17]

Again, I ask: are you an art critic? Seems to me that you are making a presumption on what others may think. And not just one art critic, you are making a presumption on all art critics.

Please show me some renowned art reviews of something specifically described by the artist as pornographic.

The word may not been used exactly ...

Then how do we know it's purporting to be pornographic? We're talking pornography here openly and honestly passing itself off as art. Please show me some examples of exhibits openly described as pornographic and acknowledged within the recognized art world as art. If you cannot clearly show that the art world accepts expressions that openly and honestly describe themselves as pornography then your argument that porn is art is extremely weak indeed to anybody who harbours any doubt, as I don't.

... considering the type of fetish I am into, I think the definition stands.

This has nothing to do with your "fetish". You claim that porn, generally, is art.

You asked the question. I'm merely explaining my answer.

You've "explained" nothing.

If you don't remember your question, I politely ask that you read back.

What question? I've simply asked for an explanation of how porn, generally, fits within that third-ranked meaning - you've not provided one.

Again, you asked the question I am discussing. Again, I am politely asking you to read back to find the question I am answering.

You're not answering anything that I've asked (well, not conclusively or meaningfully). Again, please explain how porn, generally, fits within that third-ranked meaning that you seem to claim it does.

One other thing. If you haven't seen my porn, how do you know it's third-rate? How do you know what an art critic would say? Are you a mind reader? Are you someone who claims to see the future? Maybe you should apply for the million dollar challenge?

Maybe you should read more carefully. I think you'll find I wrote "third-ranked", as in that meaning numbered 3 in the list of dictionary.com meanings, i.e. the least used meaning of the word "pornography"! No wonder you're confused. I'm being deadly serious now, JFrankA, but, and with great respect, this shows that you are not following the thread properly, picking up on a single word, term or phrase, and applying it completely out of context. You've been doing this right from the out. Don't get me wrong - I'm not criticizing you personally - I'm sure it's not deliberate, but nonetheless I'll not tolerate it any longer. It's a huge waste of my time and effort, and yours too, I'd venture to suggest.

You think so? And I respond post after post that I disagree with you. Where you've even asked me if I see art in everything and I responded positively. That's a very interesting conclusion.

Here's another example. Completely lost the plot.

Yes it could. The thing with Brooke Sheilds for one was art. Did you read the article or did you just process it with your powers?

I read it and noted that the photo was removed. But please, JFrankA, do tell me where I can go to see the next public child pornography "art" exhibition. Is there one coming up any time soon?!

So how do they function? Someone had to sit down and design them. Create a way things work together, most times make them esthetically pleasing. Create ways to easily fix them if they break down. Look how pretty a stop light is.
I'm sorry. It seems to me that you are very jaded.

Do you really need me to explain to you how a nail functions, or a steel girder, or a truck engine, or a water-treatment plant, or a power station, or a staple, or a spade, or an internal modem, or a telephone exchange. Do we really need to go that far for you to get it?!

So you don't know? If you don't, that's okay. You could have just said so.

Of course I know. But you don't, although you should. Go figure.

The point is this: he goes to jail for killing someone, so? It's still his art. People have gone to jail for their art before, and what they produce is still art.

And a very compelling "point" it is too.

Why does going to jail constitute the cancellation of something being art?

It doesn't, of itself, but it shows that the "art" is ancillary to the criminal act. In other words, artistic style can be added, but a crime is not art per se, because "art" is not illegal.

I wasn't talking about that definition. Sorry. Read back.

I'd rather you just try to clarify what definition you're alluding to. Otherwise, forget it.

Clearly, you don't even comprehend what I am saying.

Clearly.

I have told you straight out what my intentions are throughout these last few posts.

Really? Where?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

As I wrote, artistic style can be applied to most things. That doesn't somehow make those things "art", though. One could apply artistic style to murdering somebody. Does that somehow make murder art?! It's still murder (which, in case you'd forgotten, is still illegal, regardless what colour you'd care to paint the corpse!).

Sometimes the lack of applied logic and ill-considered reasoning from numerous people on this forum actually astounds me.

Hmmm, so you didn't put me on ignore after all? I ask because you completely ignored my last post to you.

This is where, if you were in my position, you would probably reply with a "You haven't been paying attention to the thread have you??".
However, that is not how I roll. So please address my post to you which you never responded. Post N 2049, page 52.


As to the Art discussion, I think that you're getting into a rhetoric of "what makes things art". I think that the intent of the artist is primarily what makes things art, however not everyone is going to agree. Not everyone finds Picasso's work "artsy" or H R Giger's. Also, not everyone thinks that frog or rat is food, but they are culinary dishes in China. (It is still true that, part of what defines something as art is that a great number of the population considers it art. It wouldn't be enough with one or two people in the entire world to consider something art. Art still is a meme, and so, still depends on what the culture dictates).
What I find interesting is that you always want to make the comparison with murder. No one here has claimed that murder is an art (unless it is done by someone like Hannibal Lecter (specifically the "angel" scene), in which case, it would technically have the intent of being art and it would technically count as both art and murder.... but this is not really that outrageous as we already saw that something can be art and also have a different purpose, like the Bauhaus)... But why do you, SW, always go down to the comparison of murder? Do you find porn much closer to murder than it is to art? (And if so, please justify this) I ask this just out of curiosity because you always reply with the simile between porn and murder. Why do you, for instance, start a thread and entitle it with "What's wrong with porn" instead of "Is there something wrong with porn"?. Do you see the difference in the wording? Would you admit that you are perhaps already biased against porn?. And if I'm wrong, could you explain the wording and the constant comparison of porn with murder, garbage disposal jobs and other negative connotation types of activities?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I don't need to try to prove anything. I've made a statement that I believe to be true. As I've stated very recently in this very thread, the burden of showing something to be wrong lies with the person wishing to show it to be wrong.

Take that exact thing you just said and imagine it coming from someone who claims they:

-Saw an Extraterrestrial Ship
-Had a close encounter with an Angel
-Claims to predict future events
-Claims they found a miniature pink unicorn in their living room
-(Insert any other outrageous, paranormal claim of your choice)

Would you, honestly, still believe that that is the reasonable way to falsify a claim? That believing it to be true, is sufficient enough to falsify it?
Would you honestly take their claim at face value, just because they cleverly dodged their burden to provide the evidence by saying "it is up to the non believers to falsify it"?

Please answer in a clear, direct and sincere way.

Feel free either to attempt to show so or decline. Your choice.

Indeed, people will feel free to decline, because any time you make a claim and expect us to accept it just because you believe it to be true, you are not going to be taken any seriously unless: a) The person lacks enough skepticism and is prone to believe things at face value; or b) The person is already biased towards believing what you claimed.
Those are the only two instances that you might succeed at persuading someone into accepting your claim as true.
In other words, making a claim and coming up with a justification as to why you have the right to not have to prove it at all, does not make you any more of a winner.

People interested in a serious discussion and finding the truth about things, though, tend to engage in civilized dialogue and try to falsify each other (That means you are both trying to falsify us and yourself, as the actual truth is more important than who's wrong and who's right), so when anyone here makes a claim, they do it accepting the responsibility that comes with it. That is: Provide the evidence. Otherwise, the claim isn't really useful.
But if it turns into a battle of egos, of who can beat who in an argument (regardless of whether we are making any progress at finding the truth of things) then I can see how you would find a victory in making a claim and then finding the way to confuse the person into either believing it, or at least believing that it does not need to be proved. Then you can just cross your arms, say "HA! I win" and walk away feeling victorious.

This post may have sounded like a personal attack, but it is not. I do not expect you to take it as what it is, though: A sincere description of the type of sophistry you are engaging in. It sounds harsh, but it is the truth and after 63 pages of sophistry and rhetorics, I wouldn't expect to see a change in your attitude. You are still welcome to provide any evidence for your claims. Otherwise, the teamwork that we are all doing in this thread of finding out the truth of things, is the one that fails. Not you or me, or the other guy who replied in a silly way. It's not about that. It really isn't.

Do you believe that every time Obama, for example, makes a speech that some people don't agree with (probably always) he's challenged to "prove his statement"? Be off with you.

On many instances, yes he is. Maybe not in the cases where what he claims can simply be verified by checking other sources. But in the cases where only he is capable of providing the evidence for his arguments (And especially when falsifying such claim is crucial for the welfare of the nation), then certainly yes.

 

[JFrankA]

Please show me some renowned art reviews of something specifically described by the artist as pornographic.

Then how do we know it's purporting to be pornographic? We're talking pornography here openly and honestly passing itself off as art. Please show me some examples of exhibits openly described as pornographic and acknowledged within the recognized art world as art. If you cannot clearly show that the art world accepts expressions that openly and honestly describe themselves as pornography then your argument that porn is art is extremely weak indeed to anybody who harbours any doubt, as I don't.

Matthew Best posted some examples. But if it is not labeled pornographic, then the art isn't pornographic even though the is blatant sexual situations going on?

Well then. From now on, my art shall not be labeled as pornographic. It is pure art, one that challenges people to see pleasure that can come from something that some people would percieve as dangerous.

I'm going to start by selling my art to a gallery.

This has nothing to do with your "fetish". You claim that porn, generally, is art.

I did. And you know what? Since the word pornographic was never, ever used in any art exhibition, I deem that you are correct.

My art stands for what it is.

You've "explained" nothing.

That's what it seems like you percieve.

What question? I've simply asked for an explanation of how porn, generally, fits within that third-ranked meaning - you've not provided one.

Read back if you are confused.

You're not answering anything that I've asked (well, not conclusively or meaningfully). Again, please explain how porn, generally, fits within that third-ranked meaning that you seem to claim it does.

I have to go to work soon, I'm sorry that I do not have time to re-post every post from your question to this point. May I please politely ask that you re read the posts.

Maybe you should read more carefully. I think you'll find I wrote "third-ranked", as in that meaning numbered 3 in the list of dictionary.com meanings, i.e. the least used meaning of the word "pornography"! No wonder you're confused. I'm being deadly serious now, JFrankA, but, and with great respect, this shows that you are not following the thread properly, picking up on a single word, term or phrase, and applying it completely out of context. You've been doing this right from the out. Don't get me wrong - I'm not criticizing you personally - I'm sure it's not deliberate, but nonetheless I'll not tolerate it any longer. It's a huge waste of my time and effort, and yours too, I'd venture to suggest.

Interesting you've chosen to see my postings as such. You are the one who keeps posting this smiley: and keep asking me to clarify.

Here's another example. Completely lost the plot.

See? Again, you are the one who is confused. Not I. Please re-read the posts.

I read it and noted that the photo was removed.

Well that shows you read the headline. However, if you read the article, you'd realize that the museum wanted to put it up. Even went to a lawyer to make sure they were not breaking any rules. The curator defended the photo. It seems to me that the only reason it was taken down was because people were afraid that the room where it was in would be filled with pedophiles from all state.

But please, JFrankA, do tell me where I can go to see the next public child pornography "art" exhibition. Is there one coming up any time soon?!

So you are interested in the art, then? I suggest if you are that anxious to see it, you can always order Manga.

Do you really need me to explain to you how a nail functions, or a steel girder, or a truck engine, or a water-treatment plant, or a power station, or a staple, or a spade, or an internal modem, or a telephone exchange. Do we really need to go that far for you to get it?!

Do you really need me to explain to you how a nail was created, designed, crafted, tested, improved, packaged, etc, etc, or a steel girder, or a truck engine, or a water-treatment plant, or a power station or a staple, or a spade or an internal model or a telephone exchange. Do we really need to go that far for you to get it?

Of course I know. But you don't, although you should. Go figure.

Then answer my question if you know. I don't. I'll admit it. Since you refuse to answer the question, until you do, I'll assume you don't either.

And a very compelling "point" it is too.

I'm glad you see that it is. So your intent is to say you agree with me that if something is illegal, it still can be art.

It doesn't, of itself, but it shows that the "art" is ancillary to the criminal act. In other words, artistic style can be added, but a crime is not art per se, because "art" is not illegal.

Please explain that to the people who arrested Lenny Bruce, or fined Howard Stern, or fined CBS because of Janet Jackson, or who the people forced a museum to take down a picture of Brooke Shields.....

I'd rather you just try to clarify what definition you're alluding to. Otherwise, forget it.


Clearly.


Really? Where?

My apologies. I have to run to work. Perhaps if I have a moment, I'll respond further. In the meantime, since you are so confused and keep mis-comprehending what I have posted, I respectfully request that since you don't understand my point, you re-read the posts.

 

[Southwind17]

Hmmm, so you didn't put me on ignore after all? I ask because you completely ignored my last post to you.

This is where, if you were in my position, you would probably reply with a "You haven't been paying attention to the thread have you??".
However, that is not how I roll. So please address my post to you which you never responded. Post N 2049, page 52.


As to the Art discussion, I think that you're getting into a rhetoric of "what makes things art". I think that the intent of the artist is primarily what makes things art, however not everyone is going to agree. Not everyone finds Picasso's work "artsy" or H R Giger's. Also, not everyone thinks that frog or rat is food, but they are culinary dishes in China. (It is still true that, part of what defines something as art is that a great number of the population considers it art. It wouldn't be enough with one or two people in the entire world to consider something art. Art still is a meme, and so, still depends on what the culture dictates).
What I find interesting is that you always want to make the comparison with murder. No one here has claimed that murder is an art (unless it is done by someone like Hannibal Lecter (specifically the "angel" scene), in which case, it would technically have the intent of being art and it would technically count as both art and murder.... but this is not really that outrageous as we already saw that something can be art and also have a different purpose, like the Bauhaus)... But why do you, SW, always go down to the comparison of murder? Do you find porn much closer to murder than it is to art? (And if so, please justify this) I ask this just out of curiosity because you always reply with the simile between porn and murder. Why do you, for instance, start a thread and entitle it with "What's wrong with porn" instead of "Is there something wrong with porn"?. Do you see the difference in the wording? Would you admit that you are perhaps already biased against porn?. And if I'm wrong, could you explain the wording and the constant comparison of porn with murder, garbage disposal jobs and other negative connotation types of activities?

I'm sorry for overlooking your post Ron - I can assure you it wasn't deliberate. OK - I'll try to answer your quesions hereafter as separate posts ...

 

[quadraginta]

Another feeble, immature response that serves no purpose.

However, out of inquisition, nothing more, I've just read the study that you posted. The holes in it are so vast it's a disgrace that the authors claim:

Please detail your particular refutations of the study in question. Did you find fault with the methodology? Please provide examples of those "holes" you have discerned, along with the evidence supporting your criticisms.

Your blanket dismissal does not constitute a refutation of any value. It is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!".

 

[Matthew Best]

Well, for this latest branch of the thread I suggest you start at Post #2750 then. Whilst not an argument as such, that post's pretty clear what's going on right now.

Is pornography an art form?

Clearly, yes.

Next question.

 

[Southwind17]

Conclusive studies proving that there is harm in viewing virtual child porn?
Indeed, there is no such thing, because there is not a speck of evidence that viewing an image can generate harm at all in the first place.

That's seems circular. You're effectively saying: No evidence, so no studies required, and no studies done, so no evidence.

Think about this: If there could be an inherent harm in viewing images, we should expect to be living in a very different world. A world where violent movies could not exist, because it would be generating hordes of killers and traumatized people all over. A world where advertisement would work with everyone all the time, because it would not be a matter of individual reactions to media, but a matter of images with power over everyone regardless of their psyche.

That's only true if such inherent harm applied generally. You seem to be forgetting that we're talking about:

1. the possible effect of very specific expression with the specific intention to sexually arouse, namely child porn, and
2. the possible effect on a small minority of the population, namely those with a prurient interest in children

It's wrong to assume that this doubly specific and unique combination translates to other expressions and the population generally.

That's exactly what I'm asking you. Because it sounds as if you were claiming that it is reasonable to take precautions against an idea of harm which existence you have no evidence of. So, what's your answer?

I've previously explained the reasonable supposition upon which my premise is based. Not scientific or even empirical evidence, as I've previously admitted, but reasonable supposition nonetheless. Reasonable supposition is a sound basis for many important or critical decisions in our daily lives, both individually and societally.

No, SW, come on, don't give me that come back will you?. This is what people refer to when talking about how you behave in debates. You know this is a very big thread and that we all have lives outside of the thread (At least I do). I can't keep up with every single post. Stop being rude and giving me the "you haven't been paying attention have you!" line, and then ask me to go hunt through the hundreds of pages to see if I can find where you addressed this. Please take the time and answer the question. Do you find that line of thinking reasonable?Yes or no? If not, please explain why.
If the explanation was too long, then to the very least, link me to it. But don't just get nasty with me and ask me to look throughout this thread.

I'm sorry Ron, but we're now close on 800 posts since that to which I'm now responding. It's as easy for you to read back beyond that now as it is me - seriously.

Different from the actual reality which is: We live in a world in which images affect different people in hundreds of different ways. A world that behaves very much the way we should expect if images in themselves did not have an inherent power of changing conduct inside of them, but instead it all depends on the individual psyche of each person.

I believe I've adequately addressed your flawed "unique = ubiquitous" conclusion above.

Can you expand on this? Seriously, I just want to know what exactly did you have in mind.

If you live by the maxim "determine if there's no demonstrable harm before acting" (which is what you've admitted to subscribing to), then I'm saying that you couldn't realistically live your life. How would you decide that it's safe to get out of bed of a morning? How would you decide that it's safe to drink water, or eat protein, or step outside. It might seem like an exaggeration, but it's a logical extension of your position re. VCP.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

No, I don't see art in everything. Far from it - many things are purely functional.

<snip>

Please elaborate on this apparent suggestion that one excludes the other.

I would go so far as to say that from many perspectives one often encompasses the other.

My views of things are flavored by an engineering background. I often see simplicity and find functionality in structures, objects, and devices as "artistic". To me the complications of additional features or form for "art's sake" is often less artistically attractive. I might refer to this as "baroque" or with some similar adjective, and the intent is not complimentary. I can find a solution to a problem which is more direct and less convoluted or complicated to be quite "artistic". I have reason to believe that I am neither unique nor even noticeably unusual in this attitude.

In a similar vein, the term "elegant" is used among programmers to describe particularly attractive pieces of code. It is interesting to note that the intent is to compliment that code for its functional simplicity. This might seem counter-intuitive to a more mundane usage of the word "elegant", but the meaning is quite clear. The simple and functional is considered artistic primarily because of those aspects.

 

[Southwind17]

As to the Art discussion, I think that you're getting into a rhetoric of "what makes things art". I think that the intent of the artist is primarily what makes things art, however not everyone is going to agree. Not everyone finds Picasso's work "artsy" or H R Giger's. Also, not everyone thinks that frog or rat is food, but they are culinary dishes in China. (It is still true that, part of what defines something as art is that a great number of the population considers it art. It wouldn't be enough with one or two people in the entire world to consider something art. Art still is a meme, and so, still depends on what the culture dictates).

I agree.

What I find interesting is that you always want to make the comparison with murder.

Not always.

No one here has claimed that murder is an art (unless it is done by someone like Hannibal Lecter (specifically the "angel" scene), in which case, it would technically have the intent of being art and it would technically count as both art and murder.... but this is not really that outrageous as we already saw that something can be art and also have a different purpose, like the Bauhaus)... But why do you, SW, always go down to the comparison of murder? Do you find porn much closer to murder than it is to art? (And if so, please justify this) I ask this just out of curiosity because you always reply with the simile between porn and murder.

I've tended to contrast with murder simply because:

1. we're discussing the illegality of child porn and VCP. It seems appropriate to maintain a criminal theme when contrasting, and
2. murder, where applicable, is probably the most suitable criminal comparison in that it's unequivocal, undeniably wrong and involves extreme harm

I contrasted VCP with murder most recently for the reasons above but also to show that other crimes, such as murder, rely on a judge or jury determining intent and state of mind - criminal attributes that some people here have argued precludes a workable definition of VCP.

Why do you, for instance, start a thread and entitle it with "What's wrong with porn" instead of "Is there something wrong with porn"?. Do you see the difference in the wording? Would you admit that you are perhaps already biased against porn?. And if I'm wrong, could you explain the wording and the constant comparison of porn with murder, garbage disposal jobs and other negative connotation types of activities?

I chose the wording because it's an open question whereas yours is a closed question. I'm sure you know, but open questions tend to stimulate debate. Your wording is likely to prompt a couple of smart alec "No"-type responses, then nothing more - end of chat. My wording, as you rightly allude to, infers a particular stance, by I assure you was just for provocation. Again, a useful technique for promoting debate and drawing out the more opinionated, even zealots, as we've discovered.

 

[Southwind17]

Take that exact thing you just said and imagine it coming from someone who claims they:
-Saw an Extraterrestrial Ship
-Had a close encounter with an Angel
-Claims to predict future events
-Claims they found a miniature pink unicorn in their living room
-(Insert any other outrageous, paranormal claim of your choice)
Would you, honestly, still believe that that is the reasonable way to falsify a claim? That believing it to be true, is sufficient enough to falsify it?
Would you honestly take their claim at face value, just because they cleverly dodged their burden to provide the evidence by saying "it is up to the non believers to falsify it"?
Please answer in a clear, direct and sincere way.

I haven't made an outrageous, paranormal claim.

Indeed, people will feel free to decline, because any time you make a claim and expect us to accept it just because you believe it to be true, you are not going to be taken any seriously unless: a) The person lacks enough skepticism and is prone to believe things at face value; or b) The person is already biased towards believing what you claimed.
Those are the only two instances that you might succeed at persuading someone into accepting your claim as true.
In other words, making a claim and coming up with a justification as to why you have the right to not have to prove it at all, does not make you any more of a winner.

I don't expect people just to accept it. It's up to them whether, and if so how, they choose to challenge it.

 

[Southwind17]

Matthew Best posted some examples. But if it is not labeled pornographic, then the art isn't pornographic even though the is blatant sexual situations going on?

Demonstrating, as I previously claimed, that you have no perception of what porn is. "Blatant sexual situations going on" are not necessarily porn.

Well then. From now on, my art shall not be labeled as pornographic. It is pure art, one that challenges people to see pleasure that can come from something that some people would percieve as dangerous.

I'm good with that, if that's what you think it is. I would, however, advise that you be careful, though, if you seriously intend to seek to pass off what could rightly be deemed to be porn simply as art. I can assure you the judicial system will not look on you sympathetically should you find yourself on the wrong side of the law.

I'm going to start by selling my art to a gallery.

Good luck with that - but why didn't you do that before, I wonder. Regardless, no offence, but I'll not be buying shares if you're considering an IPO.

My art stands for what it is.

Great (whatever that means!).

I have to go to work soon, I'm sorry that I do not have time to re-post every post from your question to this point. May I please politely ask that you re read the posts.

It can wait until you return - no rush on my part.

Interesting you've chosen to see my postings as such. You are the one who keeps posting this smiley: and keep asking me to clarify.

Are you denying you read "third-ranked" as "third rate" and proceeded to bark not only up the wrong tree, but in the wrong woods?

Well that shows you read the headline. However, if you read the article, you'd realize that the museum wanted to put it up. Even went to a lawyer to make sure they were not breaking any rules. The curator defended the photo. It seems to me that the only reason it was taken down was because people were afraid that the room where it was in would be filled with pedophiles from all state.

What I wrote applies whether I read only the headline or the entire article (truth is, I skim read the entire article). Bottom line is they removed it, as I rightly stated.

So you are interested in the art, then? I suggest if you are that anxious to see it, you can always order Manga.

So you don't know then, because there will be none. Thank you.

Do you really need me to explain to you how a nail was created, designed, crafted, tested, improved, packaged, etc, etc, or a steel girder, or a truck engine, or a water-treatment plant, or a power station or a staple, or a spade or an internal model or a telephone exchange. Do we really need to go that far for you to get it?

No, but I'd love to hear your views as the artistic styling of these things. Go ahead ...

Then answer my question if you know. I don't. I'll admit it. Since you refuse to answer the question, until you do, I'll assume you don't either.

OK - me!

So your intent is to say you agree with me that if something is illegal, it still can be art.

No. An illegal act can, sometimes, have artistic styling associated with it, is what I'm saying.

Please explain that to the people who arrested Lenny Bruce, or fined Howard Stern, or fined CBS because of Janet Jackson, or who the people forced a museum to take down a picture of Brooke Shields.....

If people break the law or "cross the line" then that's what they do. If they seek to hide behind "art", as you've stated you will (tongue-in-cheek, I believe, but regardless), then they're either foolish, naive, irresponsible, arrogant or careless (or a combination of these).