Porn vs. Art

[quadraginta]

Let's compare. Because Bob the Builder is a builder we categorize his work as "building". OK so far. This means that "building" is defined as what Bob the Builder does. Seems good to me: if x = y then y = x.

Are you claiming that a builder's work cannot be art, because they are a "builder"? Or that an artist's work cannot be a building"?

 

[Belz...]

No. The point is it emerges for a reason. It's not random.

It's created by random forces, I said. It is not directed by intelligent agents. Although the processes that create snowflakes are pretty much deterministic, the pattern has NO MEANING.

Odd - you can read everybody's mind except mine! So you're not quite omnipotent. I see.

I'm not reading minds, Southwind. I'm reading posts.

Let's compare. Because Bob the Builder is a builder we categorize his work as "building". OK so far. This means that "building" is defined as what Bob the Builder does. Seems good to me: if x = y then y = x.

Ah, so you ARE saying that Mike's work is art because he's an artist, and you ARE using a circular definition.

So there is NO WAY, in your opinion, to define art other than by saying it's what is made by an artist, and NO WAY to define an artist other than by saying it's who makes art.

So you have no idea what art is. And you still claim that porn isn't art "per se", not knowing that.

 

[Belz...]

Are you claiming that a builder's work cannot be art, because they are a "builder"? Or that an artist's work cannot be a building"?

Oh, no. A builder wears a builder's hat, but he can wear an artist's hat to do art. But he cannot create art while wearing the builder's hat.

If you think I'm making this up, look here.

It's like the job system in Final Fantasy, I think.

 

[quadraginta]

Oh, no. A builder wears a builder's hat, but he can wear an artist's hat to do art. But he cannot create art while wearing the builder's hat.

If you think I'm making this up, look here.

It's like the job system in Final Fantasy, I think.

Oh, I remember that blast of silliness.

I'm wondering how architects fit into this scenario. They build, and they consider themselves artists.

If you think I'm making this up, just ask one.

I guess they have to wear two hats at once.

(N.B. This would not be difficult for most of the architects I have worked closely with. They have very ... um ... large heads. )

 

[Southwind17]

Are you claiming that a builder's work cannot be art, because they are a "builder"? Or that an artist's work cannot be a building"?

I really thought we'd cleared this up. Seriously.

 

[Southwind17]

It's created by random forces, I said. It is not directed by intelligent agents. Although the processes that create snowflakes are pretty much deterministic, the pattern has NO MEANING.

And I'm still waiting for you to provide an example of a pattern created by random forces. A snowflake certainly doesn't cut it, as you admit.

Are you familiar with the term "means to an end"? You might like to try here - could help you understand where I'm coming from.

Ah, so you ARE saying that Mike's work is art because he's an artist ...

Well it's certainly not because he was also a baker!

... and you ARE using a circular definition.

So there is NO WAY, in your opinion, to define art other than by saying it's what is made by an artist, and NO WAY to define an artist other than by saying it's who makes art.

I don't think so. I believe if you consider how I am defining art (per the Chambers' definition previously posted, i.e. without reference to "artist"), and you then consider how I am defining "artist" (essentially somebody who creates art (what else could an artist possibly be?!)), then you'll realise it's not circular. The problem you're facing is you disagree with one or both of my definitions (even though Chambers agrees). Consequently, you're of the belief that art is created by something other than artists and/or artists create something other than art. Keeping in mind the different hats approach, how on earth can golf be played by anybody other than a golfer, and how can a golfer play anything other than golf? Don't forget now - hats!

"Golf": A game whereby a ball is hit with a choice of club into a hole ...
"Golfer": Somebody who plays "Golf".
Circular?!

 

[Southwind17]

Oh, no. A builder wears a builder's hat, but he can wear an artist's hat to do art. But he cannot create art while wearing the builder's hat.

If you think I'm making this up, look here.

I'd be interested to hear your explanation as to why you consider the post of mine that you link to supports your statement. You might wish to review this first, though, which you seem to have forgotten about.

Whilst you might read posts (not minds), as you claim, you certainly seem to have a short memory and/or fail to pay attention!

 

[Toke]

Here is a piece of art.
Not particularly arousing, but it conveniently double as a urinal, fitting four.

Does anyone know if it was made by an artist?

 

[Southwind17]

I'm wondering how architects fit into this scenario. They build, and they consider themselves artists.

Architects "build"?! That seems like a ... what? ... blast of silliness, I'd say!

If you think I'm making this up, just ask one.

I suggest you don't go embarrassing yourself (any further), although why should I care?!

I guess they have to wear two hats at once.

You and Belz ... birds of a feather, eh:

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!

(N.B. This would not be difficult for most of the architects I have worked closely with. They have very ... um ... large heads. )

You've "worked closely" with architects?! So close you've even watched them build, eh! Well then they most certainly do wear two hats (at least!), and hence large heads!

 

[Belz...]

And I'm still waiting for you to provide an example of a pattern created by random forces. A snowflake certainly doesn't cut it, as you admit.

It seems the use of the word "random" has gotten you into a time loop, and I must try one last time to extract you from it.

The original claim, by you, was that pattern had an inherent meaning. I submit that a snowflake has pattern, but no meaning.

My apologies for the use of the word random in this context. That was obviously wrong, and apparently... puzzling.

Of course, the fact that now you say that "meaning" means something completely different, to you, certainly clarifies the issue. "Meaning" being defined as "how the thing came about to be" certainly allows us to assign meaning to absolutely everything, but it's not very useful to the discussion.

Why the hell were we talking about patterns, already ?

Ah, yes! Because I said that random forces can lead to patterns. Of course they can. Because in a sufficiently large sample of random data, things like "1100110011001100" will emerge, although the distribution of the whole is completely random. This is a very well-known phenomenon.

Well it's certainly not because he was also a baker!

The problem is, as I've been trying to tell you, that we define a person as an artist if he creates art; we do not define art as something created by an artist. That would make no sense for two reasons: first because it would be a circular definition, and second because then we'd have to redefine artist in order to get out of this, another loop.

I don't think so. I believe if you consider how I am defining art (per the Chambers' definition previously posted, i.e. without reference to "artist"), and you then consider how I am defining "artist" (essentially somebody who creates art (what else could an artist possibly be?!)), then you'll realise it's not circular.

I completely agree with the above. However that is NOT what you were claiming. Now, perhaps even you will remember that I've been saying that "art" cannot be defined in relation to "artist", only the reverse; and that seems to be what you're saying here. But you said, more than once, on this very thread, that "art" is what an artist does, and that this is how it's defined. Then you turn around and say it isn't so, which I certainly agree with, but perhaps you can understand my confusion; I must've missed that art definition you provided without reference to "artist". But you did confirm, just a few posts ago, that it required such a reference!

Right here, in fact.

Whilst you might read posts (not minds), as you claim, you certainly seem to have a short memory and/or fail to pay attention!

Coming from you, that is absolutely hilarious.

 

[Belz...]

You and Belz ... birds of a feather, eh:

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.

Unfortunately, you use "artistic merit" to mean something entirely different from art. How can something have artistic merit and NOT be art ?

Or is it just not art "per se" ?

 

[Southwind17]

Of course, the fact that now you say that "meaning" means something completely different, to you, certainly clarifies the issue. "Meaning" being defined as "how the thing came about to be" certainly allows us to assign meaning to absolutely everything, but it's not very useful to the discussion.

Absolutely it's very useful, and you've hit the nail right on the head. We can assign meaning to absolutely everything (defined as "how a thing comes about")can we? What meaning, then, do you assign to this?:



... other than, of course, a technical description of the rudimentary process of dispersing paint across canvas, which, of course, equally applies to all such "paintings".

Why the hell were we talking about patterns, already ?

Ah, yes! Because I said that random forces can lead to patterns. Of course they can. Because in a sufficiently large sample of random data, things like "1100110011001100" will emerge, although the distribution of the whole is completely random. This is a very well-known phenomenon.

Yes, like I asked, like monkeys typing Shakespeare? Not very helpful to the discussion, though, is it!

The problem is, as I've been trying to tell you, that we define a person as an artist if he creates art; we do not define art as something created by an artist. That would make no sense for two reasons: first because it would be a circular definition, and second because then we'd have to redefine artist in order to get out of this, another loop.

I completely agree with the above. However that is NOT what you were claiming. Now, perhaps even you will remember that I've been saying that "art" cannot be defined in relation to "artist", only the reverse; and that seems to be what you're saying here. But you said, more than once, on this very thread, that "art" is what an artist does, and that this is how it's defined. Then you turn around and say it isn't so, which I certainly agree with, but perhaps you can understand my confusion; I must've missed that art definition you provided without reference to "artist". But you did confirm, just a few posts ago, that it required such a reference!
Right here, in fact.

Correct, we don't define art as "something created by an artist", it would make little or no sense, just like defining "golf" as "a game played by a golfer". That's not what I've said, though. I've said that if something is art then it's necessarily created by an artist, just like golf is necessarily played by a golfer. I haven't defined "art" as "something created by an artist", but I have claimed that art is only created by artists, and I stand by that. I sincerey trust you see the difference.

 

[Southwind17]

Unfortunately, you use "artistic merit" to mean something entirely different from art. How can something have artistic merit and NOT be art ?

Or is it just not art "per se" ?

YAY - YOU'VE GOT IT! And please don't go claiming I'm just being pedantic. The whole purpose of the OP was to challenge the idea held by some that one can produce porn and seek to circumvent any allegation of such by claiming that it's simply, and purely (hence "per se") "art". The "per se" part of the OP is of critical importance.

 

[quixotecoyote]

And yet for all that importance, you still can't say what it is.

 

[tesscaline]

YAY - YOU'VE GOT IT! And please don't go claiming I'm just being pedantic. The whole purpose of the OP was to challenge the idea held by some that one can produce porn and seek to circumvent any allegation of such by claiming that it's simply, and purely (hence "per se") "art". The "per se" part of the OP is of critical importance.

"Per se" does not mean "purely".

 

[JFrankA]

The whole purpose of the OP was to challenge the idea held by some that one can produce porn and seek to circumvent any allegation of such by claiming that it's simply, and purely (hence "per se") "art". The "per se" part of the OP is of critical importance.

Did you even read the article you posted?

"Currently a clear line does not exist between child pornography and art - a situation that is not ideal for the public or the artistic community," Mr Hatzistergos said.

The article itself says that there isn't a clear line between nude child art and child porn.

In fact, you have been arguing all the way through with an implication that artistic nude child photographs should be treated the same way as child porn is treated.

The laws adopt commonwealth provisions where the court looks at the artistic merit of the material when deciding whether it is child pornography, rather than relying on the defence of artistic purpose.

My bolding.

I noticed that it's stating that the court is looking at "artistic merit" NOT whether it's art "per se". Porn can have artistic qualities, something you yourself has said that porn can have, so porn with artistic qualities can have artistic merit.

Also, I find it funny that your definition of porn, "intent to arouse", is NOT AT ALL important to the court. Because it says "rather than relying on the defense of artistic purpose". The purpose of the art doesn't matter. What does matter is if it has enough artistic merit.

In other words, it doesn't matter what the intent of the piece of work is.

If anything, the article you are referring to is challenging YOUR OWN opinion.

Maybe you should actually read something before you type a comment on it....

 

[JFrankA]

Further, the article concludes:

"What we're currently negotiating ... is the opportunity in the first instance for art experts to be asked to provide their opinion against a set of agreed art industry criteria."

The reforms will also reduce the trauma of police, prosecutors and juries involved in child pornography cases by using random samples to represent the body of child abuse images rather than analysing every single one.

And victims in child pornography cases will be allowed to give evidence via CCTV and cross-examination by the accused will be prevented.

The idea being that the producer isn't trying to prove that porn is not art, but a) if the production has artistic merit and if any child was abused.

I do not see how this article proves your points: Porn cannot be art "per se" and the definition of porn is something with "intent to arouse".

 

[quadraginta]

Architects "build"?! That seems like a ... what? ... blast of silliness, I'd say!

Yes. Architects "build". For all of their other faults (which are legion) they do indeed build.

Your incredulity at that concept only serves to highlight your profound ignorance of what it means to build.

You've "worked closely" with architects?! So close you've even watched them build, eh!

I have worked very closely with them, in the field, on projects ranging from many hundreds of millions of dollars to a piddly few million. For decades. I've worked in construction as a hands-on, boots-in-the-mud, concrete spattered professional "builder" of buildings large and small (mostly very large) pretty much full time since the early seventies. I've worked at (and been paid for) nearly every trade in the field from ditch digging laborer to carpenter to iron worker to field engineer to general superintendent.

What are your credentials as an expert in what it means to "build"?

 

[Southwind17]

"Per se" does not mean "purely".

I agree. Not the best choice of word, "purely", I suppose. Regardless.

 

[Southwind17]

Did you even read the article you posted?
The article itself says that there isn't a clear line between nude child art and child porn.
In fact, you have been arguing all the way through with an implication that artistic nude child photographs should be treated the same way as child porn is treated.
My bolding.
I noticed that it's stating that the court is looking at "artistic merit" NOT whether it's art "per se". Porn can have artistic qualities, something you yourself has said that porn can have, so porn with artistic qualities can have artistic merit.
Also, I find it funny that your definition of porn, "intent to arouse", is NOT AT ALL important to the court. Because it says "rather than relying on the defense of artistic purpose". The purpose of the art doesn't matter. What does matter is if it has enough artistic merit.
In other words, it doesn't matter what the intent of the piece of work is.
If anything, the article you are referring to is challenging YOUR OWN opinion.
Maybe you should actually read something before you type a comment on it....

Further, the article concludes:
The idea being that the producer isn't trying to prove that porn is not art, but a) if the production has artistic merit and if any child was abused.
I do not see how this article proves your points: Porn cannot be art "per se" and the definition of porn is something with "intent to arouse".

Although implied ("clearly") I'm not really relying on the article for my argument, but I thought it was a good prompt for my re-assertion. BTW - I'm stll not sure you appreciate what "per se" means.