Porn vs. Art

[Southwind17]

Are you talking about yourself?

Excuse me?

 

[Southwind17]

Not really. But like in all things ideal fantasy has to give way to objective reality.

Meaning what, in context?

 

[Southwind17]

Wait. Don't you think all art (nude, non-nude, child, adult, etc) is produced the same way as the first list I gave?

No ... your list is specific to child nudity, as intended.

...I should add to that list: the person who is the subject of the production is either getting paid or voluntarily not getting paid.

Which just serves to reinforce my question as to relevance.

 

[JFrankA]

No ... your list is specific to child nudity, as intended.

Interesting.... how do you think what I've listed and how your definition of art is made?

Which just serves to reinforce my question as to relevance.

Enlighten me. How?

 

[brodski]

Even though you whole-heartedly agree with it, and feel the need to say so? ...

Of course I agree with it, porn isn't a sport either, or a method of car maintainece. I'm sure you would agree with all of these statements, it dosen't make them useful.

 

[Southwind17]

I said it's a picture and how you view it is up to you.

Implying that any image can be deemed to be art by the beholder. That conflicts with just about every useful definition of "art" in a social context.

Which part(s) do you disagree with?

That part above.

No. You could take moral satisfaction from controlling them.

You could, but that doesn't alter my statement.

"Based on" is not equivalent to "is equivalent to". Were it not for the fact that perfectly normal biological drives have consequences for others, we would not require laws.

You can't have it both ways. You can't apply "the reality of biological drivers" case just when it suits.

We wouldn't be human , either.

Again, you can't have it both ways.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Since the linked article is actually interesting, but Southwind17 is clearly just trolling and is not going to start a decent discussion, I guess it's up to the rest of us to discuss it.

The problem with the proposed legislation seems to be that since nobody (except possibly Southwind17) has ever come up with decent definitions of porn and art that are mutually exclusive, artists who portray people who are or might be underage in situations that someone could interpret as pornographic will need to pay duly appointed busybodies $500 per artwork to have their art officially rated.

Unless those artists make well over $500 per piece and are doing so well that they can survive while said busybodies take weeks to decide whether or not a given photograph is too naughty, this represents a significant chilling effect on art portraying underage people.

The Henson case demonstrated clearly that even artwork that is well within the bounds of what is legal in Australia can still be subjected to police investigation if self-appointed guardians of morality kick up a stink. As such, it's my view that currently such art is already over-scrutinised and over-regulated and that this legislation is a step in the wrong direction.

 

[Southwind17]

Okay. I misquoted you. That's fair.

But do we have to go through that again?

You don't have to "go through" anything. Are you on commission here?!

 

[JFrankA]

Implying that any image can be deemed to be art by the beholder. That conflicts with just about every useful definition of "art" in a social context.

That part above.

But that's EXACTLY how your article is judging whether it's porn or art.

You could, but that doesn't alter my statement.

Make up your mind. Do you agree with the way the courts in are going to decide or are you arguing your definition (again).

You can't have it both ways. You can't apply "the reality of biological drivers" case just when it suits.


Again, you can't have it both ways.

Neither can you.

The article says that a bunch of people are going to decide whether a piece of work is child porn or art. That's EXACTLY what Soapy Sam is describing are you are disputing it.

Then I come up with a list of ways that a court can more objectively see the difference between a legitimate piece of work and something that actually caused harm, which would hold up more in court rather than someone's opinion and you dispute that.

Time for you to decide what this topic is about: are we discussing the article or your definition of porn and art?

 

[Southwind17]

Many people think that this is indeed impossible.

You should post your own definitions of art and pornography. Possibly by doing so you will prove those people wrong.

This is neither here nor there. If the sole thing holding you back from posting your definitions of art and pornography is that you are concerned that I, personally, will not be persuaded then I suggest that you should post your definitions anyway for the sake of everyone else in the thread.

OK, I'll post a recognised dictionary definition of each, for the purpose of discussion. I don't necessarily subscribe to these in all respects, but don't see them as particularly objectionable:

art n practical skill, or its application, guided by principles; human skill and agency (opp to nature); application of skill to production of beauty (esp visible beauty) and works of creative imagination, as in the fine arts; (in general use) the visual arts, drawing and painting and usu sculpture ...

pornography n books, magazines, films, etc dealing with or depicting sexual acts, in a more or less explicit way, intended to arouse sexual excitement ...

You should spot some key differentiators, unless you choose to be deliberately obtuse.

 

[Cainkane1]

Clearly, porn is not art per se, especially child porn, as some misguided, self-indulgent people like to think.

Photographing nude children is wrong. The child may not be able to say no. I feel that this is wrong even if the parents are present. Who exactly would enjoy looking at these pictures? I wouldn't. I'd feel sorry for the exploited child.

 

[Southwind17]

Interesting.... how do you think what I've listed and how your definition of art is made?

Sorry, can you clarify what you're asking of me.

Enlighten me. How?

Because what you added bears no relationship to the topic of art vs. porn.

 

[AWPrime]

Excuse me?

So much speculation, eh, with a pre-empted conclusion clearly drawn. Somehow I don't think you are willing to be persuaded (notwithstanding that you misunderstand my claim).

It looks like you were describing yourself.

 

[Southwind17]

Of course I agree with it, porn isn't a sport either, or a method of car maintainece. I'm sure you would agree with all of these statements, it dosen't make them useful.

You're looking at the wrong side of the coin - flip it over. If somebody seriously claimed that porn is a sport you'd find that an interesting viewpoint, I suspect, and worthy of discussion. Is porn art per se? Get it?

 

[JFrankA]

OK, I'll post a recognised dictionary definition of each, for the purpose of discussion. I don't necessarily subscribe to these in all respects, but don't see them as particularly objectionable:

art n practical skill, or its application, guided by principles; human skill and agency (opp to nature); application of skill to production of beauty (esp visible beauty) and works of creative imagination, as in the fine arts; (in general use) the visual arts, drawing and painting and usu sculpture ...

pornography n books, magazines, films, etc dealing with or depicting sexual acts, in a more or less explicit way, intended to arouse sexual excitement ...

You should spot some key differentiators, unless you choose to be deliberately obtuse.

I can nitpick too.

Art - noun. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

I have seen some porn that fits that description.

Can you dispute that?

 

[Brian-M]

Thinking about this... by some definitions of "child porn", my copy of "The Complete Illustrated Works of Lewis Carroll" contains child porn. After all, it does have drawings of naked children in the poetry section. (Well, fairy-children, but still...)

*Shock* *Horror* *Gasp* Child porn in a children's book for over 100 years... somebody think of the children!



Of course, innocent nude drawings in a children's book aren't the same thing as photographs of nude children, but since we already have a precedent (and a conviction) that simple cartoon characters can count as child-porn, the question arises about how far does this go?

If E. Gertrude Thomson was alive today and living in Australia, he'd have to think twice about doing illustrations like the ones he did for Lewis Carrol's "Three Sunsets and Other Poems".

 

[Idiot Wind]

As far as I can tell nobody is claiming that porn is art per se.

There's porn, there's art, and there's a huge grey area with possible overlap.

 

[JFrankA]

Photographing nude children is wrong. The child may not be able to say no. I feel that this is wrong even if the parents are present. Who exactly would enjoy looking at these pictures? I wouldn't. I'd feel sorry for the exploited child.

Have you seen the start of Superman?

There was a naked little boy in there, arms outstretched.

I enjoyed that scene without being sexually aroused........

 

[Southwind17]

It looks like you were describing yourself.

Well I wasn't, not intentionally, but so what. Your point?

 

[Southwind17]

I can nitpick too.

Who else is nitpicking? I simply posted the definitions from the dictionary on my shelf, as requested.

I have seen some porn that fits that description.

You've seen SOME porn that fits within the definition of "art". So have I - I've admitted so. Some porn has some artistic merit associated with it. But here's the rub: not ALL porn fits within the definition of "art", ergo porn PER SE is not art.

That's all I'm getting at here. It's not complicated. Some people claim that porn PER SE is art. I don't believe it is. You, clearly (now), don't either. I don't know who here, if anybody, does, but I have my answer now.