Porn vs. Art

On closer examination of the poster it says:
Johannes Vermeer (1632-1675)
Meisje met de parel / Girl with a Pearl Earring
Inv. nr. 670
c Mauritshuis, Den Haag
Click to expand...

Ok, it was in Den Haag not Amsterdam, we went there another day.

And no I did not notice the pear/pearl before you mentioned it. :D
 
Toke said:
On closer examination of the poster it says:


Ok, it was in Den Haag not Amsterdam, we went there another day.

And no I did not notice the pear/pearl before you mentioned it. :D
Click to expand...

It's that close? Man, I really need to go to Haag sometime. Vermeer is one of my favourite classicals.
 
Mirrorglass said:
It's that close? Man, I really need to go to Haag sometime. Vermeer is one of my favourite classicals.
Click to expand...

I was on a bus trip to Normandy, we stopped a few day in Holland.

Mauritshuis is right behind the parliament, opposite end to the herring stand.
 
daSkeptic said:
He didn't say that porn isn't art, but rather that porn isn't inherently art. Put another way, porn may be art by not by definition alone. The flaw in his argument, however, is the assumption that anybody here disagrees with that point. I haven't seen that.
Click to expand...

I think the problem lies rather with his definition of art. Since nothing is art per se, obviously porn isn't art per se, but that doesn't really tell us anything.
 
Southwind17 said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is your response to me a week ago, I've been away.

I'm still curious as to whether you think that porn can be art (no per se).

The obvious inference is that you do think that porn can be art, since you insist that a qualifier is needed.
 
I see SW was suspended for 2 weeks, must have been a bad one. What did he do, go over the top on the insults?
 
I'd imagine some of the stuff he said in this thread would qualify, but I guess he may have been insulting people in other threads as well. It's probably all in AAH. Most of the ugly part of this thread is, at least.
 
Now if I am wrong, I will be happy to debate it, but it's my opinion that everything we humans create is art. For example, something like a truck engine would qualify as art to me. Would it be displayed in a museum of art? No. But the way to get so many parts to work, to have them fit in such a way and designed to fit in many different models of trucks, isn't that art? Designing one, hell even fixing one is beyond my abilities, but it's still art, maybe "functional art" or "engineering art" or even "motor art" but it's still an art.

That was one thing SW thought I was off the deep end about. Anyway, it stands to reason to me, that porn is art. Yes, per se. Just in the majority of cases, not very good art or "common art" I guess.

Yeah, I know I'm throwing out some of my own words, but I'm just trying to get my thoughts understood.
 
JFrankA said:
Now if I am wrong, I will be happy to debate it, but it's my opinion that everything we humans create is art. For example, something like a truck engine would qualify as art to me. Would it be displayed in a museum of art? No. But the way to get so many parts to work, to have them fit in such a way and designed to fit in many different models of trucks, isn't that art? Designing one, hell even fixing one is beyond my abilities, but it's still art, maybe "functional art" or "engineering art" or even "motor art" but it's still an art.

That was one thing SW thought I was off the deep end about. Anyway, it stands to reason to me, that porn is art. Yes, per se. Just in the majority of cases, not very good art or "common art" I guess.

Yeah, I know I'm throwing out some of my own words, but I'm just trying to get my thoughts understood.
Click to expand...
My highlite.
Try visit the BMW museum in Munich. :)
 
Belz... said:
I think the problem lies rather with his definition of art. Since nothing is art per se, obviously porn isn't art per se, but that doesn't really tell us anything.
Click to expand...

He wants art to be objectively defined so that some things can be excluded. There are many who dislike subjectivity because it does not automatically invalidate opposing views.
 
daSkeptic said:
He wants art to be objectively defined so that some things can be excluded. There are many who dislike subjectivity because it does not automatically invalidate opposing views.
Click to expand...

I agree: that's his mistake. Well, one of them.

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

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

You know, throughout the thread I've noticed an amusing similarity between Southwind's claims and those of many historical art philosophers. The ancient greek view was that "art" was simply the skillful creation of objects and pictures. They certainly would not have considered photographs of any sort art. The Academy of France tried to enforce standards for "true" art in Da Vinci's time - mainly the idea that art should be about depicting reality exactly as it is. The idea failed miserably, of course, but the definition was like Southwind's in that it only accepted the kind of art the definers liked. There have been many attempts to define art exclusively, but I've yet to hear of any succeeding.
 
We seem to have two views here:

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

SIDE B: "Day always turns into night at precisely 6:43 P.M. What, you don't think so? What are you, some kind of total relativist or something, you COMMIE?!"
 
Skeptic said:
We seem to have two views here:

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

SIDE B: "Day always turns into night at precisely 6:43 P.M. What, you don't think so? What are you, some kind of total relativist or something, you COMMIE?!"
Click to expand...
I don't see either of those two positions as being representative of the main points being expressed in this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom