• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Porn vs. Art

Southwind17 said:
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.
Click to expand...


You asked for evidence. I provided evidence. Now, predictably, you say "Oh. Well. Okay. How about some more evidence." Actually, if you had bothered to read the quote I cited it included more evidence.

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.
Click to expand...


I feel confident that I could discover still more for you, but I am unwilling to continue to do further research on your behalf that you yourself are reluctant to undertake.

You will string out the "isolated incident" duck and weave until people get tired of playing. You do this because you are unwilling to engage the real question. "Why is any incident justifiable."

The rest of your post bears a startling resemblance to sentences, but I suspect that is an artifact of having words strung together in a series that way. It's helpful if they combine to communicate some coherent meaning. Your efforts there have failed.
 
Southwind17 said:
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.
Click to expand...


If you think that is stretching credibility then you are demonstrating a weak, if not non-existent grasp of both photography and art.
 
Last edited:
Southwind17 said:
Why not?


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]


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


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.


That you've proceeded to hang yourself with! :D
Click to expand...

Oh well then.

I have another film that tells the story of a married couple finding some common ground. They are so happy they share their joy together. It's a film showing their love for one another and is not meant to be sexual or erotic in anyway. Their bodies are a work of art, how the interact is emotional and loving.

It is my intent to show this story, to show their love for each other. Not my intent to be erotic or sexual.

So if you see it as porn, then realize that is not my intent.

Thanks again for clarification of your little loophole.
 
Southwind17 said:
I suspect he's having the same problem that I often have with them. Law of averages suggests culpability.
Click to expand...

No, he eventually showed he understood my point.

Seems to me that you don't want to understand mine because you can't counter with anything credible.

A lot of other people on this (and the previous) thread feel the same way. So I suspect they are having the same problem with your argument that I often have with it. Law of averages suggests culpability.
 
Southwind17 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maplethorpe.

http://www.mapplethorpe.org/portfolios/

These are his more tamer photos. Some of them are out and hard core. So much so that in some places he was called a pornographer.

Andrew Blake.

From wiki:
Andrew Blake's films are characterized by high production values, artistic stylization, and rigorous technique. His style has been compared to that of the seminal fashion photographer Helmut Newton, and described as "decadent, lush, opulent, unfailingly arousing, moneyed and sophisticated."[2] Blake's contemporaries include the established pornographic director/producers Viv Thomas, Michael Ninn and Marc Dorcel.

Blake's work has been described as "lavishly produced and lovingly edited,"[3] and sex writer Violet Blue says of Blake's work: "It's a whole different genre of explicit erotic filmmaking evident from the first frame -- pure high fashion, glossy candyland fantasy. It is luxuriously designed from nip tip to toe. And it's stylish as hell."[2]
Click to expand...

But then again, Andrew Blake's work was never in a museum. So does your definition: "If it was never in a museum, it isn't art" apply to Blake?
 
I've kind of lost the point Southwind was trying to make,
but Tranewreck is suggesting that simple nudity without any sexual context puts a child at such a great risk of psychological problems in later life that it should be outright forbidden.
Any proof perhaps? Any studies done on this?
 
JFrankA said:
Let me ask you something:
How do you know what someone's intent is?
Click to expand...
By inquiry and consideration of the evidence.

JFrankA said:
I made a porno, not to arouse, but to tell a story. That's my intent simply to tell a story. Now it may be hardcore, lots of sex, lots of close ups, but I say that it's not porno - it's not meant to arouse, it tells a story.
So now, is the production I shot a porno?
Click to expand...
Evidently not. Is it likely to sexually arouse? I'd say so. Perhaps we need different categories of child porn, resultant laws and punishments, like we have for homicide.
 
Southwind17 said:
By inquiry and consideration of the evidence.


Evidently not. Is it likely to sexually arouse? I'd say so. Perhaps we need different categories of child porn, resultant laws and punishments, like we have for homicide.
Click to expand...

No no no. You are dodging the question.

I made a video with no intention of any erotic or arousal. My intention is only to tell this story and convey the emotional bonding that these two people have rekindled. I don't know if it will sexually arouse anyone, it doesn't matter. It is not my intent.

I say to you, by your definition, it is not porn. It is art.
 
Cavemonster said:
Really? What kind of evidence specifically?
Click to expand...
It would, of course, depend on the individual circumstances, but could include, off the cuff, driver/motivation, production methodology, nature of imagery, treatment of subject, marketing and distribution/display of end product.

It's not difficult, based on evidence, to conclude that "Big Jugs", for example, is pornographic, and that the Vietnam nepalm photo isn't. Most instances of child nudity will, I suggest, be equally unequivocal, so don't pretend this poses a pandemic problem warranting mass hysteria. If you ask me, the vast majority of "artists", indeed most artists engaging in incidental child nudity imagery, know what the evidence will show, if tested, and wouldn't lose sleep over it.
 
Southwind17 said:
It would, of course, depend on the individual circumstances, but could include, off the cuff, driver/motivation, production methodology, nature of imagery, treatment of subject, marketing and distribution/display of end product.

It's not difficult, based on evidence, to conclude that "Big Jugs", for example, is pornographic, and that the Vietnam nepalm photo isn't. Most instances of child nudity will, I suggest, be equally unequivocal, so don't pretend this poses a pandemic problem warranting mass hysteria. If you ask me, the vast majority of "artists", indeed most artists engaging in incidental child nudity imagery, know what the evidence will show, if tested, and wouldn't lose sleep over it.
Click to expand...

Maplethorpe had nude children in his exhibition. They were hung in a museum. Some people called it porn, some people called it art.
 
JFrankA said:
Oh well then.

I have another film that tells the story of a married couple finding some common ground. They are so happy they share their joy together. It's a film showing their love for one another and is not meant to be sexual or erotic in anyway. Their bodies are a work of art, how the interact is emotional and loving.

It is my intent to show this story, to show their love for each other. Not my intent to be erotic or sexual.

So if you see it as porn, then realize that is not my intent.

Thanks again for clarification of your little loophole.
Click to expand...

Why not just tell him to go watch Shortbus?
 
JFrankA said:
Maplethorpe had nude children in his exhibition. They were hung in a museum. Some people called it porn, some people called it art.
Click to expand...

And how much political influnce each group has would be the determining factor in "classifing" such art. Also note any actual harm to the children isn't the issue in making such judgements.
 
JFrankA said:
Uhm....because I never heard of the film! I have to see it now. Thanks :)
Click to expand...

It is the best example I have seen of a non porn film that is sexually explicit, but is really a artistic independent film about relationships. It is by the guy who did Hedwig and the Angry Inch.

Are parts of it arousing? Well depends on what you find arousing, but sure some of them are likely to be to many people.

The only note I would make is that it contains both explicit heterosexual and explicit male male homosexual sex(not really much explicit female female). So if that would bother someone too much they shouldn't watch the movie.
 
Southwind17 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Unless Charlie Laine is in it, then it's art regardless.
swoon.gif
 
JFrankA said:
The actual question is: was the child who performed the scene actually abused and/or molested during the filming of the scene?
Click to expand...
.
I couldn't find any screen credit for that actor, to see what kind of a life of crime he pursued later.
 
JFrankA said:
Maplethorpe had nude children in his exhibition. They were hung in a museum. Some people called it porn, some people called it art.
Click to expand...
.
And some ( such as me) called it pandering filth and crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom