Porn vs. Art

[Belz...]

I'm sorry - "non-artist", meaning what, exactly?

Say, a construction worker. I doubt you consider drilling with a jackhammer art.

So, do you consider that if an artist creates a painting, and a construction worker an identical painting, that the former is art and the latter not ?

Since I suspect you won't, can we therefore say that we CANNOT define art as "what an artist creates" and abandon this ridiculous argument of yours ?

 

[GreyICE]

Ah ... thank you quixote. Your post prompted me to re-read GreyICE's post, and I see now that I overlooked the subtlety of his inference, probably because my position relies not at all on subtlety. Of course it's true that all squares are rectangles (my apologies), but not, of course, that all rectangles are squares, whereas, equally by definition, art is created only by artists and, of course, only artists create art. I wonder where GreyICE's logical thinking went awry in his failed comparison.

Ah, you highlighted the exact flaw in your own reasoning, thank you for saving me some time. Obviously an artist is defined as one who creates art, so while it's a tad convoluted to say that 'only artists create art' (only murders kill people, only thieves steal, only criminals will have guns...), it's technically correct.

However the entire question posed by the 'found art' movement was if artists were necessary to create art. Since the found art movement (or even ignoring it entirely, as you probably will), plenty of photographers have demonstrated that there is no necessity for a 'creator' for there to be art - the scene itself was artistic, the photographer captured it.

For instance, see here and here. Was either geological phenomena created by an artist? Clearly not. Are they art?

 

[Southwind17]

HOW can taking pictures of a nude child cause harm to the child without some form of picture taking-independent abuse going on ?

Hang on. You seem to be indicating here that your argument is aimed at countering a claim that it's the act of taking pictures that causes harm as opposed to posing nude whilst having one's picture taken. Is that the case? If so you've woefully barked up the wrong tree. You do realize that there's a fundamental difference between the two, don't you? You do realize that the alleged potential harm derives not from the artist's actions per se, but how such actions are mentally received by the subject, don't you?

Instead of goofing around, you might actually want to read, understand and answer my point. If you don't understand, you do what I do: ASK. Unlike you, I'll clarify instead of making fun of you.

OK, go ahead, clarify.

What ? How does this relate to what I said ? Do you or do you not agree that EVEN for obvious situations such as dropping a baby on its head, there is a RISK of harm ?

Oh I certainly agree with that. But that's not what your post seemed to allude to. At least it certainly doesn't read that way.

No, therefore nohow so. Read what I said again.

I'm sorry, I've learned from bitter experience that no number of read-overs tends to clarify your more spurious posts.

I think I know what your problem is. I've always known you have great difficulty following a conversation. It's been obvious for quite a while, since you keep posting things that show that you don't remember what either you or I said a day or two ago. When I don't remember, I go and look at previous posts to refresh my memory... that's understandable because sometimes we cut each other posts into snippets and we kinda lose context. But you... oh NO! You don't want to go back. If you don't remember, it never happened, and you can post comments like you just did, basically ignoring me altogether.

Mmm ... sounds like a person writing with a complex of inferiority to me, but seeking to dismiss it under the pretext of assumed equivalence.

Ok, fine. Let's go with that. What is the "role of an artist" ? You lose if you say "to create art".

In that case OK, I lose. I suppose I double-lose if I claim that the role of a bricklayer is to lay bricks, right?

 

[Belz...]

The reasons are irrelevant (unless you're suggesting that my kids are unique). The fact of the matter is all that matters. Nudity is clearly an issue for kids even in the most innocuous of circumstances - period.

Now there's an interesting claim. Care to back that up with evidence ?

 

[Belz...]

Except that neither of those two statements is true!

Squares are not rectangles ? Wow! I'm happy you cleared that one up.

 

[Belz...]

Rubbish.

Considering that even you were arguing that art is art when it's intended so, I find your answer here puzzling.

I trust this straw man has been adequately clarified now and put to bed.

Again, you seem to fail to grasp the implications of your own words.

Is that all? The intrinsic arrangement (as opposed to randomness) of the paint has no relevance?

No, it doesn't. Paint is paint. The pattern means nothing unless you give it meaning. In fact, that's the whole point of abstract art.

 

[Belz...]

Hang on. You seem to be indicating here that your argument is aimed at countering a claim that it's the act of taking pictures that causes harm as opposed to posing nude whilst having one's picture taken. Is that the case? If so you've woefully barked up the wrong tree. You do realize that there's a fundamental difference between the two, don't you? You do realize that the alleged potential harm derives not from the artist's actions per se, but how such actions are mentally received by the subject, don't you?

So far, yes. How does that harm the kid, already ?

OK, go ahead, clarify.

What don't you understand that needs clarifying ?

Oh I certainly agree with that.

Marvelous. Since there is a RISK that people may harm children even in the most obvious of tasks, shouldn't they be banned from performing those tasks ? And, if not (I assume you'll say no), why would child nudity be banned on the assumption of potential harm ? Isn't that a double-standard ?

I'm sorry, I've learned from bitter experience that no number of read-overs tends to clarify your more spurious posts.

That's because you read what you want to read instead of what's actually written. The squares-aren't-rectangles post above shows this quite eloquently. Now, take a few seconds to backtrack and read carefully, and see what you can do when you put some effort into it.

Mmm ... sounds like a person writing with a complex of inferiority to me, but seeking to dismiss it under the pretext of assumed equivalence.

Wow. Not only are you unable to stick to the argument without insulting your correspondants but you now stoop to psychoanalyse them! One could almost think you're deliberatly trying to avoid the discussion.

In that case OK, I lose. I suppose I double-lose if I claim that the role of a bricklayer is to lay bricks, right?

Actually, that doesn't answer my question. What is the "role of an artist" ? The reason why you can't say "to create art" is because doing so, per your definition that art is what an artist creates, would create a circular definition. Again, you're confused by your own argument. It's no surprise mine confused you as well.

 

[Southwind17]

Say, a construction worker. I doubt you consider drilling with a jackhammer art.

You're right there. See next for key point.

So, do you consider that if an artist creates a painting, and a construction worker an identical painting, that the former is art and the latter not ?

You're clearly confused. You seem to think either that an "artist" has some inherently different characteristic from a "non-artist" (other than the skill to create art, that is) or that I'm suggesting so. The best way to understand this, I find, is not to pidgeon-hole people, as you have done, but think of them with a number of different hats, worn to represent what they happen to be doing at any one time. Accordingly, a person who does construction work during the day might care for children during the early evening and create art in the late evening. We could, for the purpose of discussion, if we wish, then state that he is a construction worker, child carer (or father, if you like!) and artist. One thing's for sure, though: if he never "wears an artists hat" he never creates "art". If he should happen to create "art" then it's indisputable that he sometimes "wears an artist's hat", and could, then, be classified as an "artist", but only while he's "wearing the requisite hat"! See?

Since I suspect you won't, can we therefore say that we CANNOT define art as "what an artist creates" and abandon this ridiculous argument of yours ?

I'm hoping the above helps with this difficulty you're having, but sadly I'm not confident.

 

[JFrankA]

You're right there. See next for key point.


You're clearly confused. You seem to think either that an "artist" has some inherently different characteristic from a "non-artist" (other than the skill to create art, that is) or that I'm suggesting so. The best way to understand this, I find, is not to pidgeon-hole people, as you have done, but think of them with a number of different hats, worn to represent what they happen to be doing at any one time. Accordingly, a person who does construction work during the day might care for children during the early evening and create art in the late evening. We could, for the purpose of discussion, if we wish, then state that he is a construction worker, child carer (or father, if you like!) and artist. One thing's for sure, though: if he never "wears an artists hat" he never creates "art". If he should happen to create "art" then it's indisputable that he sometimes "wears an artist's hat", and could, then, be classified as an "artist", but only while he's "wearing the requisite hat"! See?

I'm hoping the above helps with this difficulty you're having, but sadly I'm not confident.

Oh, but can a pornographer can never wear the artist's hat when she/he is wearing the pornography hat?

 

[JFrankA]

To reiterate, I omitted them because, although I suspect evidence exists, I cannot be sure ... otherwise, in view of the evidence, if any, that might otherwise be available and relevant to assessing risk, a decision as to their possible control, including even possible banning, should be made. I very much doubt that an informed risk assessment would result in the banning of body powder or fish oil.

But the evidence exists for many things for potential harm and potential abuse: alcohol, guns, dinner knives, screwdrivers, rat poison, gasoline, etc. The thing is that those things are used, for the most part, responsibly. Those who misuse those items to cause harm on someone else is properly punished. And there is no study in place that say exactly how many people will misuse any items and thereby measuring it's potential harm. "Potential harm" is not the answer. The answer is real harm. We don't arrest a person for using a screwdriver, even if they are pretending to stab someone with it. If the blade actually goes into the skin of someone else, then we get real harm. The same goes for child nudity production.

The obvious difference is that there a child involved directly. Still, there's no way of knowing the potential harm that can caused by even the most innocent of pictures. However, what the concern is that what harm and abuse that the child has gone through to get that picture, in other words, was real harm done?

Here is why I made that list way back in post# 5. When a photographer is taking pictures of anyone nude: child, adult - people are going to ask "was there any abuse involved?" (By the way, there's a chance of abuse was involved even when a person is clothed.) With an adult, there's an assumption that the person is "old enough to make their own decisions". That's why there are contracts and release forms for adult models. For adult nude & sex models there's also the 2257 rule (at least in the US).

Now with children, the difference is that assumption, "old enough to make their own decisions" does not apply for obvious reasons. Further, a child shouldn't have to go through something they are not yet ready for either physically or mentally. This, of course, includes a sexual situation. Nudity is something we are born with, and nudity is not always a sexual situation.

If a person wants to make a piece of art involving a nude child for whatever reason, (sometimes to express innocence, I may add), and the child clearly understands what is going on, also, the parents are there along with the child, clearly knowing what's going on, even on site during the shoot, all legal papers are signed by everyone for all to see and the photos are not hidden away and never seen again, hell, let's go further and have an official officer of the law there on the shoot as well, then that photographer has made it blatantly clear that there is no harm coming to the child involved. In the end, the child posing shows no signs of harm.

When a person wants to create child porn, they do not go through any of this. They take the child and abuse her or him and film themselves doing it. There is no regard for the child, no regard for parents and the law. And the child, unfortunately, shows signs of abuse, both physical and mental. The production is hidden and kept out of the public eye. In this case, it clearly shows that there was abuse.

Now I'm not saying this is perfect nor am I saying it's complete. But getting back to the article you posted, to decide if a production involving a nude child is art or porn is horrible. It doesn't take into account what actually happened during the shoot. In this case, it's looking at a cover of a book and not looking into it.

Banning all nude child production takes that one step further. It's like banning an entire section out of the bookstore.

I don't believe child nudity not causing harm per se is in dispute here, is it?

There I mistyped. I meant to add the word "photography". My mistake.
I meant to say this: "Well, I have some evidence that child nudity photography itself doesn't harm anyone."


I believe I've adequately addressed this ill-considered line of questioning in a very recent post. Please read back and let me know what part(s) you don't follow.

No, you are wrong, I'm with TraneWreck; I see absolutely no harm in drawn pictures of nude children per se. Where did you get that idea from?

Again, my mistake. You stance was against drawn child porn, not drawn child nudity.

Now, I admit my mistakes. Can you? Can you also stop dodging and avoiding questions?

Can you ever answer my questions from the rest of that same post you're responding to?

(You know, you still haven't answered to that. Why is it that you advocate that someone should dictate that a parent should have their child pose nude for a photo because of the "potential harm", yet insult the moderators for censoring you because you had the potential for breaking rules of the forum?)

 

[Southwind17]

Ah, you highlighted the exact flaw in your own reasoning, thank you for saving me some time. Obviously an artist is defined as one who creates art, so while it's a tad convoluted to say that 'only artists create art' (only murders kill people, only thieves steal, only criminals will have guns...), it's technically correct.

So where, exactly, is the "exact" flaw, then?!

However the entire question posed by the 'found art' movement was if artists were necessary to create art. Since the found art movement (or even ignoring it entirely, as you probably will), plenty of photographers have demonstrated that there is no necessity for a 'creator' for there to be art - the scene itself was artistic, the photographer captured it.

I've never heard of "the "found art" movement", but as the name itself implies it seems they choose to define art almost entirely contradictory to my trusty Chambers. I suppose we could all start a "movement" if we so wished, and I suppose being a "movement" any group of like-minded people can choose to define things in whatever way suits their purpose and motives. So long as such definitions, however, remain within such groups, or are used generally in the context of the applicable group, that's fine. Extend such usage outside such groups, however, and hence out of context, and it doesn't wash. Sorry.

For instance, see here and here. Was either geological phenomena created by an artist? Clearly not. Are they art?

Are you asking me? If so I'll answer. No ... they're not art (unless you mean "found art", of course, in the context of the "Found Art Movement").

 

[Southwind17]

Now there's an interesting claim. Care to back that up with evidence ?

I suggest you go back and read Post #441. Please keep up.

 

[Southwind17]

Squares are not rectangles ? Wow! I'm happy you cleared that one up.

I suggest you go back and read Post #499. Please keep up.

 

[Southwind17]

Considering that even you were arguing that art is art when it's intended so, I find your answer here puzzling.

You seem to find much puzzling.

Again, you seem to fail to grasp the implications of your own words.

Or maybe you just think that, because you're puzzled?!

No, it doesn't. Paint is paint.

I doubt Mr Dulux, for one, would agree!

The pattern means nothing unless you give it meaning. In fact, that's the whole point of abstract art.

A "pattern", by definition, has order, and hence meaning. What other purpose do you think a pattern has?! What's the "whole point", that abstract art, like non-abstract art, has meaning derived from the pattern of the paint? It seems like you're agreeing with me now, that the pattern of the paint has intrinsic quality, and contradicting yourself in the process. I think you're somewhat puzzled, again.

 

[Southwind17]

Oh, but can a pornographer can never wear the artist's hat when she/he is wearing the pornography hat?

The "pornographer" can wear two, possibly more, hats at the same time, and I acknowledged that a long time ago when I agreed that porn can, I repeat CAN sometimes have artistic merit. Meaning, of course, that whilst two hats are being worn each role is not being conducted to the exclusivity of the other. Which is why, coming right back to the OP, porn cannot be art per se. What a romantic end to a lovely story!

 

[Southwind17]

Now with children, the difference is that assumption, "old enough to make their own decisions" does not apply for obvious reasons. [emphais added]

If a person wants to make a piece of art involving a nude child for whatever reason, (sometimes to express innocence, I may add), and the child clearly understands what is going on ... [emphasis added]

"For obvious reasons", except that they're not quite obvious enough to you, evidently! Do you see the fundamental problem with these two statements you've made, which form the bedrock of your argument? Unless and until we resolve this obvious contradiction there's little merit in addressing the rest of your tortuous tome, if even then.

 

[BenBurch]

The Filibuster continues. But this is not the Senate.

 

[quixotecoyote]

The Filibuster continues. But this is not the Senate.

Granted, I'm just a spectator and occasional heckler on this one, but it seems like lots of posts are reasonable when you're responding to lots of posts.

 

[not daSkeptic]

It matters not a jot why my kids feel the way they do about exposed nudity for the purpose of this debate ...

Oh but it does. If aversion to nudity is nothing but a cultural phobia, then arguments against nakedness lose most of their teeth. Your children's feelings are thus largely irrational. If they see someone naked and get uncomfortable, it's their problem and nobody else's.

Short of actual abuse, the only harm that can come to a child from the act of posing nude is the backlash of a society ignorant in their arbitrary righteousness. Now one could argue that the parents and photographer, being aware of the views of their society, are at least partially to blame since they are putting the child in that position. But the same could be said of any situation with the potential for harm by others.

 

[Belz...]

You're clearly confused. You seem to think either that an "artist" has some inherently different characteristic from a "non-artist"

Perhaps you'd like to read this. This is YOUR argument, not mine.

I find, is not to pidgeon-hole people, as you have done

How have I donc this by explaining to you how YOUR argument works ?

One thing's for sure, though: if he never "wears an artists hat" he never creates "art". If he should happen to create "art" then it's indisputable that he sometimes "wears an artist's hat", and could, then, be classified as an "artist", but only while he's "wearing the requisite hat"! See?

Ah, I see. So what you're saying is that "wearing an artist's hat" e.g. being an artist, is defined as being a person who creates art! Therefore your entire point about Mike was wrong. Well, at least we are in agreement.