Porn vs. Art

JFrankA said:
A lot of art I've seen makes the viewer face the thing she or he doesn't like in order to evoke an emotion or thought. And a lot of those topics that "should be excluded" are very good at that.
Click to expand...

(Sigh)

Often great art makes people involves showing people think they don't like and that outrages them. The problem is that many "transgressive" and "controversial" artists today think it's the other way around: that if you show people things they don't like, then you are doing great art.
 
Skeptic said:
(Sigh)

Often great art makes people involves showing people think they don't like and that outrages them.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but the number of what I assume to be typos in this sentence makes it pretty difficult to parse.

The problem is that many "transgressive" and "controversial" artists today think it's the other way around: that if you show people things they don't like, then you are doing great art.
Click to expand...
What is your point, exactly?
 
Skeptic said:
We seem to have two views here:

SIDE A: "I cannot tell exactly when day turns into night. Can YOU, you RIGHT WING FASCIST? No? So you must agree with me day and night do not exist."

SIDE B: "Day always turns into night at precisely 6:43 P.M. What, you don't think so? What are you, some kind of total relativist or something, you COMMIE?!"
Click to expand...

No.

Both Side A and Side B sound like arguments that the OP is making.

It's more like this:

The OP: Art is what I say it is and cannot be anything else, otherwise it's not Inherently Art
Pretty much everyone else: Art is a human made concept and thus a flexible one. There are countless examples of forms of art which have other uses besides being artistic, such as the Bauhaus and the Culinary Arts
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
No.

Both Side A and Side B sound like arguments that the OP is making.

It's more like this:

The OP: Art is what I say it is and cannot be anything else, otherwise it's not Inherently Art
Pretty much everyone else: Art is a human made concept and thus a flexible one. There are countless examples of forms of art which have other uses besides being artistic, such as the Bauhaus and the Culinary Arts
Click to expand...


That is a fair summation. Maybe lacking just a bit.

OP (SW17): Art is what I want to be art, and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

Others: No.

OP (SW17): Porn is what I want to be porn, and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

Others: No.

OP (SW17): I don't want porn to ever be art, so it isn't.

Others: No.

Some germs of other discussion nearly surfaced once or twice, but I think this covers most of the thread.

...and language lessons. :D
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
Damnit! Frank, you win the prize for the best example in the whole thread!! (And the most obvious as well. How come none of us ever suggested it before?)

And also a reminder that I still haven't gone there ;)
Click to expand...

I was saving a couple of aces. :) If I may make a presumption, I was thinking that if I did bring up that museum, his response would be that if it's a museum of sex, then it's not about art, per se.

And once my girlfriend is here from Germany, I'm taking her there! :)
 
JFrankA said:
A lot of art I've seen makes the viewer face the thing she or he doesn't like in order to evoke an emotion or thought. And a lot of those topics that "should be excluded" are very good at that.
Click to expand...

I agree. In theory, even child pornography could be used to create something of great artistic value. In a perfect world, that could be acceptable, if it didn't involve hurting anyone. But it's not a perfect world, of course, so child porn should be illegal.

That doesn't mean that a nude of a child is wrong or should be banned, obviously, but I'll admit that an artist specializing in those should be scrutinized by society.

Skeptic said:
(Sigh)

Often great art makes people involves showing people think they don't like and that outrages them. The problem is that many "transgressive" and "controversial" artists today think it's the other way around: that if you show people things they don't like, then you are doing great art.
Click to expand...

Would you mind providing some examples of these artists?
 
Skeptic said:
We seem to have two views here:

SIDE A: "I cannot tell exactly when day turns into night. Can YOU, you RIGHT WING FASCIST? No? So you must agree with me day and night do not exist."

SIDE B: "Day always turns into night at precisely 6:43 P.M. What, you don't think so? What are you, some kind of total relativist or something, you COMMIE?!"
Click to expand...

Not sure if the whole "Fascist" vs "Commie" thing was that was intended on either side's part, to be honest.

I do think that there's a basic disagreement of whether the individual freedom of creating a controversial art is more important that the "potential harm" that such art may cause or the "potential harm" outweighs the need for controversial art.

But I don't think it became a liberal vs conservative thing.
 
Skeptic said:
(Sigh)

Often great art makes people involves showing people think they don't like and that outrages them. The problem is that many "transgressive" and "controversial" artists today think it's the other way around: that if you show people things they don't like, then you are doing great art.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here.
 
It’s pretty simple: Often, art is about challenging people’s beliefs or ways of thinking, which they very well may find insulting. But just because you challenge someone’s beliefs or way of thinking or make him feel insulted doesn’t necessarily mean that what you did is art.
 
TheDaver said:
It’s pretty simple: Often, art is about challenging people’s beliefs or ways of thinking, which they very well may find insulting. But just because you challenge someone’s beliefs or way of thinking or make him feel insulted doesn’t necessarily mean that what you did is art.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It may be bad art, but it's still art.
 
TheDaver said:
It’s pretty simple: Often, art is about challenging people’s beliefs or ways of thinking, which they very well may find insulting. But just because you challenge someone’s beliefs or way of thinking or make him feel insulted doesn’t necessarily mean that what you did is art.
Click to expand...

I agree. But on the other hand, just because you didn't challenge someone's beliefs or way of thinking, doesn't mean that what you did isn't art.

In other words, not all art is supposed to challenge your way of thinking. It can also confirm your way of thinking.
 
JFrankA said:
And once my girlfriend is here from Germany, I'm taking her there! :)
Click to expand...

*sung to the tune of Avenue Q's My Girlfriend Who Lives in Canada*

Her name is Griselda, she lives in Hannover.
She cooks like my mother and .... edited for violation of rule 2 ....
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
You posted that "porn is not art per se".

Then we spent twenty-five pages working out that "per se" didn't mean what you thought it did, and everyone went home.
Click to expand...
Or maybe 25 pages establishing that "per se" doesn't mean what you thought it did?! Regardless, good to see you hung around awaiting my "release"! Thanks for that. :)
 
Welcome back, SW. The discussion has cooled down, but if you're still interested, I'm sure we can blow on the embers again. :)

To start off the next phase of the debate, I suggest we accept we mean different things by per se, and instead of arguing about the correct definitions of words, simply try to define our opinions so they are understood by all participants.
 
Mirrorglass said:
Welcome back, SW. The discussion has cooled down, but if you're still interested, I'm sure we can blow on the embers again. :)

To start off the next phase of the debate, I suggest we accept we mean different things by per se, and instead of arguing about the correct definitions of words, simply try to define our opinions so they are understood by all participants.
Click to expand...
I think that's a good idea. Ironically, I don't think the exact definition of "per se" is particularly important, but when pressed ...(!)

What is important, however, is to appreciate that there is a distinction between something constituting "art" (I'll refrain from using "per se", and hope we can dispense with such term on the assumption that it's inferred) and something having a degree of "artistic merit". Trouble is, there's the rub. There are some people who believe (or at least claim to believe) that, at best, virtually everything constitutes art, and at worst at least has artistic merit. I'm not sure there's any mileagle in debating with such people - what could it possibly achieve?!

To use the music analogy, again, whilst "playing around" on a piano, for example (be it child or adult), with no or minimal musical skill, could generate sounds that the more imaginative amongst us might classify as "music" (or at least "musical"), I, personally, set a higher skill threshold for such classification. Again, I struggle to see what possible meaning "music" and "musical" have if everything audible constitutes music. To my mind "music" and "sound" are simply not synonymous, just like "artistic" and "everything visible (and audible?)" aren't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom