Porn vs. Art

[Belz...]

Are you saying that nudity in art can only be sexual?

Yes, pretty much.

Really ?

So pictures of nudists are pornographic ? Pictures of nude prisoners in WW2 concentration camps are pornographic ?

Or was your "pretty much" just giving enough wiggle-room ?

 

[not daSkeptic]

Art "just is". With respect, that's hardly a meaningful position.

Hardly meaningful to whom?

 

[MontagK505]

Just like there's a universal consensus on what constitutes an intent to kill?! There isn't. Doesn't seem to unduly hinder the judicial process in homicide trials though, does it!

Comparing intent to arouse and intent to murder?
Murder referes to an objective act. Intent to arouse is subjective depending on the viewer

I'm sorry, "harmless", you say?!


I'm sorry, are you referring to the jury in the trial of the pornographer here or the jury in the trial of the killer?! You do realize the purpose of jury selections, and why they can take so long, yes?!

Having served on 3 jurys, I do understand the selection process. Each side tries to stack the deck.

You're assuming that it is the viewing of a work that determines whether it is art. That's plainly not a generally accepted view.
I see - exactly nowhere!

With you steering the discussion I agree!

How does one determine if something is art without viewing it!!?

 

[MontagK505]

My apologies. I let my emotions get the better of me.

And the countdown begins 5....4....3...2..1 Moderate! !

 

[Southwind17]

Ask the now adult actor who was naked as a child in the Superman movie. He did not suffer any ill effects for being naked.

And here we go again. One bad apple (or in this case good apple) means they're all bad. How much more flawed can an argument get?!

I'm stating that the parents should have the final say and the responsibility. They should know their own child well enough to not allow a child to pose, and judge the situation of the production as harmful to their own child even if the child is all for it.

"They should know their child well enough ..." OMG - how much more naive can a person get?

Funny, you make such a bold statement while posting this statement:

Your point? I don't see any link between those two statements.

Now since you say "What purpose, exactly, do you believe nudity in art and porn serves if not one of sexuality?" and then you express the "seemingly psychological issue" when you are nude in front of your children, why did you walk around nude in front of them in the first place? Do you still do it?

What's my walking aound the house nude got to do with nudity in art and porn?!

(By the way, it's far different for a child to see a parent nude than a stranger. You do realize that, right?)

Of course. Your point?

Let me make this clear: I am not accusing you of anything. I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of your statement of "What purpose, exactly, do you believe nudity in art and porn serves if not one of sexuality?"

Hypocrisy? Please explain.

Also, I'm going to answer that question with an example. I'm going to go back to the Superman movie. In that scene a naked, three year old boy steps out of a wrecked spaceship, stands up in front of an older couple, smiles and holds up his arms as if asking for a hug.
I did not see that as sexual. In fact, when I saw that in the theater, the whole audience went "Awwwwwwwwww". It was an expression of innocence, it was an expression of trust. That's what I saw.
I'm sorry, Southwind, if you see that scene and think it's something sexual, then that's YOUR problem.

I've not seen that scene, but the way you describe it I don't think I'd see it sexual at all. After all, it's neither art nor porn, so I really don't see why you seem to think that I would!

Excuse me for my tone but what the hell are you talking about??? That response made absolutely no sense.

This might help (if you can make sense of it!).

Err... Do you know what a "straw man" is?

I wasn't basing anything on another person's position in what you quoted. I was stating MY position.

OMG - I think you need the entire site. Here you go.

Here's my definition ...

 

[Southwind17]

Huge flaw in your "logic".

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/jacobitevirtuosi/images/cherubs_th.jpg

So this isn't art. It's porn. Specifically, child porn.

Again, I quote: "Are you saying that nudity in art can only be sexual" "Yes, pretty much" "Porn isn't art, per se".

Therefore, the painting above is child porn. Have I got that right?

Hahahahaha ... I'm intrigued to learn what you think "sexual" means! Hold on folks ... this should be the ride of your life ... OK JFrankA ... hit us with it!

 

[Southwind17]

Please enlighten us.

What does "per se" mean?

Look it up. It's hardly subjective!

 

[Southwind17]

Really ?

So pictures of nudists are pornographic ? Pictures of nude prisoners in WW2 concentration camps are pornographic ?

Or was your "pretty much" just giving enough wiggle-room ?

I'm not quite as intrigued to learn your understanding of "sexuality" because you're clearly more challenged than JFrankA (marginally), but it would seem to be similar to his, sadly.

OK - I was thinking staged art when I made that response, admittedly. Clearly, documentary-style nudity isn't sexual. Apologies for the confusion caused.

 

[Southwind17]

Hardly meaningful to whom?

Anybody seeking to make meaning out of it.

 

[Mirrorglass]

The "purpose" of art and what defines something as art are not related. Whether something constitutes "art" or not can, in a sense, I repeat, in a sense (got it? (not necessarily you Mirrorglass )), be determined as a matter of fact, subject to the breadth of the applicable definition of "art". Art, of course, has no single purpose per se. The purpose that motivates an artist, however, and purpose he/she intends (if any) for the finished work varies considerably, I suspect.

The problem is that this definition you use isn't the commonly accepted definition. There may be some who agree with you, but they aren't the majority.

From Chambers online dictionary:

art1 noun 1 a the creation of works of beauty, especially visual ones; b such creations thought of collectively.

So if a piece of pornography is considered to be beautiful, it is a piece of art, as well, and a piece of art remains art even if it can also be classified as pornography.

There are other definitions, of course, but the commonly accepted definitions of art do not demand that the work has no intent to sexually arouse.

By your reckoning ANY image of a child being abused is art. That's not only technically incorrect but highly dangerous territory, as it opens the door to legitimacy of child pornography.

You're still missing the point. It is art. But it is still wrong. Something being art does not grant it any legitimacy.

And being art doesn't justify doing something evil. This virtual image of a 3-year old child being sodomized (thanks a lot for the mental image, by the way) is horrible, wrong and should definitely be illegal to display. But it is art.

So you're claiming that some art should be allowed to be "displayed" whereas the "display" of other art should be illegal, suggesting that provided it's not "displayed" it's OK to create/possess/distribute. How do you reconcile that position both morally and legally?

That's not what I said. You can replace the word "display" in my claim with "create"/"possess"/"distribute" and it'll still represent my position. You got one thing correctly, though: I do think that some art should be allowed to be displayed (created/possessed/distributed) while some kinds should not. I'm not arguing that art depicting the abuse of children should be allowed; just that it's lacking morality does not affect it's status as art, merely it's legal status.

This whole argument is based on you claiming that the word "art" means something beautiful and just, always correct. It doesn't. Art can be great, but it is inherently neither good nor evil. It just is.

Art "just is". With respect, that's hardly a meaningful position.

That wasn't really the only part of the sentence you read, right? Leaving aside the last three words, the point was that art is not inherently good or evil, and thus whether or not something is art is not relevant when deciding whether that something is morally acceptable. That's the point I've been trying to get you to acknowledge.

 

[Southwind17]

How does one determine if something is art without viewing it!!?

Could you please restructure the rest of this post so that I can readily respond to it. Thanks.

 

[MontagK505]

Look at the hilite.

 

[not daSkeptic]

You mean you really can't follow what I wrote? Hang on, allow me to consult my Janet & John collection for inspiration ...

It's ok to admit if you can't do it. You would actually improve your position by doing so.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Anybody seeking to make meaning out of it.

How do you know whether or not something has meaning to anyone other than yourself?

 

[JFrankA]

And here we go again. One bad apple (or in this case good apple) means they're all bad. How much more flawed can an argument get?!

Sheesh. Re-read the entire thing I posted. I was responding to you saying

How can a child's posing nude given the potential risks it carries possibly be better than not posing nude? No doubt you'll now cite a list of reasons why jeans might be bad for kids!

I'm simply saying that parents, for the most part, know what's best for their own children and it's their final decision and responsiblity in that decsion. Do you really think you know all other people's children better than they do?

And I cited one instance where the parents allowed it and it did no damage to the child. I'm not saying that it is the norm, I am saying it could happen. It is your view that "the potential risks" outweigh a parent's knowledge of their own child and their own decisions?

"They should know their child well enough ..." OMG - how much more naive can a person get?

Well, they should. Doesn't mean that they would be correct. Doesn't mean that it happens all the time. I'm saying that it's a parent's final decision and responsibility.

Your point? I don't see any link between those two statements.


What's my walking aound the house nude got to do with nudity in art and porn?!


Of course. Your point?


Hypocrisy? Please explain.

I did.

I will not explain it because want me to be concise and that was as concise and complete as I can be. Re-read it and figure it out for yourself.

I've not seen that scene, but the way you describe it I don't think I'd see it sexual at all.

Are you saying that nudity in art can only be sexual?

Yes, pretty much.

Clearly, documentary-style nudity isn't sexual.

Hahahahaha ... I'm intrigued to learn what you think "sexual" means! Hold on folks ... this should be the ride of your life ... OK JFrankA ... hit us with it!

How I define "sexual".

sexual–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or for sex: sexual matters; sexual aids.
2. occurring between or involving the sexes: sexual relations.
3. having sexual organs or reproducing by processes involving both sexes.

How do you define "sexual"?

I'm sorry, but this latest dodge is the most hypocritical statements you've posted yet.

"Superman" wasn't a documentary. It was fiction. It was a movie, a non-porn movie so it was art....

After all, it's neither art nor porn, so I really don't see why you seem to think that I would!

Oh. Not art. Not porn. Tell me, what is the "Superman" movie?

This might help (if you can make sense of it!).

It did. It proved my statement that you don't know what a straw man is.

Again, I wasn't presenting someone else's opinion, I was presenting my own opinion.

OMG - I think you need the entire site. Here you go.

You're own link:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

Again, I was not substituting a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of anyone's position. I was stating my own.

I think you should start reading the thread.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/195334b0176c60daf4.jpg[/qimg]

Still missing the point, aren't you?

 

[tesscaline]

You speak for yourself!

No. I'm sorry, but your statement here:

What does claiming something as "art" mean if not art per se? "Oh look, there's a helicopter. Not a helicopter per se, just a helicopter."

Demonstrates that you don't have half a clue what "per se" means, or how to use it in conversation.

Claiming that something is art when viewed from a certain frame of reference is not the same as claiming that thing is intrinsically art. Just like claiming that something is good in a certain context is not the same as claiming that thing is good intrinsically.

Your example of a helicopter does not work in the same context, and is even non-sensical. A helicopter is a helicopter intrinsically? Sure. And a tomato is a tomato intrinsically. What does that tell us? Absolutely nothing. It is a statement without value.

All of this supports my statement:

And we're back to you not knowing the meaning of "per se".

Can you rebut any of that without resorting to childish attempts at "I'm rubber, you're glue"?

 

[JFrankA]

Look it up. It's hardly subjective!

I know what it means. You were the one who first used it, you are the one using it as a qualifier.

Tell us what "per se" means.

 

[BenBurch]

I know what it means. You were the one who first used it, you are the one using it as a qualifier.

Tell us what "per se" means.

It always amuses me greatly to see the way people who have no knowledge of Latin misuse the Latinate adoptions of English. Sometimes it is almost like the 3 year old who has learned a new word and is trying it out in every imaginable context, except not cute.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Do you really think you know all other people's children better than they do?

Yes, he does think that. He claims to know a lot of things and then contradicts himself. Quite typical really. A person feels inadequate in their daily life so they compensate by claiming greatness online. They want to stand out and be noticed, but they lack the stones to do it for real. So they do it in fantasy. The flaw in their plan is always the same, however. They are emotionally invested from the very start, and thus their arguments tend to be more personal than logical.

 

[Belz...]

OK - I was thinking staged art when I made that response, admittedly. Clearly, documentary-style nudity isn't sexual. Apologies for the confusion caused.

Thank you for the clarification. Of course it could've come without this:

I'm not quite as intrigued to learn your understanding of "sexuality" because you're clearly more challenged than JFrankA (marginally), but it would seem to be similar to his, sadly.