Porn vs. Art

[not daSkeptic]

Matters to what?

Can't follow the thread of discussion, eh?

 

[Southwind17]

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.

Agreed.

That's odd:

One of the defintions is so I declare the porn I make as also my art.
It is my porn. And my art.
It can be art. I've seen some very artistic telescopes. In fact, the design of a telescope is artistic in itself. Too bad you choose not to see it that way.
Hey, even inside the naked body is art.
Well, there are nudes in an art gallery and earlier in this thread we talked about Malplethorpe. There's the Sex Museum in New York and the AVN awards which give out awards for the best scenes and performances like the Academy Awards. Sounds like art to me!

 

[not daSkeptic]

That's odd:

Where in any of that did he claim these things were intrinsically art?

 

[tesscaline]

That's odd:

Where in that quote was it claimed that the art referred to was art per se?

 

[Southwind17]

Where in any of that did he claim these things were intrinsically art?

Where in any of that did I claim that he claimed such things are intrinsically art?

Where in that quote was it claimed that the art referred to was art per se?

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

 

[Southwind17]

Only a loser plays such games.

I assure you there's no gamesmanship on my part. It was a genuine question, the answering of which I was hoping would cause you to think twice about what, exactly, you were asking me, because I think there's more to that question than you currently think. Wouldn't it have been easier simply to try to answer the question? Maybe not. Let's try this:

What would you say are acceptable standards for brickwork?

 

[MontagK505]

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.

Is the painting "September Morn" art?
If you do the same image with a camera and model is it art?
If the camera model is 16 is it art? Or is it "kiddie porn"?
BTW The actual model for "September Morn" was 16 and her mother was present during the time the painting was done.

 

[Southwind17]

Is the painting "September Morn" art?

Yes.

If you do the same image with a camera and model is it art?

Depends on the result.

If the camera model is 16 is it art? Or is it "kiddie porn"?

Art. There's no apparent intention to sexually arouse.

BTW The actual model for "September Morn" was 16 and her mother was present during the time the painting was done.

Interesting.

 

[MontagK505]

<snip>

Art. There's no apparent intention to sexually arouse.

If someone finds the image sexually arousing is it still art? Or is it kiddie porn? (don't forget, she's 16)

 

[Southwind17]

If someone finds the image sexually arousing is it still art? Or is it kiddie porn? (don't forget, she's 16)

It's not a question of what someone "finds" it's a question of intent by the producer. Some people, I suspect, find photos of steam trains perversely sexually arousing. That doesn't render them pornographic, though. I realize this raises some difficult issues (tell me about it!), but there you go.

 

[MontagK505]

It's not a question of what someone "finds" it's a question of intent by the producer. Some people, I suspect, find photos of steam trains perversely sexually arousing. That doesn't render them pornographic, though. I realize this raises some difficult issues (tell me about it!), but there you go.

Only if the trains are going into tunnels.

I'm glad you realize the difficulty involved.

Another thought, if you rendered the digital image, of your nude teenage model bathing, so it looked like a painting would this make it less pornographic? Keep in mind the basic context of the image hasn't changed. And the intent of the producer is still unknown.

 

[Southwind17]

Another thought, if you rendered the digital image, of your nude teenage model bathing, so it looked like a painting would this make it less pornographic? Keep in mind the basic context of the image hasn't changed. And the intent of the producer is still unknown.

I've already asserted that it isn't pornographic. Accordingly, it cannot be made "less pornographic".

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but allow me to clarify:
Pornography does not depend on the method of production or medium of communication for its classification (except, of course, that it has to be "graphic", hence pornography). Moreover, the relevance of the intention of the producer depends on context. If you wish to identify whether a producer of images considers them pornographic you could simply ask him about his intentions when producing them. If he's honest and his intention is to sexually arouse then, so far as he's concerned, it's porn; if his intention is not to sexually arouse then, so far as he's concerned, it isn't porn. If, however, a producer is accused of producing porn illegally (child porn, for example) and he denies it, then the question of intent comes down to a judge or jury based on the evidence available (subject to different law enactment like that linked to in the OP). As I've written in a previous thread/post, this can, and probably will, extend to include much more than just the image itself, from which intent, unless it's blindingly obvious, would be difficult if not impossible to deduce. This, of course, is no different in principle from assesing the available evidence when determining intent in relation to a homicide, for example. One might never really "know" the killer's intent, but the evidence will probably tell the story, or some of it. If the evidence isn't convincing (beyond reasonable doubt) then a lesser conviction, or even acquittal, should follow, whether it be an accused killer or illegal pornographer.

So, where is this all leading?!

 

[JFrankA]

I didn't say "every" nor "all the time".

Sorry, that's just how I understood it. My apologies.

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.


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.

I get that idea, but now we're getting into a hazy area. So can't the same thing be said about a child posing in underwear for ads? Or if we are so concerned with what damage might occur later, shouldn't lawmakers also ban kids playing sports?

The argument is almost the same:
"The child understands that playing a sport doesn't mean you can't be the hero all the time, indeed, often you are the goat. There are possibilities of life changing injuries that could happen in the sport. There has even been loss of life. Also, even if the child gets through physical injuries okay, if she or he fails at scoring the winning point, or worse, causing the losing point, would cause a major negative social effect on the child that could negatively affect the child through adulthood. Even not scoring the winning point or causing the losing point doesn't even have to occur: taunting can occur from one's own teammates from not running a play correctly, or even how the child looks. Also, adults come into play: there's a possibility that the parent is so bent on the child winning or being the best, the parent could abuse the child physically or mentally for failing."

Seems to me that lawmakers should be banning children from playing sports, too.

 

[JFrankA]

Unfortunately JFrankA tends to default (inadvertently, I believe, which is even more unfortunate) to interpreting certain statements and claims made by others about a limited instance as applying in all cases. He did it in a previous, similar, thread (which contributed to my decision to put him on "ignore" at the time, because even when repeatedly pointed out to him he repeatedly continued to do it) and he persists in doing it here. The problem, of course, is that he then proceeds to base his arguments around the absolute instead of the limited, thereby leading to unjustifiable, flawed stances and the drawing by him of false conclusions. He then wonders why people stop responding to him in a meaningful way. No doubt his knee-jerk reaction to this post will be to defend his actions, followed swiftly by some retort that seeks to assert that my posts are similarly flawed. If only he would look on comment and criticism constructively and amend his frustrating ways. Let's see what he does. Will he simply repeat my words and suggest I'm looking in a mirror? Where's your money folks?!

Once again, my definition stands. Southwind17 is trying to discredit me instead of actually discussing the subject.

It's sad, really.

 

[Mirrorglass]

I've already asserted that it isn't pornographic. Accordingly, it cannot be made "less pornographic".

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but allow me to clarify:
Pornography does not depend on the method of production or medium of communication for its classification (except, of course, that it has to be "graphic", hence pornography). Moreover, the relevance of the intention of the producer depends on context. If you wish to identify whether a producer of images considers them pornographic you could simply ask him about his intentions when producing them. If he's honest and his intention is to sexually arouse then, so far as he's concerned, it's porn; if his intention is not to sexually arouse then, so far as he's concerned, it isn't porn. If, however, a producer is accused of producing porn illegally (child porn, for example) and he denies it, then the question of intent comes down to a judge or jury based on the evidence available (subject to different law enactment like that linked to in the OP). As I've written in a previous thread/post, this can, and probably will, extend to include much more than just the image itself, from which intent, unless it's blindingly obvious, would be difficult if not impossible to deduce. This, of course, is no different in principle from assesing the available evidence when determining intent in relation to a homicide, for example. One might never really "know" the killer's intent, but the evidence will probably tell the story, or some of it. If the evidence isn't convincing (beyond reasonable doubt) then a lesser conviction, or even acquittal, should follow, whether it be an accused killer or illegal pornographer.

So, where is this all leading?!

That's all well and good, but would you mind answering the question I presented earlier: namely, what is the purpose of art?

I claim the purpose of art is to raise a reaction in the viewer. I claim that sexual arousal is a reaction. Hence, pornography is a subtype of art, and as such, a work can be both porn and art, per se and definitively.

 

[JFrankA]

That's all well and good, but would you mind answering the question I presented earlier: namely, what is the purpose of art?

I claim the purpose of art is to raise a reaction in the viewer. I claim that sexual arousal is a reaction. Hence, pornography is a subtype of art, and as such, a work can be both porn and art, per se and definitively.

For what it's worth, I agree with you here.

 

[Southwind17]

That's all well and good, but would you mind answering the question I presented earlier: namely, what is the purpose of art?

I claim the purpose of art is to raise a reaction in the viewer.

Impossible. Many artists produce works for their own satisfaction only; satisfaction in producing it, not perusing it afterwards.

I claim that sexual arousal is a reaction.

I fully agree. I doubt there are many who don't.

Hence, pornography is a subtype of art, and as such, a work can be both porn and art, per se and definitively.

That's the defense that the law needs to protect against. You do realize, don't you, that in making this sweeping assertion you're actually seeking to validate, for example, a virtual image of a 3-year-old child being sodomized by an adult for the benefit of sick perverts who wish to view the image for the sole purpose of sexual gratification?

 

[JJM 777]

now we're getting into a hazy area. So can't the same thing be said about a child posing in underwear for ads?

Lingerie photos (with models of all ages, especially adults of course) can easily cross what I call "the threshold of usefulness as toilet reading material". Well the threshold of when a photo becomes useful (first for some people, then gradually for more people) for whatever porn is supposed to be useful for.

That is why practically all underwear ads in the world (especially adult underwear ads) are photographed from carefully chosen view angles and in carefully chosen poses, avoiding the most delicious poses such as the pelvis area seen straight from behind or straight from ahead in a relaxed position. Underwear ads are typically photographed from diagonal view angles and/or in unerotically bent body positions. One of the typical tricks is to bend the body forward at pelvis, which fades out the fetishized delicious crease between the buttocks and the thighs.

But back to...

now we're getting into a hazy area

... the whole idea is hazy that porn should be illegal but "neutral nudity" should be legal. Many think that both should be illegal ("what is illegal on the street, should be illegal also in any publicly distributed media"), many others think that both should be legal. You seem to take it for granted that porn should be illegal and whatever you call "neutral nudity" should be legal.

 

[JFrankA]

Lingerie photos (with models of all ages, especially adults of course) can easily cross what I call "the threshold of usefulness as toilet reading material". Well the threshold of when a photo becomes useful (first for some people, then gradually for more people) for whatever porn is supposed to be useful for.

That is why practically all underwear ads in the world (especially adult underwear ads) are photographed in carefully chosen view angles and in carefully chosen poses, avoiding the most delicious poses such as the pelvis area seen straight from behind or straight from ahead in a relaxed position. Underwear ads are typically photographed from diagonal view angles and/or in unerotically bent body positions.

Agreed. The point I'm trying to make is that a person who has a fetish, such as pedophilia, could still find an ad for children's underwear arousing even if that is pose and the intent of the photo is not to arouse.

So if the child eventually realizes that there might be someone enjoying it in that way, the whole..

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 underwear 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

...comes into question again.

My point is this: a child in an underwear ad, or in nude in something like the Superman movie, or even just a little girl playing with mom's make up can make a person who is a pedophile aroused. The parents have to decide if it's alright to use make up in front of Uncle Bob or pose in an underwear ad or appear nude in a movie. That's their final responsibility and obligation. Now every child is different, and, for the most part, and this is an assumption, I feel that most children couldn't deal with being nude in a movie.

But there are some who can handle it. It's the parent's final decision to make. It has to be. It's the same as a child wanting to play a sport: The child wants to play, feels like she or he can, but the child has no clue of the dangers or the possible social ramifications that can occur when playing. The child has no experience at all of the pain, both physical and mental, she or he can and quite possibly get. The parents have to be responsible enough and know and understand their child enough to allow her or him to play a sport.

The same goes for modeling - nude or non-nude. The child may understand and want to do the process but it's the parent's final responsibility and obligation to a) understand the child, b) know the child's limitations both physically and mentally and c) and knowing those limitation judging if the possible damage outweigh the child's perseverance and strength, d) offer support, guidance and the power to stop what is happening and e) try to explain the consequences of possible outcomes that could happen. (That's a little out of order, but I hope I made my point).

When it comes to nude modeling, all that still comes into play. Being a parent means that anything a child may ask to do or want from getting a puppy to riding a bike in the middle of a freeway a parent has to do what I typed above.

Now some things are more dangerous or potentially dangerous than others. Clearly, throwing a baseball is not nude modeling. However, there are some children who get damaged, mentally and physically by throwing a baseball.

The whole thing boils down to the parents. And yes, I know that not all parents have their child's best interest in mind. And parents make mistakes. But the fact is anything at all a child does does hold the possibility of harm or future harm, but the parents are the ones with the child. I like to think that the majority of people on this planet know and love their child enough to do what's best and what's right for them. I could be wrong.

But back to...

... the whole idea is hazy that porn should be illegal but "neutral nudity" should be legal. Many think that both should be illegal, many others think that both should be legal. You seem to take it for granted that porn should be illegal and whatever you call "neutral nudity" should be legal.

Perhaps I'm not clear.

Here's how I feel:
Porn should be legal.

Child porn should not be legal because there's a child abused and molested.

Children should not be involved in any sexual production.

Just because someone is nude in a production doesn't automatically make it a sexual production.

Just because someone is clothed in a production, and even though the intent of the production is to do something other than sexually arouse the viewer, there will be viewer who will be sexually aroused by the production.

People can and will see something sexual in any production at all. Some people will get aroused by a completely innocent production. It can't be helped. Intent, when it comes to any production, doesn't matter to the viewer.

Just because someone made a production with the intent of the viewer to be sexually aroused doesn't mean it's not art, per se.

Sorry for the long response. I"m trying to be as honest and as complete as I can be.

 

[quadraginta]

I've already asserted that it isn't pornographic. Accordingly, it cannot be made "less pornographic".

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but allow me to clarify:
Pornography does not depend on the method of production or medium of communication for its classification (except, of course, that it has to be "graphic", hence pornography). Moreover, the relevance of the intention of the producer depends on context. If you wish to identify whether a producer of images considers them pornographic you could simply ask him about his intentions when producing them. If he's honest and his intention is to sexually arouse then, so far as he's concerned, it's porn; if his intention is not to sexually arouse then, so far as he's concerned, it isn't porn. If, however, a producer is accused of producing porn illegally (child porn, for example) and he denies it, then the question of intent comes down to a judge or jury based on the evidence available (subject to different law enactment like that linked to in the OP). As I've written in a previous thread/post, this can, and probably will, extend to include much more than just the image itself, from which intent, unless it's blindingly obvious, would be difficult if not impossible to deduce. This, of course, is no different in principle from assesing the available evidence when determining intent in relation to a homicide, for example. One might never really "know" the killer's intent, but the evidence will probably tell the story, or some of it. If the evidence isn't convincing (beyond reasonable doubt) then a lesser conviction, or even acquittal, should follow, whether it be an accused killer or illegal pornographer.

So, where is this all leading?!

This all assumes that there is some universal consensus on what constitutes an intent to arouse. There isn't. A harmless underwear ad to one group or community may be a licentious provocation to another. The reaction of this judge or jury you so blithely speak of is completely dependent on their indivdual predilictions and cultural background, including religious faith, schooling, and immediate social group. There is nothing intrinsic about an viewer's reactions, which means that the concept of "art per se" is equally variable. In other words, not "per se" at all.

That is where it is leading.