• 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

Idiot Wind said:
Why would an image being pornographic in nature disqualify it as being art 'per se'?
What intrinsic quality of art excludes potential pornography?
Click to expand...
This is one of the questions I have attempted to get him to answer. He hasn't been able to thus far.
 
Southwind17 said:
How irresponsible. By that reckoning a hydrophobic child's irrational fear of water is that child's "problem", meaning that it's perfectly appropriate and acceptable for a swimming instructor to throw him/her into the swimming pool! After all, what harm would that do, provided they don't drown?!
Click to expand...

If you're going to make an analogy, it helps to use something that is fairly equivalent to the original statement. Otherwise you risk coming across as an alarmist.

Being in a pool has certain risks of injury or death even for the average person who isn't hydrophobic. By contrast, I am not aware of any similar risks to the average person from seeing a naked body.

ETA: You are right on one point, however. If a person has hydrophobia it is their problem, not society's problem. Others may choose to care for this person and thus adopt the problem, but that doesn't change the fact that it is ultimately the sufferer's issue.
 
Last edited:
Southwind17 said:
I stated that all rectangles are squares?! I did?! Did I? I think you'll find that the converse is true, if you care to check. What a shame your contention relies wholly on a careless mistake on your part. Now, what was that about spending more time?! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You stated that a defining characteristic of art is that it is made by artists (and further defined that characteristic as being only when they are in 'artistic mode').

This is not only untrue, but can easily be demonstrated to be untrue (at least if your statement that 'artists create art' is correct).

It is like you are making a deliberate attempt to fail to understand. You succeed admirably in this, and this alone.
 
Last edited:
What happens to a piece of art if I find it arousing?
Will it be de-artified?
 
JFrankA said:
Oh. My mistake.
I forgot to say "pictures of adults having sex that are intended to arouse people"......'
Click to expand...
You seem to have an aversion to using the word "porn", other than when it suits you to use it, that is! Strange.
 
Idiot Wind said:
Why would an image being pornographic in nature disqualify it as being art 'per se'?
What intrinsic quality of art excludes potential pornography?
Click to expand...
Late to the party, so missed the buffet. Regardless:

Why would a game (golf, say) be physical exercise "per se"? Because it's primarily a game and the exercise is incidental. Don't believe me? Then show me a recognized definition of golf that says "physical exercise", as opposed to "a game in which ..."

Claiming that porn is art "per se" is equivalent to claiming that golf is physical exercise "per se".
 
JFrankA said:
A child may understand what is involved, such as what it takes to take care of a dog, and judge so that she/he is responsible and have enough money to take care of one, or such as understand that the shoot will make the child a some money and there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it.

But the parents, make the final judgment of either example (or anything that their child wants to do), based on their knowledge of their child, experience, understanding, etc.
Click to expand...
If only this had some substance to disprove the said contradiction, rather than them simply being a collection of words that achieves nothing. Seriously, what do you think these two statements actually demonstrate, other than your opinion?
 
Southwind17 said:
Late to the party, so missed the buffet. Regardless:

Why would a game (golf, say) be physical exercise "per se"? Because it's primarily a game and the exercise is incidental. Don't believe me? Then show me a recognized definition of golf that says "physical exercise", as opposed to "a game in which ..."

Claiming that porn is art "per se" is equivalent to claiming that golf is physical exercise "per se".
Click to expand...

I know I shouldn't but in, but can't help myself.

It's perfectly possible that someone plays golf just for the exercise value. For that person, exercise would be the primary function of golf. So while golf, in general, isn't exercise per se, it's possible to play golf for exercise per se.

Similarly, while all porn certainly isn't art per se, it's perfectly conceivable that someone could create pornographic material with the intention to create art. So while all porn isn't, it's still possible for some porn to be art per se.
 
daSkeptic said:
Being in a pool has certain risks of injury or death even for the average person who isn't hydrophobic. By contrast, I am not aware of any similar risks to the average person from seeing a naked body.
Click to expand...
And the prize for the biggest straw man ever created goes to ...
 
GreyICE said:
You stated that a defining characteristic of art is that it is made by artists (and further defined that characteristic as being only when they are in 'artistic mode').
Click to expand...
I repeat:
Southwind17 said:
I stated that all rectangles are squares?! I did?! Did I? I think you'll find that the converse is true, if you care to check. What a shame your contention relies wholly on a careless mistake on your part. Now, what was that about spending more time?! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
Southwind17 said:
You seem to have an aversion to using the word "porn", other than when it suits you to use it, that is! Strange.
Click to expand...

I see I wasn't wrong about explaining your position except for the fact I didn't use the word porn.

You seem to have an aversion to someone accurately using your own definition when it shows how obviously wrong your opinion is, other than when it suits you to use it, that is. Strange.
 
Mirrorglass said:
I know I shouldn't but in, but can't help myself.

It's perfectly possible that someone plays golf just for the exercise value. For that person, exercise would be the primary function of golf. So while golf, in general, isn't exercise per se, it's possible to play golf for exercise per se.

Similarly, while all porn certainly isn't art per se, it's perfectly conceivable that someone could create pornographic material with the intention to create art. So while all porn isn't, it's still possible for some porn to be art per se.
Click to expand...
You know what, you're absolutely right. You shouldn't but[t] in! ;)
 
Southwind17 said:
If only this had some substance to disprove the said contradiction, rather than them simply being a collection of words that achieves nothing. Seriously, what do you think these two statements actually demonstrate, other than your opinion?
Click to expand...

So that explains your reasoning. I see. So you think that making judgments without knowing or understanding what's going on completely is okay.

That explains so much.
 
JFrankA said:
I see I wasn't wrong about explaining your position except for the fact I didn't use the word porn.

You seem to have an aversion to someone accurately using your own definition when it shows how obviously wrong your opinion is, other than when it suits you to use it, that is. Strange.
Click to expand...


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom