Porn vs. Art

[Southwind17]

These are laws passed to punish someone because of how someone else interprets an image.

Well if that isn't a cynical, nay "draconian", view!

 

[Cavemonster]

Evidence my friend ... evidence, just like when judges and jury apply their "telepathy credentials" in determining other, non-pornography cases where intent is key. Perhaps you'd care to post an example of a child's clothing ad that you have determined is intended to sexually arouse in a "subtle and innocuous(!!!) fashion under cover of some other purpose", and explain your rationale for such determination. You'll excuse me if I choose not to hold my breath, I hope.

Really? What kind of evidence specifically?

 

[Southwind17]

One cannot determine the intent of a person who makes a production.

Why not?

I can tell you I did make a video, that is erotic, but to "sexually arouse" someone wasn't my intent.

Oh, you never fail to amuse, more so because it's always unwitting:

adj erotic relating to or arousing sexual desire
[The Chambers Dictionary 1998 reprint]

I have to have it on a porn site because it does contain nudity.

Nothing to do with it being "erotic" (pornographic), then?!

...now since my intent wasn't to "sexually arouse", I say it's not porn. Therefore, by your definition, what I produced is art.

Notwithstanding that your ego trip could well be to blame for your clouded judgement, you seem to think that I'm claiming that porn and art are mutually exclusive. I suggest you start over.

Thank you for the loophole.

That you've proceeded to hang yourself with!

 

[quadraginta]

And after ALL that beratement and hot air we're still, clearly (thank you) talking extremely isolated incidents, which I think essentially was TraneWreck's point. Wood and trees

You say "extremely isolated". The last time we went through this more and more examples continued to be presented to you, so "extremely" gradually becomes "rare", and then, as in the Fox News (bastion of conservative propriety) article I offered in the post of mine you quoted, it turns out that the majority of abuse complaints may be unfounded.

But let's leave that obvious fallacy and evasion of yours aside and simply pursue the failed logic of defending bad law simply because the proven collateral damage may be rare. There ought to be some demonstration that actual benefits exist to offset the proven damage. That remains to be established.

No one is suggesting that child abuse should be condoned under any circumstances, but laws to protect children do not have to be conflated with pornography prohibition. They are two separate, unrelated issues, and the insistence on blending the two together is a baldfaced, disingenuous appeal to emotion.

It has been clearly established that child pornography laws will be misused by overzealous prosecutors. I don't think it is relevant to point to the frequency of this misuse if no demonstrable benefit to children can be established that is not already covered by laws which did not appeal to prurience or prudery.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

For some reason I'm reminded of the 30's german exhibitions of 'degenerate art'. You'd be hard pressed to tell why something in one of those exhibits was said to not be 'true' art, until you know its background and the context, and even then, there's plenty of wiggle room. Like in the OP, the main reason it would be 'degenerate' is that the powers that be say so, on a 'we know it when we see it' basis. Weak.

A

 

[Southwind17]

To this I shall respond visually.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=41&pictureid=2658[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=41&pictureid=2657[/qimg]

And by doing so you make TraneWreck's case for him. That photo wasn't taken because of the nudity. The girl just happened to be nude. Had all the children in that photo been dressed it would still have been taken, for exactly the same reason, and still had the same impact. QED

Now, please review this ill-considered tripe:

Your absolute stance is stupid. Your refusal to consider the results of your rules is stupid. Your refusal to think about censorship is stupidly naive. One picture is worth one thousand words, and those two explain more completely and more absolutely than I ever could how your opinion and desire for censorship are destructive to our free speech and dialogue as a nation. Two thousand words condemn you and your answer is 'think of the children.' Someone should, you sure as hell haven't.

 

[Southwind17]

Right. Define art. Fat piled in a corner, or smeared on a wall, or left in a pile on a chair?
Beuys' "Fat Corner" was inadvertently destroyed when the room it was in was cleaned - the building custodian thought it was just a disgusting mess that someone hadn't bothered to clean up. How do you tell art from satire? You don't. Satire at that level is an art form.
An artistic painting or drawing of a nude woman makes me appreciate the skill of the artist and the beauty of the woman. A pornographic nude picture or drawing of a woman makes me wish I could get it on with that hot chick and appreciate the skill of the artist.
In other words:
It's artistic if you can concentrate on the technique and how the artist got the lighting just that way.
It's pornographic if you wonder how in the heck the artist managed to keep his hands off her long enough to paint the picture.

Although you claim to appreciate the skill of artists I don't think you actually appreciate what the word "skill" actually means. Without appreciating the latter you cannot, I'm sorry to inform you, legitimately claim to appreciate the former.

 

[quadraginta]

Evidence my friend ... evidence, just like when judges and jury apply their "telepathy credentials" in determining other, non-pornography cases where intent is key. Perhaps you'd care to post an example of a child's clothing ad that you have determined is intended to sexually arouse in a "subtle and innocuous(!!!) fashion under cover of some other purpose", and explain your rationale for such determination. You'll excuse me if I choose not to hold my breath, I hope.

You don't need my determination. Here's one for you from a mayor of New York.

Calvin Klein Cancels Ads With Children Amid Criticism

By ANDY NEWMAN

Published: February 18, 1999

Calvin Klein decided yesterday to cancel an advertising campaign for his new line of children's underwear after heavy criticism from conservative groups, psychologists and the Mayor, among others.

Calvin Klein Inc. had planned to unveil a huge billboard in Times Square today -- in the middle of Fashion Week -- showing two boys who appeared to be about 6 years old, one clad only in jockey shorts, the other in boxers, standing on a sofa and arm-wrestling.

...

The new campaign for boys' and girls' underwear, developed by the company's in-house agency, CRK Advertising, and shot by the fashion photographer Mario Testino, ''was intended to show children smiling, laughing and just being themselves,'' the statement said.

''We wanted to capture the same warmth and spontaneity that you find in a family snapshot,'' the statement continued.

...

''I think they're in very bad taste,'' Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani said yesterday before the company announced that it was pulling the ads. ''But I can't stop them. I mean, there's the First Amendment.''

The Rev. Donald E. Wildmon, the president of the American Family Association in Tupelo, Miss., told The Associated Press that the photo would appeal to pedophiles and was ''nothing more than pornography.''

This is the latest in a long string of Calvin Klein ad campaigns that have drawn fire for what was perceived to be sexual content.

Twice within three months in 1995, the company canceled ad campaigns under barrages of criticism. One, for jeans, featured teen-age models in poses and settings that critics said reeked of cheap X-rated movies. The other showed men modeling underwear in what some said appeared to be a state of arousal.

Not my "rationale" and not my "determination". This is the real world.

 

[Southwind17]

You say "extremely isolated". The last time we went through this more and more examples continued to be presented to you, so "extremely" gradually becomes "rare", and then, as in the Fox News (bastion of conservative propriety) article I offered in the post of mine you quoted, it turns out that the majority of abuse complaints may be unfounded.

Yes, I suppose 1 increasing to 3 via 2 could technically be described as "more and more". 3, however, indeed 30, or even 300, in context, is not only "rare", but still "extremely isolated". Now, those 300 cases, or even 30, remind me, were which?

But let's leave that obvious fallacy ...

... and evasion of yours aside and simply pursue the failed logic of defending bad law simply because the proven collateral damage may be rare.

Sorry - off topic. "Evasion"?!

 

[quadraginta]

These are laws passed to punish someone because of how someone else interprets an image.

Well if that isn't a cynical, nay "draconian", view!

You're right (for a change)! It isn't.

It's a simple statement of fact.

 

[Southwind17]

Interesting how nude photos of children ACTUALLY suffering is okay with you ...

Interesting how juvenile this statement is. If it's your genuine interpretation then that's even more sad.

 

[Belz...]

40 posts in under 2 hours, including your contributions. Care to re-think?

Considering the number and length of the bigfoot threads, I don't think that this is a very good argument in your favor.

 

[Belz...]

Excuse me?

That biological reality must be considered... didn't Frank say that ?

 

[Belz...]

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...)

Same thing for cherubs in some renaissance artwork.

 

[Belz...]

Probably because there was no intention to sexually arouse, and that was reflected in the way the image was portrayed. Hey ho.

Although, intent nonwithstanding, a person watching the movie could be aroused, nonetheless.

 

[Southwind17]

You don't need my determination. Here's one for you from a mayor of New York.
...
...
Not my "rationale" and not my "determination". This is the real world.

Ah ... it seems we're on the same page after all, not like the mayor. This would appear to be yet another "extremely isolated" incident. You don't seem to grasp the driver for modern newscasting do you. Not surprising really, as that's why the driver is what it is - people, generally, pander to it. The trick, though, is contextualizing, something that you, evidently, like most, fail to do. But yes, you're right ... this certainly is the real world.

 

[Southwind17]

Is it the same difference as an artist who paints landscapes that actually exist and an artist who paints a landscape he just made up?
Photographic art doesn't have to be of something deliberately arranged by the photographer. Instead of creating the scene to be photographed he can seek out real-life situations that suit his purpose. We're talking about professional artistic photography here, not someone just taking random snapshots on a holiday or a news photographer simply trying to record what's happening.
For example...
]http://www.desertimages.com.au/art-prints/australia/images/misty-bridge.jpg[/qimg]
The photographer couldn't possibly have "set up his subject matter" for this shot... he just took "pictures of something that exists", yet it's still art.

It's only art if skill is involved. I would suggest that the photographer of the bridge applied some skill in composing the shot, and suspect some also in determining the exposure, possibly selecting the film stock, hence art. But if he just happened to be driving along, spotted an interesting image, grabbed the instamatic, pointed and shot, that's not art, unless you want to stretch credibility to claiming that he applied skill in recognising the photographic merit of a chance circumstance, in which case drop me your address and I'll send you an invitation to my first exhibition soon.

 

[Belz...]

Are we calling those art? Or are those images from on going news events?

I can't think of anything that I've said that would stop someone from recording a historic event. Now if the photographer went and found a young girl and paid her to run aroun crying, that would engage the sorts of issues I'm discussing.

Try as you might, these things are very easy to distinguish.

Now I'm sure there exists some event such that the newsworthyness would be arguable, and that's why we have courts.

But you've avoided the question, quite emotionally, as it were. A PASSIONED, if misdirected, defense of using naked kids in art.

Basically, Trane, what you're saying is that photographing nude children is WRONG ALWAYS. Except for family pictures. Oh, and historical documents, too. Oh, and probably for medical purposes.

Are there any other exceptions to your initial absolutist comment, now ?

 

[Belz...]

Well, since you quoted me I'll respond, but this isn't really the issue I've been dealing with.

My stance is to not worry about whether it's porn or not and err on the side of protecting children.

I don't remember Superman off the top of my head, so I'll say 2 things:

1) Maybe the kid was old enough that it was cool. I'm not hung up on the 18 rule, I think a 16 year old could reasonably consent. We also don't know the actual age of the actor, he may have just looked young. I'm sure some IMDB effort would reveal the truth.

2) Is Superman III, the work of art radically altered if that kid has some tighty-whities on? Was underage phallus necessary to that work?

Ah, so in SOME art we have other exceptions, and if it's NECESSARY also. Gee, that doesn't leave much, does it ?

 

[Southwind17]

Back when I was an altar boy, I recall spending some time with one of the base chaplains.... in his Cessna 140!
My first flight.
Other than that, nothing unusual that comes to mind.

Popped your cherry a mile high did he? Welcome to the Club. Time's a great healer eh!