Porn vs. Art

[JFrankA]

Legitimate points, all of them. I know my list is flawed and incomplete, but as I said, it's only a starting point.

the difference between artistic child nudity and child porn is this: the way it was photographed.

In that case, the innocent end user of the product in most cases doesn't even know whether he is enjoying of cultural art or indulging in sinful child porn.

Agreed. This is part of the reason why I used the US 2257 laws as a model, adding a parent's supervision, to springboard from.

For example there's a clear difference between photographing a child:
1. with approval from the child

Does a similar difference exist between having sex with the same child, with approval from the child? See I have candies in pocket, you want one?

I understand that and you are correct. But what I meant by that is that there are times when a child doesn't want to do something, but are forced into doing it. This first idea was to remove the element of forcing something upon the child. Again, this is only a base. Each case should be reviewed individually to get more details. If there is a way to expand from this base, that should be part of the discussion.

2. with the parents there

You seem to assume that pedophiles never are the parents of the victim.

Innocent until proven guilty. *shrugs* Sorry, I feel one has to start at that assumption until the evidence of the individual case starts to prove otherwise.

Part of the reason the parents are there at the production is that, assuming they are innocent until proven guilty, if they see something that a child wouldn't understand as sexual, they would and stop the production.

It is also my feeling that if a photographer does not want the parents on the set of a shoot when shooting a nude child, that separates the child from all defenses. Indeed, it is much easier to coerce a child when the parents aren't around for back up and guidance.

But, as you pointed out, that is assuming the parents are not molesters themselves. That is a hole and I hope maybe something to discuss to improve this base idea. Perhaps a law enforcement officer should be present as well? I'm open for discussion on that.

3. with the explanation of the shoot to both the child and the parents
4. with the child and the parents keeping the right to not have the shot done
5. with a release form explaining what the shoot contains

See points 1. and 2.

Once again, I'm going from the premise of "innocent until proven guilty". Number three is a clear explanation to everyone. In other words no surprises. No "okay, now that you are naked, I think I should tie you up now!" from the photographer. Everything is out in the open before hand, the plan is there, both the child is comfortable with it and the parents are too and no sudden changes.

Number four is self explanatory, again, assuming innocent until proven guilty, and I know that's an assumption. The child and parents can, at any time, stop the shoot for any reason. In actual child molestation, that is not the reality.

I do understand and encourage a discussion of a way of improving this idea so that the assumption doesn't come into play.

Number five makes legal papers for the courts. This is something that is never involved in child molestation. With a legal release, (which is something that is involved in adult modeling - nude or non-nude), there is a document so that the shoot isn't easily hidden or denied. I think that's essential in showing that the shoot is not abuse legally and initially to everyone involved.

6. with concern to the child's physical and psychological well being
7. with the intent that the photographs clearly placed on display for the public to see.

These two don't contradict each other, do they?

No, I don't see it that way. You are assuming that posing nude for a child is going to be psychologically damaging for every child all the time. That just isn't true.

May we kindly publish your nudity for the public to see, to boost your physical and psychological well being?

But that is the point: the child and the parents understand that this will be displayed publicly and if either the child or the parents have a problem with that, then they shouldn't allow their child to be involved in the shoot. There are plenty of adult models, nude and clothed, who don't like what's involved in the shoot, and just refuse the job. Same thing applies for children with the added guidance of the parents.

As a photographer, your model is your employee. You must treat your models well because word spreads quickly to other models. If a photographer gets a bad word of mouth rep, they get fewer and fewer models who will work for them, or at the very least, will do a certain kind of shoot. If a photographer doesn't care about her or his models well being or reputation, it's very likely he isn't an artist. A molester certainly doesn't care about the person she or he is photographing.

Concern to the child's physical and psychological well being is included because so many children who are abused are abused physically. There are visible bruises and scars.

Also, simply with allowing the parents to be there during the shoot, (and assuming innocent until proven guilty), that shows some concern for the child's safety and well being.

As to making the result of the shoot public, I feel that's very important. Real child porn is an "underground" thing. It's not displayed at all publicly. If a photographer is willing to display a nude child art on the internet, in galleries, etc, then there is no secret. The photographer and the child and the parents know from the get go that this is legitimate, without any abuse involved and will display the work instead of hiding it in the "underground", for only the select few who "understand".

Usually, abuse is hidden. Art is not.

Again, I know this list isn't foolproof nor is it complete. I also understand that this list is based on the assumption of innocent until proven guilty. I am more than open to a discussion to improve or even do away with anything on this list.

 

[Mirrorglass]

I've been lurking here for most of the conversation, hoping it would reach something resembling an intelligent conclusion. As it seems that all the main players have now regressed to throwing insults, I've decided to make a final attempt to discuss the actual point, knowing I'll most likely just be brushed aside as another ignorant fool.

So, Southwind. If I've understood correctly, the definition of art you go by means something of artistic nature, that must necessarily be created by a certain degree of skill. You've also stated that it is important that the art represents something, and as such abstract paintings (such as Jackson Pollock) do not apply. Intentions of the creator do not matter, simply the assessment of his skill. Am I correct so far?

I have some trouble seeing how this leads to anything of pornographic nature, or, as someone put it earlier "having intent to arouse", not being art per se, but I assume I simply lost the part among the bickering that has taken over this thread of late. Would you mind repeating what lead you to this conclusion?

 

[Southwind17]

Legitimate points, all of them. I know my list is flawed and incomplete, but as I said, it's only a starting point.
Agreed. This is part of the reason why I used the US 2257 laws as a model, adding a parent's supervision, to springboard from.
I understand that and you are correct. But what I meant by that is that there are times when a child doesn't want to do something, but are forced into doing it. This first idea was to remove the element of forcing something upon the child. Again, this is only a base. Each case should be reviewed individually to get more details. If there is a way to expand from this base, that should be part of the discussion.
Innocent until proven guilty. *shrugs* Sorry, I feel one has to start at that assumption until the evidence of the individual case starts to prove otherwise.
Part of the reason the parents are there at the production is that, assuming they are innocent until proven guilty, if they see something that a child wouldn't understand as sexual, they would and stop the production.
It is also my feeling that if a photographer does not want the parents on the set of a shoot when shooting a nude child, that separates the child from all defenses. Indeed, it is much easier to coerce a child when the parents aren't around for back up and guidance.
But, as you pointed out, that is assuming the parents are not molesters themselves. That is a hole and I hope maybe something to discuss to improve this base idea. Perhaps a law enforcement officer should be present as well? I'm open for discussion on that.
Once again, I'm going from the premise of "innocent until proven guilty". Number three is a clear explanation to everyone. In other words no surprises. No "okay, now that you are naked, I think I should tie you up now!" from the photographer. Everything is out in the open before hand, the plan is there, both the child is comfortable with it and the parents are too and no sudden changes.
Number four is self explanatory, again, assuming innocent until proven guilty, and I know that's an assumption. The child and parents can, at any time, stop the shoot for any reason. In actual child molestation, that is not the reality.
I do understand and encourage a discussion of a way of improving this idea so that the assumption doesn't come into play.
Number five makes legal papers for the courts. This is something that is never involved in child molestation. With a legal release, (which is something that is involved in adult modeling - nude or non-nude), there is a document so that the shoot isn't easily hidden or denied. I think that's essential in showing that the shoot is not abuse legally and initially to everyone involved.
No, I don't see it that way. You are assuming that posing nude for a child is going to be psychologically damaging for every child all the time. That just isn't true.
But that is the point: the child and the parents understand that this will be displayed publicly and if either the child or the parents have a problem with that, then they shouldn't allow their child to be involved in the shoot. There are plenty of adult models, nude and clothed, who don't like what's involved in the shoot, and just refuse the job. Same thing applies for children with the added guidance of the parents.
As a photographer, your model is your employee. You must treat your models well because word spreads quickly to other models. If a photographer gets a bad word of mouth rep, they get fewer and fewer models who will work for them, or at the very least, will do a certain kind of shoot. If a photographer doesn't care about her or his models well being or reputation, it's very likely he isn't an artist. A molester certainly doesn't care about the person she or he is photographing.
Concern to the child's physical and psychological well being is included because so many children who are abused are abused physically. There are visible bruises and scars.
Also, simply with allowing the parents to be there during the shoot, (and assuming innocent until proven guilty), that shows some concern for the child's safety and well being.
As to making the result of the shoot public, I feel that's very important. Real child porn is an "underground" thing. It's not displayed at all publicly. If a photographer is willing to display a nude child art on the internet, in galleries, etc, then there is no secret. The photographer and the child and the parents know from the get go that this is legitimate, without any abuse involved and will display the work instead of hiding it in the "underground", for only the select few who "understand".
Usually, abuse is hidden. Art is not.
Again, I know this list isn't foolproof nor is it complete. I also understand that this list is based on the assumption of innocent until proven guilty. I am more than open to a discussion to improve or even do away with anything on this list.

Jeez, there are so many caveats to the list of criteria, holes in the justifications and obvious need for additional safety nets (law enforcement officer present! Seriously?!) one really does have to wonder whether this post is a prima fascie admission that the apparently rare situations that it seeks to protect against are actually the norm!

 

[Belz...]

I've been lurking here for most of the conversation, hoping it would reach something resembling an intelligent conclusion. As it seems that all the main players have now regressed to throwing insults, I've decided to make a final attempt to discuss the actual point, knowing I'll most likely just be brushed aside as another ignorant fool.

Well, I'm TRYING to steer Southwind back into rational debating, but it seems even Hercules would've failed at that task.

Southwind answers only with insults, vague claims of mistakes, or pictures of broken records, now. So he doesn't give me much to work with. I figured, perhaps if _I_ went into insult mode, he might snap out of it. Surprise! He only pointed out that I was "immature" for insulting him.

Typical.

 

[JFrankA]

Jeez, there are so many caveats to the list of criteria, holes in the justifications and obvious need for additional safety nets (law enforcement officer present! Seriously?!) one really does have to wonder whether this post is a prima fascie admission that the apparently rare situations that it seeks to protect against are actually the norm!

Hence proof of my definition. Notice that this isn't a rebuttal, nor a helpful response in any way. Southwind17 resorts to insults and attacks rather than a real point.

Southwind17 also resorts to the same image he has post so many times before showing that he does not recognize his own reflection.

Southwind17, once you have decided to seriously debate this topic and contribute something useful, I will re-examine the proof of my definition. However, every post you have made further proves the definition I have posted before.

Further, instead of begging you to leave the thread, I do encourage you to please try to be serious and truly debate the topic instead of attempting to keep proving the definition I've posted before.

 

[Southwind17]

So, Southwind. If I've understood correctly, the definition of art you go by means something of artistic nature, that must necessarily be created by a certain degree of skill. You've also stated that it is important that the art represents something, and as such abstract paintings (such as Jackson Pollock) do not apply. Intentions of the creator do not matter, simply the assessment of his skill. Am I correct so far?

Not quite. The art doesn't necessarily have to represent something, so abstracts qualify, but it does have to result from the application of skill. So, simply throwing a tin of paint over the floor is not art - any moron can do that. "Arranging" paint (even by throwing) on the floor in a skilful manner, however, would qualify.

I have some trouble seeing how this leads to anything of pornographic nature, or, as someone put it earlier "having intent to arouse", not being art per se, but I assume I simply lost the part among the bickering that has taken over this thread of late. Would you mind repeating what lead you to this conclusion?

The thrust of the thread is whether porn is art per se. What you have asked above and I have answered are not related to this question - the debate evolved to the question of what constitutes art per se. Porn serves a purpose wholly outside the purpose(s) that art, per se, serves. Therefore porn cannot be art per se. It can have artistic merit, but cannot be art per se. A foot can be used as a hand, e.g. it can, with training, hold and write with a pen. It will never be a hand per se, though. Why not? Because it's a foot - plain and simple. Just like porn is porn, plain and simple.

 

[JFrankA]

Not quite. The art doesn't necessarily have to represent something, so abstracts qualify, but it does have to result from the application of skill. So, simply throwing a tin of paint over the floor is not art - any moron can do that. "Arranging" paint (even by throwing) on the floor in a skilful manner, however, would qualify.


The thrust of the thread is whether porn is art per se. What you have asked above and I have answered are not related to this question - the debate evolved to the question of what constitutes art per se. Porn serves a purpose wholly outside the purpose(s) that art, per se, serves. Therefore porn cannot be art per se. It can have artistic merit, but cannot be art per se. A foot can be used as a hand, e.g. it can, with training, hold and write with a pen. It will never be a hand per se, though. Why not? Because it's a foot - plain and simple. Just like porn is porn, plain and simple.

Nice try, but doesn't cut it. The definition I've posted earlier applies.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Well, I'm TRYING to steer Southwind back into rational debating, but it seems even Hercules would've failed at that task.

Southwind answers only with insults, vague claims of mistakes, or pictures of broken records, now. So he doesn't give me much to work with. I figured, perhaps if _I_ went into insult mode, he might snap out of it. Surprise! He only pointed out that I was "immature" for insulting him.

Typical.

He certainly isn't a particularly polite person, but one thing I've noticed is that insulting someone back hardly ever works. I'll try and see if I can get him to make a clear claim, then question that claim. If it turns into insults again, well, at least there'll be more of us to insult him back .

 

[JFrankA]

It's extremely difficult to help a lost cause. Seriously, instead of constantly throwing hissy fits try reading what you write, objectively, before hitting the "Submit Reply" button. It should, at least, cut down on the lengths of your tiresome and tortuous attempts at justification.

"The length of a post determines how legitimate it is"?

That's an interesting stance to have when, by your own admission, you didn't even read my reply.

I"m sorry, Southwind, I cannot take your posts seriously if you can't come up with a valid point. You keep proving the definition I've posted before.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Not quite. The art doesn't necessarily have to represent something, so abstracts qualify, but it does have to result from the application of skill. So, simply throwing a tin of paint over the floor is not art - any moron can do that. "Arranging" paint (even by throwing) on the floor in a skilful manner, however, would qualify.

Fair enough.

The thrust of the thread is whether porn is art per se. What you have asked above and I have answered are not related to this question - the debate evolved to the question of what constitutes art per se. Porn serves a purpose wholly outside the purpose(s) that art, per se, serves. Therefore porn cannot be art per se. It can have artistic merit, but cannot be art per se. A foot can be used as a hand, e.g. it can, with training, hold and write with a pen. It will never be a hand per se, though. Why not? Because it's a foot - plain and simple. Just like porn is porn, plain and simple.

Allright, I see the point, but what exactly is this purpose of art? I've always been of the mind that the purpose of art is to raise a reaction in the viewer, and that reaction can indeed be sexual arousal. I take it your view on the purpose of art is different?

 

[quadraginta]

He certainly isn't a particularly polite person, but one thing I've noticed is that insulting someone back hardly ever works. I'll try and see if I can get him to make a clear claim, then question that claim. If it turns into insults again, well, at least there'll be more of us to insult him back .

Everybody hit the concession stand. Don Quixote is the next feature.

 

[JFrankA]

Oh hush you. Anyway, once I'm done with this, I'll go and make rorylee see why his position is illogical.

Actually, Mirrorglass, I think your name is perfect when debating Southwind17. So much of what he accuse people of is something he does himself.


For example, the broken record image which I think is coming in 3...2...1...

(By the way, Southwind, that broken record picture is a nice work of art.)

 

[quadraginta]

I think you’ve probably got a better chance with Rorylee, really.

I changed my mind about Southwind17. After the last couple of posts, it sounds more like he/she/it is from the hope-you-can-declare-victory-by-getting-somebody-suspended-for-calling-you-a-drooling-idiot school of debate.

Although I don't believe he managed to provoke any suspensions, he did succeed in getting the "What's wrong with porn?" thread relegated to moderator status through the same tactics, condemning it to a slow and ignominious death.

Sort of a shame, truth be told. There were elements of good discussion surfacing there from time to time. The signal-to-SW ratio was just far too low to sustain them.

 

[quadraginta]

Actually, Mirrorglass, I think your name is perfect when debating Southwind17. So much of what he accuse people of is something he does himself.


For example, the broken record image which I think is coming in 3...2...1...

(By the way, Southwind, that broken record picture is a nice work of art.)

Can't be art. There is an unquestionable "intent to arouse". This disqualifies it from being art ...uh, per se.

I have this from highest of authorities.

 

[Southwind17]

Can't be art. There is an unquestionable "intent to arouse". This disqualifies it from being art ...uh, per se.

Intent to sexually arouse, I think you mean (otherwise you've completely missed at least one critical point), which is, after all, a defining fundamental of "porn", isn't it!

 

[not daSkeptic]

Irrelevant. Skill, per se, is required.


Again, irrelevant. Skill, per se, is required.


Once again, irrelevant. Skill, per se, is required.


Whatever the acceptance criteria dictate.

Oh, I see what you're saying. It matters not what the actual criteria is, only that there exists some criteria. Is that right?

 

[tesscaline]

The problem with this entire thread (aside from all the trolling and insults -- really, can we get any more 2nd grade?) is right there in the OP.

The claim is made that porn is not art, per se. Well, I have to ask: Is anything art, per se? I don't believe so. There is no definition that describes any single characteristic which makes one thing art, and another thing not art. Throughout history, the argument over what is art, and what is not, has been waged in vain. No one can agree on one solid definition that includes all art, and only excludes non-art. Not even experts who have spent their entire lives studying art can agree. Not even the artists themselves can agree. And here comes Southwind proclaiming that "Yes! There is a definition of art which only includes art, and only excludes non-art! Yes! Art has an intrinsic characteristic that makes it art!" and we're supposed to just take that at face value, when it contradicts hundreds (if not thousands) of years of controversy? When, if the debate over "what is art" was settled, the article linked in the OP wouldn't have needed to be written since there would be no debate over whether or not a piece of media was legitimately art or not? When the "intrinsic quality" given borders on inanity because it's so circular?

What it comes down to is that if nothing is art per se, then the OP's claim is meaningless. And until there is a consensus from the world on the subject of "what is art?", nothing can be art per se. So, the OP is meaningless.

 

[JFrankA]

The problem with this entire thread (aside from all the trolling and insults -- really, can we get any more 2nd grade?) is right there in the OP.

The claim is made that porn is not art, per se. Well, I have to ask: Is anything art, per se? I don't believe so. There is no definition that describes any single characteristic which makes one thing art, and another thing not art. Throughout history, the argument over what is art, and what is not, has been waged in vain. No one can agree on one solid definition that includes all art, and only excludes non-art. Not even experts who have spent their entire lives studying art can agree. Not even the artists themselves can agree. And here comes Southwind proclaiming that "Yes! There is a definition of art which only includes art, and only excludes non-art! Yes! Art has an intrinsic characteristic that makes it art!" and we're supposed to just take that at face value, when it contradicts hundreds (if not thousands) of years of controversy? When, if the debate over "what is art" was settled, the article linked in the OP wouldn't have needed to be written since there would be no debate over whether or not a piece of media was legitimately art or not? When the "intrinsic quality" given borders on inanity because it's so circular?

What it comes down to is that if nothing is art per se, then the OP's claim is meaningless. And until there is a consensus from the world on the subject of "what is art?", nothing can be art per se. So, the OP is meaningless.

Agreed.

Further, the link he posted did nothing to prove his point. In fact, it goes along to disprove his point, and even disprove his "definition" (porn is intent to sexually arouse, and is therefore not art, per se) , the article shows that porn can be deemed art.

 

[JJM 777]

You are assuming that posing nude for a child is going to be psychologically damaging for every child all the time. That just isn't true.

I didn't say "every" nor "all the time". That isn't the point in legislation, most laws aim at reducing the statistical occurrence of undesired human fates in the society. Even if activity X leads to consequences Z in relatively small percentage of cases, legislators often focus on "doing something about" the occurrence of undesired fate Z in the entire society, which often leads to laws banning relatively safe behaviour. Not wearing a seatbelt is relatively safe, for example, but criminalizing that saves just a few more human lives in the society.

the child and the parents understand that this will be displayed publicly

And the child also understands what sexuality is in the first place (never having experienced much of it yet), the child understands how irrevocable the publishing of a nude image is especially online, the child understands how his/her social life and feelings may be affected among those who have seen the nude pictures and possibly have become sexually aroused by them. The child will never change his/her opinion about this irrevocable affair, the child will not later re-interpret the motives of the involved adults as sexual rather than neutral, and at that point the child will not feel betrayed by the adults involved, and this will not lead the child to social isolation or depression.

Statistically this might (or might not) be relatively improbable. But those who write laws, often just want to "do something about" the statistical total number of victims of a certain undesirable fate.

 

[Southwind17]

Oh, I see what you're saying. It matters not what the actual criteria is, only that there exists some criteria. Is that right?

Matters to what?