Porn vs. Art

[Southwind17]

I would say all porn is art. The problem is that art is such a vague and subjective term.

Well if that isn't one of the most blatant contradictions I've ever read ...

 

[JFrankA]

Another question is:

How many people does it take before you cross over that art/porn line? Does it matter who these people are?

The actual question is: was the child who performed the scene actually abused and/or molested during the filming of the scene?

 

[Southwind17]

If those are your definitions then almost all of what is usually referred to as pornography is art. Creating porn, be it in the form of text or video or photographs, is an application of skill and creative imagination. It might be really bad art in many or most cases, but that is a different argument.

Perhaps more importantly, anything which would be put forward by artists to be rated under this new legislation is virtually certain to be art by your definition, whether or not it is also pornography.

This makes your initial post's accusation that people who thought that porn was art are misguided and self-indulgent quite curious, in the light of the definitions you have posted. It seems to me that if you accept your own definitions of art and pornography then it follows that you must consider yourself misguided and self-indulgent.

Alternatively, you've read the definitions (which, as I clearly pointed out, are not mine, and I don't necessarily wholly subscribe to them) from a biased, unobjective perspective, looking for a pre-determined interpretation. Have you considered that possibility?!

 

[Southwind17]

Here therein lies the problem, only fifty-one posts into the thread: A picture of a nude child does not mean child pornography.
Let's go back to the Superman movie. Clearly, SW, you don't think it's meant to be sexual, but if one person finds it sexual, is aroused by the scene, does it become child pornography now?
If there is a chance that someone might see that scene and get aroused by it, does it become child pornography?

As pointed out to you in a previous thread, you clearly had, and, sadly, continue to have, absolutely no understanding, let alone concept, of the notion and nature of pornography, even though you claim to be a pornographer. The fact that the questions that you ask could be equally validly asked of any physical object only serves to demonstrate so.

 

[AWPrime]

Tranewreck,

If we follow your logic to its end, then we end up forcing children (boys and girls) to wear Burkas.

 

[Southwind17]

So are you saying that the producers, cast and crew of the Superman movie should be held accountable????

Only the accountants, surely!

 

[Southwind17]

I know porn when I see it.
And some art.
And some stuff that isn't intended to be porn, but is. [emphasis added]

Porn, by definition (any sensible definition) has intent (to sexually arouse). By definition, again, therefore, "unintentional porn" is somewhat of an oxymoron, and hence doesn't exist.

 

[JFrankA]

As pointed out to you in a previous thread, you clearly had, and, sadly, continue to have,absolutely no understanding, let alone concept, of the notion and nature of pornography, even though you claim to be a pornographer. The fact that the questions that you ask could be equally validly asked of any physical object only serves to demonstrate so.

And you, sir, sadly, continue to have,absolutely no understanding, let alone concept, of the notion and nature of art

 

[Southwind17]

Smut is in the mind of the beholder.
For a foot-fetishist, a shoe catalog is porn. Let's ban them!

Smut might be in the eye of the beholder but porn isn't. Go research.

 

[JFrankA]

Smut might be in the eye of the beholder but porn isn't. Go research.

Have you read you own thread?

The majority of this thread is the discussion whether artful nudity of children should be or should not be done.

Notice, not porn, just simple nudity. We can't get beyond that yet.

 

[Southwind17]

Unlike some people, I don't waste time nor energy debating what is art, as I may be one of the few humans who understands that the concept of "what art is" is an entirely subjective matter.

Is this porn or art?

Don't waste your time trying to answer. There is no right or wrong answer.

But I will, because there is, although it might well elude us all, circa half a millenium later. Was Corregio's intention to sexually arouse? There you go - asked, answered, and asked!

 

[JFrankA]

But I will, because there is, although it might well elude us all, circa half a millenium later. Was Corregio's intention to sexually arouse? There you go - asked, answered, and asked!

Let me ask you something:

How do you know what someone's intent is?

I made a porno, not to arouse, but to tell a story. That's my intent simply to tell a story. Now it may be hardcore, lots of sex, lots of close ups, but I say that it's not porno - it's not meant to arouse, it tells a story.

So now, is the production I shot a porno?

 

[quadraginta]

Porn, by definition (any sensible definition) has intent (to sexually arouse). By definition, again, therefore, "unintentional porn" is somewhat of an oxymoron, and hence doesn't exist.

This means that the law you cited in your OP is only useful if the courts are able, somehow, to divine the intent of the artist. Not, as the article stated,

The laws adopt commonwealth provisions where the court looks at the artistic merit of the material when deciding whether it is child pornography, rather than relying on the defence of artistic purpose.

How will the telepathy credentials of those judging the intent of an artist be established? If a work of art is intended to arouse, but does so in a subtle and innocuous fashion under cover of some other purpose, say, childrens' clothing ads, how will this be apprehended? Will there be vigilante telepaths on the prowl for duplicitous intent?

 

[Southwind17]

Lets first disassemble this claim.
You say "clearly". Nothing in your article supports the claim that anything about the difference between pornography and art is clear. In fact, your article directly contradicts that claim.
From the article: So, the whole reason the legislation referenced is being enacted is because there is not a clear difference between porn (specifically child pornography) and art.

You miss the point, which is surprising, given that you go on to actually analyse the term "per se":

You say "porn is not art per se". Per se: "by or in itself; intrinsically", "by it's very nature", "in essence", "by definition". Can you name any art that is art intrinsically? Any art that is art in and of itself? Any art that is art by it's very nature? As in, without requiring the subjective view of an audience to interpret it, to experience, and then decide if it is art or not? Can you name one piece of art that no one would be able to dispute the artistic value of?

Yes, yes, yes, yes and no, and the only reason for the "no" is simply because there are many people on Earth who are so dim-witted they wouldn't acknowledge art if it slapped them in the face, and then there are those like you, who elect to define art in such a way that it becomes meaningless, or who see something bizarrely esoteric about somebody sitting in a field with a canvas and some oils. What sensible, intelligent person (excluding those like you) would not categorize Constable's "The Haywain", for example, as simply "art". Is it the intrinsic nature of the canvas, oils or frame, or the "mysteriousness(?)" of Constable's psyche (or some combination of them) that's putting you off the trail do you think?!

Your two definitions are not mutually exclusive. Please explain why one cannot overlap into the other, and cite references to back up your assertions.

And still you miss the point.

 

[JFrankA]

You miss the point, which is surprising, given that you go on to actually analyse the term "per se":

Yes, yes, yes, yes and no, and the only reason for the "no" is simply because there are many people on Earth who are so dim-witted they wouldn't acknowledge art if it slapped them in the face, and then there are those like you, who elect to define art in such a way that it becomes meaningless, or who see something bizarrely esoteric about somebody sitting in a field with a canvas and some oils. What sensible, intelligent person (excluding those like you) would not categorize Constable's "The Haywain", for example, as simply "art". Is it the intrinsic nature of the canvas, oils or frame, or the "mysteriousness(?)" of Constable's psyche (or some combination of them) that's putting you off the trail do you think?!


And still you miss the point.

And you are completely missing the point.

One cannot determine the intent of a person who makes a production. I can tell you I did make a video, that is erotic, but to "sexually arouse" someone wasn't my intent. I have to have it on a porn site because it does contain nudity.

...now since my intent wasn't to "sexually arouse", I say it's not porn. Therefore, by your definition, what I produced is art.

Thank you for the loophole.

 

[Southwind17]

"Quick" may be the operative term here. You may have searched quickly, but you didn't search very well, and you didn't even pay much attention to the hits you did get.
Using the article you cited you said,

"The ridiculous, over-zealous local authorities tried to take the kids away."
​

I agree with the adjectives, but the rest of your sentence is misleading. Your link says,
Lets dig a bit deeper, though, and see what really happened to Lisa and A.J. Demaree. ABC News has this to share,
I'm not sure about your perspective but to me this seems more than trivial. Certainly more than,

"That seems like an example of the legal system dealing with this issue very well. Someone F'd up, they get sued."
​

Perhaps they were hiding the porno in a crowd?
They are pursuing their lawsuits against the city of Peoria and Walmart. The authorities claim nothing was done wrong.
Lisa Demaree has a comment which I think lends itself to this discussion.
If you had pursued your investigations about breast feeding with a little more diligence you might have found this case, which turned up at the top of a search with the keywords "breast feeding pictures pornography".
Just to be sure we're clear, the couple was arrested, jailed, and their child taken away. They had to drum money for bonds in the high five figures, and lawyer fees before the charges were dropped. I'm not sure how long it took to get the kid back. I'm still looking.
There are plenty more examples like this. Even Fox News, not normally a bastion of liberal permissiveness, had this to say,
I don't believe that this issue is quite as simple and straightforward as you suggest, nor as harmless to the innocent.

And after ALL that beratement and hot air we're still, clearly (thank you) talking extremely isolated incidents, which I think essentially was TraneWreck's point. Wood and trees

 

[ponderingturtle]

But I am going by what you said. The child who played Kal-El in Superman wasn't harmed at all, yet you advocate that he should be wearing underwear. Why?

The answer is simple, he is unable to view nudity in a non sexual manner and wants his personal issues written into law.

 

[HansMustermann]

But I will, because there is, although it might well elude us all, circa half a millenium later. Was Corregio's intention to sexually arouse? There you go - asked, answered, and asked!

But how do you know if all those greeks painting or sculpting naked sweaty guys wrestling actually did it purely for aesthetic reasons, or maybe because they (or their patrons) were gay and sexually aroused by that? How do you know if every single Venus/Aphrodite painting showing some breast was done purely as a religious icon of a goddess of sex, or was actually just porn before the invention of photography? How do you know if all those nudes since Renaissance were done really for art's sake, or maybe the artist just liked to look at naked women and get paid for it? How do you know they didn't intend to sell them to someone they knew is only interested in getting aroused by that picture? How do you know if at least some of those naked cherubs and cupids really weren't early child porn?

And the more interesting problem is that basically the same object can flip between art and non-art freely just based on what you guess the artist's intent might have been. Or even two identical items can then fall in different and supposedly mutually-exclusive categories, based on different guesses about what their author might have thought. That's not a very useful categorization, then.

Everything else tends to be less ambiguously categorized. A shoe is still a shoe, even if its designer has a foot fetish and only does it so he can get aroused. Handcuffs are still handcuffs regardless of whether the designer was just thinking of police work, or then went and beat off to the mental image of naked women handcuffed with those. A frilly slip is still a slip regardless of whether the designer was getting aroused at it and essentially designing his own sexual fantasy, or (like many fashion designers) was a gay guy who was actually getting turned _off_ by the female body.

They tend to be categorized by function, material, style, etc. You know, relatively objective stuff. Stuff where you can simply look at the item and say, "yep, it's a shoe" without needing any uninformed guesses about what someone else may have thought.

By comparison a categorization which is _all_ about such an uninformed guess about what someone else thinks, doesn't seem like a particularly useful one.

 

[Southwind17]

This means that the law you cited in your OP is only useful if the courts are able, somehow, to divine the intent of the artist. Not, as the article stated ...
How will the telepathy credentials of those judging the intent of an artist be established? If a work of art is intended to arouse, but does so in a subtle and innocuous fashion under cover of some other purpose, say, childrens' clothing ads, how will this be apprehended? Will there be vigilante telepaths on the prowl for duplicitous intent?

Evidence my friend ... evidence, just like when judges and jury apply their "telepathy credentials" in determining other, non-pornography cases where intent is key. Perhaps you'd care to post an example of a child's clothing ad that you have determined is intended to sexually arouse in a "subtle and innocuous(!!!) fashion under cover of some other purpose", and explain your rationale for such determination. You'll excuse me if I choose not to hold my breath, I hope.

 

[Southwind17]

Gee... Cherubim in Roman Catholic churches world-wide are porn now?

Er ... no.