Porn vs. Art

[BenBurch]

Not inherently, no. Only if someone considers them as such.

Annie Sprinkle is an artist.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

No one is being punished unless they violate the statute. I have no interest in separating pornographers from artists. And unless they use naked kids, they will be innocent. Just like the current state of the law with respect to groping.

<snip>

How about if we rephrased that and said "No one will be harmed if they are accused of violating the statute."? Would you still consider that to be a true statement?

See, that's the thing about bad law. It can be passed in an ecstasy of "Think of the children." self-righteousness with no evidence that it is needful in the first place, and then the collateral damage resulting from its fundamental flaws is dismissed as inconsequential. No actual benefit to any party can be demonstrated except perhaps for the politicians who used a tide of feel-good hysteria based largely on religious prejudices to ride through the next election.

A good law is a response to actual, demonstrable harm, not to hypothetical, conjectural harm which is dependent on the prejudices of the observer instead of something real.

Your example of drug approval is proof of this, not of what you suggest it to be. The FDA was formed in direct response to real harm after clear evidence was available, and in spite of the strong resistance of people who conceded that harm but objected to laws which provided statutory jurisdiction to the government over companies and individuals who were clearly poisoning innocent people.

 

[JFrankA]

Annie Sprinkle is an artist.

Very true.

[personal anecdote]
In the 80's I used to work for a four theater movie complex that didn't have mainstream films. They showed a lot of independent films, such as "The Gods Must Be Crazy" before it got popular. We tended to get a lot of "upper class" and "artsy" people in our complex.

One day, I had to change the marquee to "Deep Inside Anne Sprinkle". We had the movie there for several weeks. I took tickets as was being an usher for the movie. We still got the "upper class" and "artsy" people going to that movie too.
[/personal anecdote]

 

[MontagK505]

Nice one. Give parents the right to determine whether or not appearing nude in art will be detrimental to the child. Yes, that's eminently sensible. Yes, that should ensure adequate child protection. After all, who's more educated and responsible on matters of psychology than your average parent?! Yes, nice one indeed.

And we know that a panel of moralistic art "classifers" who's knowledge is absoute on this matter, we can trust them can't we?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This is possibly the worst attempt at logic I've seen in years.

OK - let's see. Let me ask you these questions:

Q1: Was Michelangelo an artist?

Suppose we answer "Yes", because we do think some of the things Michelangelo produced are art.

Q2: Assuming you've answered yes(!), his works are, hence, "art", yes?

Does this follow? No it doesn't. It's possible for a person to produce art on one day and non-art on the next, assuming we define "art" in such a way that "non-art" can exist at all.

But suppose we said "yes" anyway...

Q3: Assuming you've answered yes(!), this image is intrinsically "art", yes?:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/195334b9bc1a976498.jpg[/qimg]

Does this follow? No it doesn't. Just because A is art it does not follow that A is intrinsically art, unless all art is intrinsically art, in which case the term "intrinsically art" is meaningless.

Q4: If it isn't intrinsically "art" then what, intrinsically, is it, exactly?

I cannot fathom the logical failure that gave rise to this question.

It seems to be based on the idea that everything is intrinsically something in particular, and that if something is not intrinsically art then it follows necessarily that it must be intrinsically something else in particular and that therefore you can prove that it is intrinsically that thing in particular.

There's some kind of weird and almost certainly ill-thought-out metaphysics behind that question, but based on his performances to date Southwind17 isn't going to make any attempt to elucidate his position.

 

[Southwind17]

This is possibly the worst attempt at logic I've seen in years.
Suppose we answer "Yes", because we do think some of the things Michelangelo produced are art.

OK, let's stop there. You're clearly contesting that Michelangelo was an artist. Clearly not a "worst attempt at logic", but certainly a worst attempt at something else upon which the rest of your argument depends! Need I go on?!

 

[Southwind17]

Not inherently, no. Only if someone considers them as such.

So you'd argue the same about a bricklayer, then?!

 

[Cavemonster]

So you'd argue the same about a bricklayer, then?!

You mean that not all the work done by a bricklayer is necessarily bricklaying? Yes, I'd argue that. A bricklayer may dabble in stone masonry, may have a tough year and have to work a shift at Mecdonalds making Big Macs.

Are you trying to suggest that the Big Macs made by a down-on-his-luck bricklayer are actually made of bricks?

 

[BenBurch]

Very true.

[personal anecdote]
In the 80's I used to work for a four theater movie complex that didn't have mainstream films. They showed a lot of independent films, such as "The Gods Must Be Crazy" before it got popular. We tended to get a lot of "upper class" and "artsy" people in our complex.

One day, I had to change the marquee to "Deep Inside Anne Sprinkle". We had the movie there for several weeks. I took tickets as was being an usher for the movie. We still got the "upper class" and "artsy" people going to that movie too.
[/personal anecdote]

NSFW - Annie Sprinkle's page of some of her art. Very offensive to prudes and Christians.

http://anniesprinkle.org/html/art/index.html

 

[Dragoonster]

So you'd argue the same about a bricklayer, then?!

The only way to define a bricklayer is by looking at whether he lays bricks (and whether "bricklayer" also requires laying bricks to be his profession), and the only way to define Michaelangelo as an artist is to define what he produces as art. Or perhaps if his intent is to produce art, even if what he produces isn't.

Your logic in those questions is out-of-order at best, circular at worst...and besides the point, which is what the definition of art is. You claim it has intrinsic qualities so you don't need such circularity, you just need to define those qualities objectively (and they need to be agreed upon as fairly irrefutable) so we can see why/when porn isn't art and why/when La Pieta is. This should be a slam-dunk, and an eternal one at that, if you can do so.

Or in other words, if someone answers Q1: "Is a pornographer an artist?" With "Yes", then by your argument his creations are art.

 

[Southwind17]

None of those questions answer the question posed to you.
You claim that there exists art which is art per se. Please support your claim with evidence.

Please define "evidence".

 

[Southwind17]

Your example of drug approval is proof of this, not of what you suggest it to be. The FDA was formed in direct response to real harm after clear evidence was available, and in spite of the strong resistance of people who conceded that harm but objected to laws which provided statutory jurisdiction to the government over companies and individuals who were clearly poisoning innocent people.

Except that when you consider what principle is at play at the case-by-case level, namely risk of potential not actual harm, ... Isn't staged photography of naked children to un-tested drug X what Thalidomide is to actual child abuse? It was perfectly acceptable until it wasn't?

 

[Southwind17]

Not inherently, no. Only if someone considers them as such.

Annie Sprinkle is an artist.

Very true.

And your opinion would be ...?

 

[Southwind17]

And we know that a panel of moralistic art "classifers" who's knowledge is absoute on this matter, we can trust them can't we?

No more than we can trust said parents, but then I never suggested we could, did I?

 

[Southwind17]

You mean that not all the work done by a bricklayer is necessarily bricklaying? Yes, I'd argue that. A bricklayer may dabble in stone masonry, may have a tough year and have to work a shift at Mecdonalds making Big Macs.
Are you trying to suggest that the Big Macs made by a down-on-his-luck bricklayer are actually made of bricks?

I would suggest that ignoring context tends to render a discussion futile. I trust you appreciate and accept that, even though you do it.

 

[Southwind17]

The only way to define a bricklayer is by looking at whether he lays bricks (and whether "bricklayer" also requires laying bricks to be his profession), and the only way to define Michaelangelo as an artist is to define what he produces as art. Or perhaps if his intent is to produce art, even if what he produces isn't.
Your logic in those questions is out-of-order at best, circular at worst...and besides the point, which is what the definition of art is. You claim it has intrinsic qualities so you don't need such circularity, you just need to define those qualities objectively (and they need to be agreed upon as fairly irrefutable) so we can see why/when porn isn't art and why/when La Pieta is. This should be a slam-dunk, and an eternal one at that, if you can do so.
Or in other words, if someone answers Q1: "Is a pornographer an artist?" With "Yes", then by your argument his creations are art.

Such a long-winded admission that you don't consider Michelangelo an artist.

 

[Dragoonster]

Such a long-winded admission that you don't consider Michelangelo an artist.

I do, and I consider porn-makers artists. So I guess porn-makers are artists! Glad we could resolve this question.

 

[Southwind17]

I do, and I consider porn-makers artists. So I guess porn-makers are artists! Glad we could resolve this question.

You do?! I see. So, by definition, then, what Michelangelo produced is art, regardless of what it is or how it looks, right? That's what "artists" do, afterall, isn't it, produce "art"? So, given this undisputable line of reasoning, what is it, intrinsically, about Michelangelo's works that makes them "art"? It must, surely, by your own admission, simply be that they were produced by an "artist", mustn't it? Which brings the answer to the question regarding what is art round to looking not just at what is created but also at who is producing it, or rather the inherent talent or abilities of such a person. Hence "art" is simply not in the eye of the beholder, but relies for its classification on some inherent human characteristics that maybe distinguish artists from non-artists, or at least define the qualitative aspects of art from a creation perspective as opposed to a created. Yes, we're all "artists" to a degree, I confess; we can all create things that we'd like to call art, and indeed could, in many cases, legitimately call art. But is it all really "art", or at least worthy of being called "art"? Well much comes down to the degree of skill needed to create it. I know you'll disagree, but paint thrown randomly onto a canvas qualifies as art to the same extent as my sneezing qualifies as an earthquake. If people are prepared to pay good money for such emperor's clothes more the fool them (unless, of course, they're simply speculative investors, in which case good luck to them).

 

[quixotecoyote]

You do?! I see. So, by definition, then, what Michelangelo produced is art, regardless of what it is or how it looks, right? That's what "artists" do, afterall, isn't it, produce "art"? So, given this undisputable line of reasoning, what is it, intrinsically, about Michelangelo's works that makes them "art"? It must, surely, by your own admission, simply be that they were produced by an "artist", mustn't it?
Which brings the answer to the question regarding what is art round to looking not just at what is created but also at who is producing it, or rather the inherent talent or abilities of such a person. Hence "art" is simply not in the eye of the beholder, but relies for its classification on some inherent human characteristics that maybe distinguish artists from non-artists, or at least define the qualitative aspects of art from a creation perspective as opposed to a created.

At this point you've given up on the idea that there is an intrinsic quality to art, and are now moving on to trying to find it in an artist.

Yes, we're all "artists" to a degree, I confess; we can all create things that we'd like to call art, and indeed could, in many cases, legitimately call art. But is it all really "art", or at least worthy of being called "art"? Well much comes down to the degree of skill needed to create it. I know you'll disagree, but paint thrown randomly onto a canvas qualifies as art to the same extent as my sneezing qualifies as an earthquake. If people are prepared to pay good money for such emperor's clothes more the fool them (unless, of course, they're simply speculative investors, in which case good luck to them).

And now you've given up on an intrinsic quality in the artist and admitted it's all subjective.

....


Congratulations on completely dismantling an argument. Although, I wonder if it's the one you meant to.

 

[Dragoonster]

You do?! I see. So, by definition, then, what Michelangelo produced is art, regardless of what it is or how it looks, right? That's what "artists" do, afterall, isn't it, produce "art"? So, given this undisputable line of reasoning, what is it, intrinsically, about Michelangelo's works that makes them "art"? It must, surely, by your own admission, simply be that they were produced by an "artist", mustn't it?

The only thing intrinsic is that I'm using my own subjective definition, thus the "I consider" caveat in my statement. I consider them artists because I consider what they produce art, and their intent or profession is to produce art, not the other way around.

btw, unless you provide some more qualifiers, a letter Michaelangelo wrote must be art according to you. So must a loogey he coughed up. Which is one subjective definition--anything visual created by a conscious entity is art.

Which brings the answer to the question regarding what is art round to looking not just at what is created but also at who is producing it, or rather the inherent talent or abilities of such a person. Hence "art" is simply not in the eye of the beholder, but relies for its classification on some inherent human characteristics that maybe distinguish artists from non-artists, or at least define the qualitative aspects of art from a creation perspective as opposed to a created.

I don't know how that follows. There are likely as many definitions of art as there are people who've ever considered forming a definition. I have several different definitions depending on how discriminatory I want to be or what kind of art I want to refer to. On the scale from reductionist (everything visual created by a conscious entity is art) to the fine (a landscape painting is art), film-making or photography (including porn) is in the fine side of the scale. Pornographers must take into account the same technical considerations and artistic merits non-pornographic photographers and film-makers take into account. Some do it better than others or care about those merits more than others, same as some non-porn artists. Arguing a porn film isn't art makes as much sense as arguing a Uwe Boll film isn't art.

Yes, we're all "artists" to a degree, I confess; we can all create things that we'd like to call art, and indeed could, in many cases, legitimately call art. But is it all really "art", or at least worthy of being called "art"? Well much comes down to the degree of skill needed to create it. I know you'll disagree, but paint thrown randomly onto a canvas qualifies as art to the same extent as my sneezing qualifies as an earthquake. If people are prepared to pay good money for such emperor's clothes more the fool them (unless, of course, they're simply speculative investors, in which case good luck to them).

There are definitions of art related to skill, or to intent, but they're all subjective. "art is art I like, not-art is art I don't like" is a general truism in arguments like this. It's funny how folks who don't consider crap art-snobs buy art, but don't see themselves as art-snobs themselves.

As an artist I've spent years on a single painting. Another time I cut a finger and flipped streams of blood onto a piece of paper. Both are art by most of my definitions--I used skill when creating them (texture, saturation, balance, space, weight, etc), my intent was to create "art", viewers thought they were at least meant to be art. "Communication" isn't in any definition of mine, so intent to communicate anything in particular wasn't an excluding issue for the blood piece, or abstract art in general.

But this entire argument is meaningless as actual art criticism. Art as defined by law relating to pornography has only to do with subject matter. Scorcese could direct a purely prurient porn film and some judge could rule it's not art. Or some dumber judge could rule it is art just because it was directed better than Backseat Boners 4, which he could rule as not art. It's unfortunate that the distinction takes the form of aesthetic critique rather than what it is, merely about morality of the subject matter. The debate should be about whether something is "porn" or "not porn", and "art" should never be mentioned.

eta: plus what Quixotecoyote says. You still haven't provided examples of intrinsic qualities of art itself. Some of your arguments read as if you found a drawing in an attic you'd have to wait to find out the intent or qualities of the person who drew it before you could classify it.