Porn vs. Art

[Southwind17]

The fact of the matter is that if something is only generally made up of a certain set of characteristics, it cannot have those certain characteristics "per se". Claiming that it can demonstrates ignorance of the meaning of the term "per se".

And this statement demonstrates exactly where you're going wrong. Allow me to explain. There is nothing wrong with your first sentence. The problem is that, sticking with the "Most Shocking" example, that particular TV programme does not generally comprise shootings, car crashes, train wrecks, etc., meaning that it includes other things of a different nature, such as basketball, soccer and rock music. It comprises shootings, car crashes, train wrecks, etc. generally, meaning that it includes other things of the same nature, such as plane crashes and exploding gas plants. In other words chance catastrophes not orchestrated for entertainment. Do you now see the arguably subtle but fundamental difference that makes the claim that it's not entertainment "per se" right? It is, if you like, "catastrophes" per se!

Quoting a dictionary does not demonstrate your knowing the meaning of a word, or how to use it properly in conversation. It only demonstrates that you have the ability to use a quote function. If you did know the meaning of the word intrinsic, or the word objective, you would not have used them in the ways that you did.

Whilst your first sentence is correct (I've stated as much myself in this very thread) the rest of what you write is essentially invalidated by the exchange above, which demonstrates your capacity, and indeed ability, to seriously misunderstand certain key aspects of the English language.

 

[Southwind17]

Can you answer the question or not?

I already have:

I don't find that particular definition objectionable.

Don't like that answer? Deal with it. Seriously, deal with it.

 

[JFrankA]

And this statement demonstrates exactly where you're going wrong. Allow me to explain. There is nothing wrong with your first sentence. The problem is that, sticking with the "Most Shocking" example, that particular TV programme does not generally comprise shootings, car crashes, train wrecks, etc., meaning that it includes other things of a different nature, such as basketball, soccer and rock music. It comprises shootings, car crashes, train wrecks, etc. generally, meaning that it includes other things of the same nature, such as plane crashes and exploding gas plants. In other words chance catastrophes not orchestrated for entertainment. Do you now see the arguably subtle but fundamental difference that makes the claim that it's not entertainment "per se" right? It is, if you like, "catastrophes" per se!

Wrongo. News IS entertainment. You haven't seen the American news channels have you?

By the way, I'll just take it as red that I was correct on these points, since you haven't once disputed them:

1. The article you provided to prove your point doesn't: It states that the government is using a committee of artists to determine artistic merit, NOT skill, on a production to claim it art. Thus making it possible for porn to be art, per se.

2. You statement that all nude photos of children (not taken by a parent directly) should be banned because of the "possible harm" that might occur from it outweighs the need for the art. But when a moderator censored you because you (and me), showed the possibility of breaking the agreement of the forum code, thereby following what you stated, you called the moderators something like over-zealous censors. This shows me that this point your stance is clearly hypocritical and is something you cannot back up. Period.

As to the first point, and this is why I keep coming back to it, it disputes your assertion that art needs skill.

Note that the article is stating that they are determining whether a production should be legally considered art based on artistic merit. Not skill. Major difference between the two.

Now before you go running to dictionary.com I did one better. I went to wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_merit

Artistic merit is a crucial term, as pertains to visual art. However, many people fail to distinguish between the problem of distinguishing art from non-art and the problem of distinguishing good art from bad art. In many cases, people claim that such-and-such object is "not art" or "not real art" when they intend to say that they do not consider it to be good or successful art.

So therefore, if we go back to your son who may "bang away on the keys". And you "creating music". He may bang away on the keys not in a traditional way that you know, but in such a way that some people might enjoy the sounds he produces more than the sounds you produce. In other words, his banging away has artistic merit that you cannot reproduce, yet you have the "skill". In that case, he IS a pianist, and a better one than you. Don't think that something like this doesn't happen.

Further, in going back to porn, your own point completely invalidates your own opinion (that's called contradiction or, another word, hypocrisy but I digress), because there has been porn that was shot with artistic skill. There has been directors who have the skill in shooting porn. There are people who model for that same director who are beautiful and are skilled in working in front of a camera and know how to have sex skillfully. Sex isn't something we know instantly. It takes skill to know how to have sex with a partner and make your partner enjoy it. Consequently, in knowing those skills it takes skill to translate that feeling through a camera lens. Also, those skills are shot by a person who has the skills to photograph such skilled actions from the model. Once again, I point to Andrew Blake. There are many others out there. Further, just because one doesn't have the skills doesn't mean it's not art.

So, by your own circular definition, art must be produced by a person who has the skills or it won't be art. That's partly why you say that porn is not art. But if porn has artistic skill in it, and the intention is to produce artistic porn, then the porn IS art. As an example of how wrong your definition is, if the sounds your son produces from "banging on the piano" is considered to have more artistic merit than the music you create, then you, even with your skills, cannot produce art and you son can.

I've shown you that your own article to prove that doesn't prove that at all. I've also shown your own logic doesn't support your past opinions.

You've asked me to keep up. I have kept up but I've done more. I've kept up the conversation AND applied it to your previous statements and found them all contradictory. I contend that you haven't. You simply switched from one topic to another. Now you are trying to prove that porn, itself, is not art, just like a person kicking a ball into the goal is not soccer. It is soccer. One part of it, a small part of it, even if the person is missing the goal every time, it's still soccer. This is where your whole argument falls apart: a person doing something that's part of the sport is still considered doing the sport. A team who losses every game in the season may not be a skilled team but they are still playing the sport. Ergo, if someone makes a movie with people having sex or a movie like "Citizen Kane" they are both still a movie. Movies require some skill, some people have better skills than others, some don't. Still a movie. Some bad movies are considered good. Still a movie. Still art.

And for a review, the definition of art is:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art
(Notice: there is more than one definition. You seemed to ignore the definition that don't fit with your point. ...hmmm I wonder why?)

So by saying that porn isn't art, per se (which means "intrinsically" - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intrinsically and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intrinsically) then you are saying that there is no way porn can fit into the definition of art (which I have posted above). Porn is a production of media, just like filming "Citizen Kane" or a home movie. A production of media, is art, per se. Porn is part of that group, therefore, it is art.

There you have it. Let's see if you have the skills in the art of debate by disputing my stance. I bet you are just going to go for the definitions I've provided above, ignoring the rest of my post. I'll even go as far as to say that you are going to pick only the definitions that suit your point, ignoring the ones that don't. How about this: for extra credit let's see if you can do it without resorting to cowardly insulting me or spinelessly ignoring the points I've presented here or resorting to the fearful phrase "you don't understand" without explaining why. Because if you do, then the next discussion is whether you are a poor participant in the art of debate, or you are an excellent participant in the art of trolling.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not here to teach English. I believe it's an implied pre-requisite of participation. Evidently, if one is unsufficiently skilled in one's command and use of the English language it tends to lead to disfunction here. I wonder what conclusion we can draw from that?!

That English isn't my first language. We can also draw the conclusion that you'd rather claim something than have to explain yourself, presumably because doing so would expose your mistake.

What was a typo, inserting a whole word? I wouldn't call that a typo, but let's not go there eh, at least not in this thread.

Fine, then. It was a mistake.

Funny how "gotcha" suddenly becomes "boring" to the one who gets got, isn't it!

I don't play that game, so I don't find it funny at all. It seems like you are less and less participating in the debate as time progresses.

So you don't consider that increased skill leads to betterment? It can only lead to "more". How odd.

That was a yes or no situation, Southwing, one that you again dodged. Would you say that a better piano player plays MORE ? If so, how do you justify that position; if not, why would someone with NO skill not be able to play ?

"Actually fly the plane" meaning what, exactly? When he can fly it proficiently, or simply get off the ground? Similarly, at what point does a golfer "actually play golf"? As soon as he takes his first swing and fails to make contact with the ball, or at the point where he attains a degree of proficiency. Can you not see where your response is leading you?!

If I play golf, I'm a golfer, period. You're trying to argue fine points but it doesn't change the definition, which is "golf player", someone who plays golf. There is NO mention of the amount of skill required to earn the title. I'm getting the impression that you're desperately trying to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

 

[Belz...]

Whilst your first sentence is correct (I've stated as much myself in this very thread) the rest of what you write is essentially invalidated by the exchange above, which demonstrates your capacity, and indeed ability, to seriously misunderstand certain key aspects of the English language.

Perhaps it'd be more productive if we discussed Porn and Art instead of the English language, no ?

 

[Southwind17]

Wrongo. News IS entertainment. You haven't seen the American news channels have you?

I never claimed that news isn't entertaining, did I? News is ("can sometimes be", to be accurate) entertaining. Point is, though, news isn't entertainment per se. It's news per se (what else?!). That news is sometimes entertaining couldn't be farther removed from the principle of "per se". It's entertaining how you just manage to chip in at opportune times sufficient to remind us all how misplaced your views are. Thank you for the light relief.

By the way, I'll just take it as red that I was correct on these points, since you haven't once disputed them:

You can take it as whatever colour you like

1. The article you provided to prove your point doesn't: It states that the government is using a committee of artists to determine artistic merit, NOT skill, on a production to claim it art. Thus making it possible for porn to be art, per se.

As I previously wrote, the OP was provocative. It set out to prove nothing, but please don't interpret that as any sort of admission on my part. It most certainly is not. So, if porn can be art per se it cannot, presumably, also be porn per se at the same time. How, exactly, do you reconcile that little paradox?

2. You statement that all nude photos of children (not taken by a parent directly) should be banned because of the "possible harm" that might occur from it outweighs the need for the art.

Please show me the alleged statement to which you purportedly refer.

But when a moderator censored you because you (and me), showed the possibility of breaking the agreement of the forum code, thereby following what you stated, you called the moderators something like over-zealous censors. This shows me that this point your stance is clearly hypocritical and is something you cannot back up. Period.

After you have located and shown said purported statement please proceed to reconcile this statement with that, clearly explaining how you reach the conclusion that you do.

As to the first point, and this is why I keep coming back to it, it disputes your assertion that art needs skill.
Note that the article is stating that they are determining whether a production should be legally considered art based on artistic merit. Not skill. Major difference between the two.

Couldn't be more wrong. How the Australian Authorities elect to define or ascribe artistic merit has absolutely no bearing on the answer to the question as to whether art requires skill for its legitimacy.

Now before you go running to dictionary.com I did one better. I went to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_merit
So therefore, if we go back to your son who may "bang away on the keys". And you "creating music". He may bang away on the keys not in a traditional way that you know, but in such a way that some people might enjoy the sounds he produces more than the sounds you produce. In other words, his banging away has artistic merit that you cannot reproduce, yet you have the "skill". In that case, he IS a pianist, and a better one than you. Don't think that something like this doesn't happen.

What bearing, exactly, do you think the notion of "artistic merit" has on supporting an assertion that porn is art per se?

Further, in going back to porn, your own point completely invalidates your own opinion (that's called contradiction or, another word, hypocrisy but I digress), because there has been porn that was shot with artistic skill. There has been directors who have the skill in shooting porn. There are people who model for that same director who are beautiful and are skilled in working in front of a camera and know how to have sex skillfully. Sex isn't something we know instantly. It takes skill to know how to have sex with a partner and make your partner enjoy it. Consequently, in knowing those skills it takes skill to translate that feeling through a camera lens. Also, those skills are shot by a person who has the skills to photograph such skilled actions from the model. Once again, I point to Andrew Blake. There are many others out there.

I don't deny this. Never have, never will (probably). "Skill" does not, however, necessarily translate to "art", as the above suggests you believe. Whilst you will, no doubt, disagree, the vast majority of educated, intelligent people would concur that whilst great skill is required to flawlessly plaster a wall the end result most certainly cannot validly be classed as "art".

Further, just because one doesn't have the skills doesn't mean it's not art.

I'm afraid it does, as I've previously explained, somewhat repeatedly. Simply stating not is hardly a compelling argument.

So, by your own circular definition ...

I'm sorry?

... art must be produced by a person who has the skills or it won't be art.

Right.

That's partly why you say that porn is not art.

I think you're tending to forget the "per se" bit. Pretty significant oversight. Telling, too, I'd suggest.

But if porn has artistic skill in it, and the intention is to produce artistic porn, then the porn IS art.

It's artistic, sure, but not art per se. It's still porn per se, with artistic merit.

As an example of how wrong your definition is ...

I'm sorry, what "definition", exactly, are you alluding to now?

... if the sounds your son produces from "banging on the piano" is considered to have more artistic merit than the music you create, then you, even with your skills, cannot produce art and you son can.

First, re. piano the best that can be said is that it has "musical" merit, not "artistic" merit. People who are good at music are referred to as "musicians", not "artists" (other than by the more esoterically minded people, like you). Second, and as I've pointed out before, anything (forget "art" for a moment) that relies for its definition and meaning on each individual beholder without at least some frame of reference has absolutely no meaning. You've previously admitted and demonstrated that absolutely everything you see constitutes art. Such a viewpoint has no purpose in this debate. It can only lead to futility.

I've shown you that your own article to prove that doesn't prove that at all.

Unnecessarily (see above).

I've also shown your own logic doesn't support your past opinions.

You've shown no such thing. If anything you've shown that your's doesn't, but that's par for the course with you.

You've asked me to keep up. I have kept up but I've done more. I've kept up the conversation AND applied it to your previous statements and found them all contradictory. I contend that you haven't. You simply switched from one topic to another. Now you are trying to prove that porn, itself, is not art, just like a person kicking a ball into the goal is not soccer. It is soccer. One part of it, a small part of it, even if the person is missing the goal every time, it's still soccer. This is where your whole argument falls apart: a person doing something that's part of the sport is still considered doing the sport. A team who losses every game in the season may not be a skilled team but they are still playing the sport. Ergo, if someone makes a movie with people having sex or a movie like "Citizen Kane" they are both still a movie. Movies require some skill, some people have better skills than others, some don't. Still a movie. Some bad movies are considered good. Still a movie. Still art.

You really do need to start thinking deeper.

And for a review, the definition of art is:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art
(Notice: there is more than one definition. You seemed to ignore the definition that don't fit with your point. ...hmmm I wonder why?)

Relevance to "porn = art per se"?

So by saying that porn isn't art, per se (which means "intrinsically" - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intrinsically and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intrinsically) then you are saying that there is no way porn can fit into the definition of art (which I have posted above). Porn is a production of media, just like filming "Citizen Kane" or a home movie. A production of media, is art, per se. Porn is part of that group, therefore, it is art.

Oh dear. Now you're really getting confused.

There you have it. Let's see if you have the skills in the art of debate by disputing my stance. I bet you are just going to go for the definitions I've provided above, ignoring the rest of my post. I'll even go as far as to say that you are going to pick only the definitions that suit your point, ignoring the ones that don't. How about this: for extra credit let's see if you can do it without resorting to cowardly insulting me or spinelessly ignoring the points I've presented here or resorting to the fearful phrase "you don't understand" without explaining why. Because if you do, then the next discussion is whether you are a poor participant in the art of debate, or you are an excellent participant in the art of trolling.

There you have it. Believe it or not, I've been as open an honest as I think can reasonably be expected.

 

[Southwind17]

Perhaps it'd be more productive if we discussed Porn and Art instead of the English language, no ?

Kind of, except that discussion depends on language, in this case English, so it's difficult to divorce the two. You'll appreciate (I know you will!) that much here tends to depend on the exact meaning (not definition, but meaning) of individual words. I'm not sure how we get around that impediment.

 

[Marcus]

There's nothing circular about that, because what it shows, now by introduction of the criterion for "skill", is that there's an implied definition of art. If art requires "skill" then that will be reflected somehow in the created work, as opposed to, say, a random "pattern" of paint on canvas. I believe the definition of "art" that I quoted from the Chambers Dictionary previously supports this reasoning.

Forgive me if this is repetitious, I'm sure it has been gone over in this long thread. I was just wondering: Do you think porn can be art?

No definitions, qualifiers, or explanations required, just a simple question.

 

[Southwind17]

Forgive me if this is repetitious, I'm sure it has been gone over in this long thread. I was just wondering: Do you think porn can be art?

No definitions, qualifiers, or explanations required, just a simple question.

Art per se, no, never. Artistic, yes, sometimes. I'm sorry, those qualifiers are essential to avoid doubt.

Now that that's answered, allow me to add: The fact that pornographic material, by definition, has the purpose of sexual arousal means that it always, without exception, serves at least that purpose. Compare that with works of art. What generic purpose do works of art serve? Whatever it is it's the same for ALL works of art. And whatever it is must, surely, contribute to the definition of "art" per se. Porn, because of its unique purpose, must, therefore, be different from art per se, as art, per se, does not serve the purpose of sexual arousal.

In short, art, per se, has no intention to sexually arouse. Porn has. Porn, therefore, cannot be art per se.

 

[BenBurch]

That's bull-pucky.

 

[not daSkeptic]

I already have:

Don't like that answer? Deal with it. Seriously, deal with it.

I don't have to deal with it. It's not a matter of me liking or disliking the answer. Your response was to a question not asked.

As a reminder, here's where things currently stand. You have claimed that art is something created by artists, and that an artist is one who possesses a certain level of skill in something. But when questioned as to what constitutes skill, you have been repeatedly evasive. One can only conclude from this that you lack the ability or the will to commit to a definition. Why is that?

 

[Mirrorglass]

So what exactly is the argument about now? This is really hard to follow.

 

[tesscaline]

Art per se, no, never. Artistic, yes, sometimes. I'm sorry, those qualifiers are essential to avoid doubt.

Now that that's answered, allow me to add: The fact that pornographic material, by definition, has the purpose of sexual arousal means that it always, without exception, serves at least that purpose. Compare that with works of art. What generic purpose do works of art serve? Whatever it is it's the same for ALL works of art. And whatever it is must, surely, contribute to the definition of "art" per se. Porn, because of its unique purpose, must, therefore, be different from art per se, as art, per se, does not serve the purpose of sexual arousal.

In short, art, per se, has no intention to sexually arouse. Porn has. Porn, therefore, cannot be art per se.

All art serves the same purpose??

 

[not daSkeptic]

... anything (forget "art" for a moment) that relies for its definition and meaning on each individual beholder without at least some frame of reference has absolutely no meaning.

Has no meaning to whom?

 

[tesscaline]

As I previously wrote, the OP was provocative. It set out to prove nothing, but please don't interpret that as any sort of admission on my part. It most certainly is not. So, if porn can be art per se it cannot, presumably, also be porn per se at the same time. How, exactly, do you reconcile that little paradox?

It's a false dichotomy, plain and simple.

I don't deny this. Never have, never will (probably). "Skill" does not, however, necessarily translate to "art", as the above suggests you believe. Whilst you will, no doubt, disagree, the vast majority of educated, intelligent people would concur that whilst great skill is required to flawlessly plaster a wall the end result most certainly cannot validly be classed as "art".

Really... so... What defines an artist again?

First, re. piano the best that can be said is that it has "musical" merit, not "artistic" merit.

Wrong.

People who are good at music are referred to as "musicians", not "artists" (other than by the more esoterically minded people, like you).

Wrong.

Second, and as I've pointed out before, anything (forget "art" for a moment) that relies for its definition and meaning on each individual beholder without at least some frame of reference has absolutely no meaning. You've previously admitted and demonstrated that absolutely everything you see constitutes art. Such a viewpoint has no purpose in this debate. It can only lead to futility.

So... Anything that is subjective is meaningless?

 

[quixotecoyote]

I don't have to deal with it. It's not a matter of me liking or disliking the answer. Your response was to a question not asked.

As a reminder, here's where things currently stand. You have claimed that art is something created by artists, and that an artist is one who possesses a certain level of skill in something. But when questioned as to what constitutes skill, you have been repeatedly evasive. One can only conclude from this that you lack the ability or the will to commit to a definition. Why is that?

Nah, it's better than that. in post 768 he agreed that skill was "the ability to do something well."

So, at the moment the winds of the south blow forth the following:

• Art is that which is created by artists
• Artists are those who have the ability to create art well
• Therefore from this it's obvious what both "art" and "artists" are and anyone who can't see it is obviously an idiot.

 

[tesscaline]

And this statement demonstrates exactly where you're going wrong. Allow me to explain. There is nothing wrong with your first sentence. The problem is that, sticking with the "Most Shocking" example, that particular TV programme does not generally comprise shootings, car crashes, train wrecks, etc., meaning that it includes other things of a different nature, such as basketball, soccer and rock music. It comprises shootings, car crashes, train wrecks, etc. generally, meaning that it includes other things of the same nature, such as plane crashes and exploding gas plants. In other words chance catastrophes not orchestrated for entertainment. Do you now see the arguably subtle but fundamental difference that makes the claim that it's not entertainment "per se" right? It is, if you like, "catastrophes" per se!

You still don't seem to see the problem with your use of "per se". There is nothing wrong with the statement "x tv show is not entertainment, per se". There is, however, something quite wrong with "x tv show is a, b, c, and d, generally, per se".

Whilst your first sentence is correct (I've stated as much myself in this very thread) the rest of what you write is essentially invalidated by the exchange above, which demonstrates your capacity, and indeed ability, to seriously misunderstand certain key aspects of the English language.

I see you're talking about yourself again, instead of me. have fun with that.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Nah, it's better than that. in post 768 he agreed that skill was "the ability to do something well."

Look carefully at post 768. He did not actually agree, he simply had no objection. That's not the same thing and he knows it. He's trying to avoid making any solid commitment to a definition.

 

[JFrankA]

Wrongo. News IS entertainment. You haven't seen the American news channels have you?

I never claimed that news isn't entertaining, did I? News is ("can sometimes be", to be accurate) entertaining. Point is, though, news isn't entertainment per se. It's news per se (what else?!). That news is sometimes entertaining couldn't be farther removed from the principle of "per se". It's entertaining how you just manage to chip in at opportune times sufficient to remind us all how misplaced your views are. Thank you for the light relief.

Re-read my comment. I said News IS entertainment. I didn't say you said anything otherwise.

News, belongs to the group of entertainment by its very nature. News is intrinsically entertainment. News is entertainment, per se.

Means all the same thing. Right off the bat, you've done what I fully expected you to do. You resorted to cowardly insults.

Points for the "Art of trolling".

1. The article you provided to prove your point doesn't: It states that the government is using a committee of artists to determine artistic merit, NOT skill, on a production to claim it art. Thus making it possible for porn to be art, per se.

As I previously wrote, the OP was provocative. It set out to prove nothing, but please don't interpret that as any sort of admission on my part. It most certainly is not.

Clearly, porn is not art per se, especially child porn, as some misguided, self-indulgent people like to think.

With a link to the article. Proactive or not, you are making your statement with a reference to the article - this is clearly to get a jump on proving your point. Or are you telling me that you linked it to an article that has a chance to prove your point wrong out of the goodness of your heart?

So, if porn can be art per se it cannot, presumably, also be porn per se at the same time. How, exactly, do you reconcile that little paradox?

You should read the rest of my post before you make that statement.

2. You statement that all nude photos of children (not taken by a parent directly) should be banned because of the "possible harm" that might occur from it outweighs the need for the art.

Please show me the alleged statement to which you purportedly refer.

Are you backtracking now?

Okay. Remember, you asked for it:

Apply that to nude modeling and you have the justification of what I said: There are crucial differences between nude modeling and/or nude images, and pornography. But they aren't always obvious. Just because you can't easily differentiate them, doesn't mean there are no differences.

Red herring. Patent differences between child nude modelling and child pornography are irrelevant to the question as to whether child nude modelling is harmful in the same way that showing that cigar smoke is harmful has no bearing on the characteristics of cigarette smoke.

So you would arrest an artist who, say, had his nude daughter playing on the living room and decided to paint a portrait of her?
To you, he and everybody else is automatically a pornographer?

If only you read what people write. TraneWreck has made it absolutely clear that a key differentiator is orchestrating the nudity as opposed to simply capturing an image that has occured "naturally". Let's try this: You know what a snuff movie is, I assume. Do you think somebody should be arrested for making one? Do you think a bystander should be arrested for filming an armed robbery on their mobile phone where innocent people are killed? See the difference now?

You've made it quite clear it's your opinion that since art with a posed nude child could possibly have the same "potential harm" as child porn, it should be treated as such because you err on the side of caution:

Your words:

The bottom line is, for whatever reason, nudity in the presence of others, at some point, seems to become a psychological issue for kids. Plain and simple. That, to me, is enough to question the wisdom of promoting it in anything other than an "incidental" manner.

----

To what extent can positive promotion of child nudity (which is exactly what orchestrating child nudity for the purpose of artistry undoubtedly amounts to) NOT be considered "pressuring" or even "forcing" (please don't offer the "with the child's permission" as a defense - it has no logical or legal standing)?

----

Some things can be deemed to be obvious to all parents (even if there are still limited exceptions!), such as the danger of dropping a baby on its head; some things are not so obvious (to many!), such as, surprisingly (to me), leaving a baby unattended in a hot car whilst doing the shopping. It's the not so obvious that require legislation to afford sufficient protection to children (and even then it's not guaranteed, but it helps).

----

Almost without exception all of the things in your "expanded" list carry no reasonably perceived risk (yes, I know, we've debated the idea of "reasonably perceived" before, to no avail (not so far as I'm concerned, anyhow)). I very much doubt that even you, if you're to be honest, would adamantly deny that it's reasonably possible that some psychological, if not physical, harm could come to some children from posing nude in the name of art. Continuing, again, if you were to be honest I'm sure you could form a rational argument as to why and how that potential risk exists. Please, however, offer your rational argument in support of a ban of blue T-shirts, Spongebob movies and sheets of bond paper (I deliberately omit body powder and fish oil as it seems conceivable to me that being inhaled and consumed respectively they could actually pose a risk. I suspect, however, that evidence exists in respect of both products showing that neither is harmful if handled/consumed sensibly).

----

I'm erring on the side of caution, not harm - big difference. And who's accusing anybody of being a criminal, other than anybody who breaks a law? Easy comparison, eh!

----

It's not simply a question of "might" (almost everything's possible); it's a question of reasonableness and practicability. I really do wish you'd see and appreciate this simple principle.

So it's safe to say that if there is "potential harm", you feel that those in authority should err on the side of caution and take action. which brings me to this:

But when a moderator censored you because you (and me), showed the possibility of breaking the agreement of the forum code, thereby following what you stated, you called the moderators something like over-zealous censors. This shows me that this point your stance is clearly hypocritical and is something you cannot back up. Period.

After you have located and shown said purported statement please proceed to reconcile this statement with that, clearly explaining how you reach the conclusion that you do.

So when AWPrime made this statement:

Guess what happened to the previous version of this topic.

Your reply was:

It caught the attention of some over-zealous JREF censorship police?

So they were "over-zealous" and "censorship police" when they were doing exactly what you are advocating. That is, take action because of "potential harm" or in this case "potential breaking of the rules".

Now, since you err on the side of caution, and since the moderaters did too, why are they "over-zealous JREF censorship police" and the government isn't when it comes to children posing nude? Seems to me that you don't completely believe your own opinion, or you're inconsitant or am I missing something?

Couldn't be more wrong. How the Australian Authorities elect to define or ascribe artistic merit has absolutely no bearing on the answer to the question as to whether art requires skill for its legitimacy.

Then why did YOU bring it up as YOUR POINT in YOUR OP?

Sounds like backtracking to me......

So therefore, if we go back to your son who may "bang away on the keys". And you "creating music". He may bang away on the keys not in a traditional way that you know, but in such a way that some people might enjoy the sounds he produces more than the sounds you produce. In other words, his banging away has artistic merit that you cannot reproduce, yet you have the "skill". In that case, he IS a pianist, and a better one than you. Don't think that something like this doesn't happen.

What bearing, exactly, do you think the notion of "artistic merit" has on supporting an assertion that porn is art per se?

Why is the "intent to arouse sex desire" the qualifier for "non-art"? Why not "intent to arouse anger" or "intent to arouse joy" or "intent to arouse thinking" or "intent to arouse humor"?

What bearing, do you think the notion of "artistic merit" has on supporting an assertion that non-porn is art per se?

I don't deny this. Never have, never will (probably). "Skill" does not, however, necessarily translate to "art", as the above suggests you believe.

Funny, it was part of your definition. Again with the backtracking?

Whilst you will, no doubt, disagree, the vast majority of educated, intelligent people would concur that whilst great skill is required to flawlessly plaster a wall the end result most certainly cannot validly be classed as "art".

Where is your evidience of that? Have you seen the home imporvement shows here in the States, where whole shows are devoted to the art of building? Or should I feel it's good to know you can read the minds of everyone.

I'm afraid it does, as I've previously explained, somewhat repeatedly. Simply stating not is hardly a compelling argument.

I'm sorry?

Right.

I think you're tending to forget the "per se" bit. Pretty significant oversight. Telling, too, I'd suggest.

It's artistic, sure, but not art per se. It's still porn per se, with artistic merit.

I'm sorry, what "definition", exactly, are you alluding to now?

You're microcommenting. I do suggest you wait until the point is made before you microcomment.

First, re. piano the best that can be said is that it has "musical" merit, not "artistic" merit. People who are good at music are referred to as "musicians", not "artists" (other than by the more esoterically minded people, like you). Second, and as I've pointed out before, anything (forget "art" for a moment) that relies for its definition and meaning on each individual beholder without at least some frame of reference has absolutely no meaning. You've previously admitted and demonstrated that absolutely everything you see constitutes art. Such a viewpoint has no purpose in this debate. It can only lead to futility.

So music is not art. I see. Gotcha.

I've shown you that your own article to prove that doesn't prove that at all.

Unnecessarily (see above).

Wrong. YOU brought it up as proof of your point. YOU posted it. Now that you can see it doesn't side with your point, and that you can't dispute that, you are dismissing it. Once again, you are backtracking.

You've shown no such thing. If anything you've shown that your's doesn't, but that's par for the course with you.

You haven't disproven a thing. You've done nothing here but back track and ignore what you can't dispute.

You really do need to start thinking deeper.

Oh. What a rebuttle. Ouch.

And for a review, the definition of art is:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art
(Notice: there is more than one definition. You seemed to ignore the definition that don't fit with your point. ...hmmm I wonder why?)

Relevance to "porn = art per se"?

wait for it. You are microcommenting again....

Originally Posted by JFrankA View Post
So by saying that porn isn't art, per se (which means "intrinsically" - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intrinsically and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intrinsically) then you are saying that there is no way porn can fit into the definition of art (which I have posted above). Porn is a production of media, just like filming "Citizen Kane" or a home movie. A production of media, is art, per se. Porn is part of that group, therefore, it is art.[/quote]

Oh dear. Now you're really getting confused.

Seems to me that you are confused. See, I have defined the meaning of the phrase "per se". Something you have been misusing throughout the thread.

There you have it. Believe it or not, I've been as open an honest as I think can reasonably be expected.

Honest? To a point. You have been honest with your opinion, but not so with rebuttles. Once again, you ignore points that you cannot dispute, using insults when you can and using the "you don't understand X" defense. You've used that throughout this post at least.

Open? No way.

 

[JFrankA]

Art per se, no, never. Artistic, yes, sometimes. I'm sorry, those qualifiers are essential to avoid doubt.

Now that that's answered, allow me to add: The fact that pornographic material, by definition, has the purpose of sexual arousal means that it always, without exception, serves at least that purpose. Compare that with works of art. What generic purpose do works of art serve? Whatever it is it's the same for ALL works of art. And whatever it is must, surely, contribute to the definition of "art" per se. Porn, because of its unique purpose, must, therefore, be different from art per se, as art, per se, does not serve the purpose of sexual arousal.

In short, art, per se, has no intention to sexually arouse. Porn has. Porn, therefore, cannot be art per se.

Because, per SW, porn is meant to arouse sexual desire. Art isn't.

OMG - one step forward; three steps back.

Need I say more?