• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Porn vs. Art

Soapy Sam said:
May I suggest that a picture of a pretty woman is neither porn nor art. It's a picture.
It's the attitude of the viewer that makes it one or the other.

But being aroused by a picture of a pretty girl is a pretty predictable, normal male human reaction. (Even a reasonably common female one).

Being aroused by a picture of a ten year old is not.

Which is why I say morals must be rooted in biological reality. If we pretend otherwise, then being aroused by a photograph of anything is either "right" or "wrong" and photography itself becomes part of the problem.

The problem is that people can't make up their minds.
Click to expand...

But it sexual arousal the purpose of all nude photography?
 
Soapy Sam said:
May I suggest that a picture of a pretty woman is neither porn nor art. It's a picture.
It's the attitude of the viewer that makes it one or the other.
Click to expand...
You may suggest, but any objective consideration and comparison of such view will surely lead to disagreement. Otherwise anything and everything could be "art", and anything and everything could be "porn". Indeed, anything and everything could be anything and everything. Where's the sense in that?

Soapy Sam said:
But being aroused by a picture of a pretty girl is a pretty predictable, normal male human reaction. (Even a reasonably common female one).
Being aroused by a picture of a ten year old is not.
Which is why I say morals must be rooted in biological reality. If we pretend otherwise, then being aroused by a photograph of anything is either "right" or "wrong" and photography itself becomes part of the problem.
The problem is that people can't make up their minds.
Click to expand...
Interesting point, but if the "biological reality" argument holds surely we could all take moral comfort in responding to every emotion, impulse or stimulus by committing any act (crime) in pursuit of raw survival instincts.
 
ponderingturtle said:
On the concept of Art, well I remember a story about an artist who sent a sculpture into a museum for display. They decided to display just the peg that was there to balance it and support it on instead of the actual sculpture.
Click to expand...
People do silly things. Go figure.
 
Southwind17 said:
You may suggest, but any objective consideration and comparison of such view will surely lead to disagreement. Otherwise anything and everything could be "art", and anything and everything could be "porn". Indeed, anything and everything could be anything and everything. Where's the sense in that?
Click to expand...

Now you are getting it. There is no sense to it. Art is an individual emotional response.

Interesting point, but if the "biological reality" argument holds surely we could all take moral comfort in responding to every emotion, impulse or stimulus by committing any act (crime) in pursuit of raw survival instincts.
Click to expand...

Now you are just slippery sloping.....
 
JFrankA said:
No. Not by a long shot.

Here let me fix it for you:
Click to expand...

That was kind of my point. A work of art might arouse some people, disgust others and make others think it makes interesting cultural statements and observations.

That is the point, you can't really be sure what the intention of the artist was, and can debate if their intent is even relevant.
 
ponderingturtle said:
That was kind of my point. A work of art might arouse some people, disgust others and make others think it makes interesting cultural statements and observations.

That is the point, you can't really be sure what the intention of the artist was, and can debate if their intent is even relevant.
Click to expand...

Sorry, PT. I misunderstood.

See? I just proved your point! :)
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
That does not clarify your position, unfortunately.

I suggested earlier that you post your definition of art, and your definition of pornography. Since we do not yet know how you define "art" or "artform", it is no clarification at all to talk about "art per se" or something being an "artform per se".
Click to expand...
It seems you are alluding to art (and possibly porn) being so loosely conceived that a workable definition (in the context of differentiating between art and porn) is impossible. As I wrote, I don't think you are capable of persuasion, are you? Clearly, no such workable definition is going to fit with yours, by definition!
 
JFrankA said:
First off, porn is shot exactly the same way as I had described in the first list. The second list is abuse, whether it involves an adult or a child.
Second, I was trying to draw the line between legitimately photographing a nude child and abusing a child.
Click to expand...
So what, exactly, then, does this have to do with the thread topic (art vs. porn)? It seems that you'd prefer to discuss the nature and morality of porn.
 
Southwind17 said:
Interesting point, but if the "biological reality" argument holds surely we could all take moral comfort in responding to every emotion, impulse or stimulus by committing any act (crime) in pursuit of raw survival instincts.
Click to expand...

Not really. But like in all things ideal fantasy has to give way to objective reality.
 
Southwind17 said:
So what, exactly, then, does this have to do with the thread topic (art vs. porn)? It seems that you'd prefer to discuss the nature and morality of porn.
Click to expand...

Wait. Don't you think all art (nude, non-nude, child, adult, etc) is produced the same way as the first list I gave?

with approval from the child
with the parents there
with the explanation of the shoot to both the child and the parents
with the child and the parents keeping the right to not have the shot done
with a release form explaining what the shoot contains
with concern to the child's physical and psychological well being
with the intent that the photographs clearly placed on display for the public to see.
Click to expand...

...I should add to that list: the person who is the subject of the production is either getting paid or voluntarily not getting paid.
 
ponderingturtle said:
But it sexual arousal the purpose of all nude photography?
Click to expand...
Presumably not. It's a common result though.

Southwind17 said:
You may suggest, but any objective consideration and comparison of such view will surely lead to disagreement. Otherwise anything and everything could be "art", and anything and everything could be "porn". Indeed, anything and everything could be anything and everything. Where's the sense in that?
Click to expand...
I said it's a picture and how you view it is up to you.
Which part(s) do you disagree with?

Interesting point, but if the "biological reality" argument holds surely we could all take moral comfort in responding to every emotion, impulse or stimulus by committing any act (crime) in pursuit of raw survival instincts.
Click to expand...
No. You could take moral satisfaction from controlling them.

"Based on" is not equivalent to "is equivalent to". Were it not for the fact that perfectly normal biological drives have consequences for others, we would not require laws. We wouldn't be human , either.
 
JFrankA said:
From the last time we had this discussion, it seems to me that SW's definition of art is anything that made it into a museum.
Click to expand...
Not quite. I questioned why "main-stream" porn wasn't found in museums if it's art. More-than-subtle difference.
 
Southwind17 said:
Not quite. I questioned why "main-stream" porn wasn't found in museums if it's art. More-than-subtle difference.
Click to expand...

Okay. I misquoted you. That's fair. :)

But do we have to go through that again?
 
Last edited:
Southwind17 said:
It seems you are alluding to art (and possibly porn) being so loosely conceived that a workable definition (in the context of differentiating between art and porn) is impossible.
Click to expand...

Many people think that this is indeed impossible.

You should post your own definitions of art and pornography. Possibly by doing so you will prove those people wrong.

As I wrote, I don't think you are capable of persuasion, are you? Clearly, no such workable definition is going to fit with yours, by definition!
Click to expand...

This is neither here nor there. If the sole thing holding you back from posting your definitions of art and pornography is that you are concerned that I, personally, will not be persuaded then I suggest that you should post your definitions anyway for the sake of everyone else in the thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom