Porn vs. Art

[Southwind17]

So basically you disagree that some forms of artistic expression are art at all. I believe you've made a mistake then, when chosing the title for your thread. The correct title for this discussion is "Southwind vs Art"

I think the biggest mistake made here is your begging the question!

 

[Southwind17]

You're entitled to your opinion, but an opinion is all it is. Not everybody necessarily views things as having a singular purpose.

That's fine, and I agree, so far as it goes. Just because somebody, or even a group of people, indeed eminent people, form a view (is that different from an opinion?), however, doesn't necessarily mean it's a valid view. I still believe Pluto's a planet, for example.

 

[Southwind17]

Did you listen to the youtube video of 4'33'' posted? In the beginning, the performer says: "The elements that make up music are sound and silence". (May not be word for word).

I'm inclined to agree with that, provided it's acknowledged that the purpose of silence is to separate sound, and no other. Hence silence alone is not an element of music, and therefore not music.

There's no reason why you can't make an art piece by arranging just one element repeatedly.

If by "art piece" you're still referring to music then you need to realize that music relies on much more for its legitimacy than simply "arranging elements". I sincerely hope you're not suggesting that a long spell of silence can be construed as arranging short spells of silence "repeatedly". That really would be clutching at the proverbial for justification.

The important thing is the attempt to evoke emotion.

Funny - the important thing was to "affect the senses or emotions" a couple of posts back, which, in any event, clearly doesn't work. Would you like some time to make up your mind?!

No, it's not improper. Any elements can be used to produce art. All it takes is for them to be arranged with the intention of evoking emotion.

I think you miss the point. It's improper to claim that the examples I cited qualify as art. That they fit within your definition shows your definition to be wrong.

All my points so far have been that the word "art" means something completely different from what you claim.

But your definition of art doesn't work, as I've shown. So who's "right" and who's "wrong"?!

The definitions of words are decided by common opinion, and so far, you've been unable to provide even a single person who agrees with your view. As such, you are either speaking a different language, or just wrong.

Common usage, to be accurate. Regardless, I don't think the limited number of contrary, possibly biased, views here on the forum really stands as proof of anything. Consequently, there are other possible explanations.

You haven't referred to the arts at all. You've been referring to something you call "art", but that is something else. I don't know of a word for what you claim is art.

I've been talking about art. You have been talking about something I don't know a name for. If you are referring to things that agree with your definition of "art" a few posts ago, I think you'll have to make up a new word. I suggest "swart".

With respect, given your stance, I don't believe you know a synonym for "art" in any context, let alone as claimed by me. Seriously.

I don't think anything has the primary quality of being visually anything. I don't understand how anything could. Could you explain what such an object would be like?

Anything that is successfully created with visual aesthetics in mind obviously has the quality of being visually "something" (often amongst other qualities, of course). Art of the "visual" type (I'm not convinced there are other types), whose primary purpose is to be viewed, must surely have the primary quality of being visually "something", acknowledging that such visualization typically manifests as a "secondary" emotional evocation.

So let me get this straight. You have a point, which I don't understand. You refuse to clarify it, though, for reasons you won't discuss.

I think you understood my point, or at least should have, given due consideration.

The main point:

The definition of "art" wikipedia provides is the commonly accepted one. You cannot overturn this fact without providing an equally authoritative source that disagrees.

Though if you can provide even one person who agrees with your view, I promise to discuss it further.

If you cannot do either, your options are: ...

Mmm ... false dilemma, me thinks!

 

[Marcus]

As strange as "Inglorious Basterds", for example, not being of the comedy genre but having comical elements to it?!

As strange as saying that a movie could have comedic merit, but couldn't possibly be comedy. Your position is not that a particular porn film is not art but that they can't be art.

 

[Southwind17]

As strange as saying that a movie could have comedic merit, but couldn't possibly be comedy. Your position is not that a particular porn film is not art but that they can't be art.

"Inglorious Basterds" and other movies of the same genre can't really qualify as comedies, even though they contain comical elements, can they?!

 

[Marcus]

"Inglorious Basterds" and other movies of the same genre can't really qualify as comedies, even though they contain comical elements, can they?!

The question is, can a movie qualify as art? They all have a genre. By your reasoning, no movie at all could qualify as art, no matter if it's porn or some other genre. Which makes the question "can porn be art" meaningless, you might as well ask "can a movie be art?".

 

[Southwind17]

The question is, can a movie qualify as art? They all have a genre. By your reasoning, no movie at all could qualify as art, no matter if it's porn or some other genre. Which makes the question "can porn be art" meaningless, you might as well ask "can a movie be art?".

No. The question is: Can "Inglorious Basterds" qualify as comedy, just because it contains comical elements? If it cannot, then we have a useful analogy that supports the claim that porn cannot qualify as art simply because it contains artistic elements. That, my friend, is the question.

I think you're overlooking what the primary purpose of [cinematic] porn, by definition is, that distinguishes it from the primary, if not only, purpose of movies generally.

 

[Mirrorglass]

That's fine, and I agree, so far as it goes. Just because somebody, or even a group of people, indeed eminent people, form a view (is that different from an opinion?), however, doesn't necessarily mean it's a valid view. I still believe Pluto's a planet, for example.

This is what it boils down to. You think you can just decide what a word means, even when common opinion (or usage, if you want; in this case it turns out to be the same thing) disagrees. I no longer entertain any hopes of changing your mind, so I'll just rest my case. You speak a different language from the rest of us, one shared by no other human being. I hereby christen this language "Swenglish".

It's been a pleasure debating with you, even if we ended up disagreeing. My thanks, and adieu.


Oh, and my promise still stands. If anyone can provide even a single person agreeing with SW's view, I'll return to the debate.

 

[Southwind17]

You think you can just decide what a word means, even when common opinion (or usage, if you want; in this case it turns out to be the same thing) disagrees.

As I wrote previously in this thread, the meaning of "art" that I subscribe to is essentially, at least, that included in my Chambers dictionay. Admittedly, it's 12 years old, but has "art" really taken a quantum leap over the last decade compared to the last few millenia that renders my dictionary obsolete?!

 

[Mirrorglass]

As I wrote previously in this thread, the meaning of "art" that I subscribe to is essentially, at least, that included in my Chambers dictionay. Admittedly, it's 12 years old, but has "art" really taken a quantum leap over the last decade compared to the last few millenia that renders my dictionary obsolete?!

I don't have a copy of a 12 year old Chambers dictionary, but I'll assume their online dictionary is close enough?

1 a the creation of works of beauty, especially visual ones; b such creations thought of collectively. 2 human skill and work as opposed to nature. 3 a skill, especially one gained through practice • the lost art of conversation. 4 colloq cunning schemes. art for art's sake the concept that any form of creativity should be valued for its own merits alone, rather than measured against some fixed set of criteria that is laid down by the art establishment. See also the arts, fine art.

This is, indeed, a rather narrow definition. It seems you disregard numbers 2 and 4, which is a problem. It is also clear that this definition does not exclude pornography, as long as said is beautiful. It should also be noted that as "beauty" is a very subjective concept, your opinion is not enough to determine which works are art and which aren't.

Now yours:

A work created by a person skilled in making those kinds of works, generally accepted as art by virtue of its primary inherent ability to evoke visual gratification in the viewer.

The part about the maker being skilled is you misreading the dictionary. An artist does not need to be skilled, but a skill can also be called an art; yet another definition of art that is not relevant to our discussion. You clearly don't really believe the generally accepted part, since you continue to state many works generally accepted as art aren't. And you have made claims that some works that evoke visual gratification in people aren't art, since they evoke none in you. Also, according to your definition, music isn't art.

So basically, your dictionary isn't obsolete, but in this case, the definition is too narrow. Also, you're really bad at reading a dictionary.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I think the biggest mistake made here is your begging the question!

I beg your pardon?

 

[Mirrorglass]

I beg your pardon?

I believe he's saying he doesn't think the things you referred to are "artistic expression" either.

 

[Southwind17]

I beg your pardon?

That too!

I believe he's saying he doesn't think the things you referred to are "artistic expression" either.

Not quite ...

So basically you disagree that some forms of artistic expression are art at all. [emphasis added]

See the question being begged now?

 

[Marcus]

No. The question is: Can "Inglorious Basterds" qualify as comedy, just because it contains comical elements?

No

If it cannot, then we have a useful analogy that supports the claim that porn cannot qualify as art simply because it contains artistic elements.

No, it doesn't, it's a false analogy.

That, my friend, is the question.

That was your question. A more relevant question would be if any genre can be art. You are artifically singling out porn. How could an action/adventure film be art? Or the most artsy Oscar winner you can think of? It couldn't, according to your logic.

I think you're overlooking what the primary purpose of [cinematic] porn, by definition is, that distinguishes it from the primary, if not only, purpose of movies generally.

The primary purpose of porn is entertainment. The primary purpose if movies is entertainment. If you want to argue that entertainment involving sexual stimulation is somehow less noble and less deserving of being considered art than entertainment involving happiness, sadness,excitment, angst, fear, violence, and, oops, sex, than I disagree.

 

[Marcus]

As an aside, this question of what constitutes art has personal relevance for me. I'm an artist by profession, but not a painter. The question of whether my work is art, or craft only, is a debatable point.

 

[not daSkeptic]

You're saying the "Industrial Music" genre = the sound of jack hammers. It's that simple?

She's saying that Industrial includes the sound of jack hammers, which is what you asked for.

 

[Toke]

As an aside, this question of what constitutes art has personal relevance for me. I'm an artist by profession, but not a painter. The question of whether my work is art, or craft only, is a debatable point.

Very debatable, when does good craftsmanship turn into art?

For a 60 years birthday some guests from the trade school had made an "Artwork" consisting of a vertical square frame with a rock in the centre, it was mounted by 4 rods, 2 horizontal 2 vertical, welded to the frame and drilled into the rock.

It was meant as a joke of the hosts fondness for artwork, but happen to look just like the real thing, and quite good.

(One joke goes, bad weldings, it must be art.)

 

[Mirrorglass]

As an aside, this question of what constitutes art has personal relevance for me. I'm an artist by profession, but not a painter. The question of whether my work is art, or craft only, is a debatable point.

In my opinion, the relevant question is what your intention of creating your works is. Do you attempt to evoke emotions, or to put it more simply, do you attempt to create objects of beauty?

 

[Marcus]

In my opinion, the relevant question is what your intention of creating your works is. Do you attempt to evoke emotions, or to put it more simply, do you attempt to create objects of beauty?

I would have to say the latter, I attempt to create objects of beauty.

The only emotion I can honestly say that I'm trying to evoke would be desire. The desire to purchase.

 

[Marcus]

Very debatable, when does good craftsmanship turn into art?

For a 60 years birthday some guests from the trade school had made an "Artwork" consisting of a vertical square frame with a rock in the centre, it was mounted by 4 rods, 2 horizontal 2 vertical, welded to the frame and drilled into the rock.

It was meant as a joke of the hosts fondness for artwork, but happen to look just like the real thing, and quite good.

(One joke goes, bad weldings, it must be art.)

lol. Art is subjective, of course. I'm comfortable having anyone here make the decision based on my avatars.