• 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

daSkeptic said:
No kidding. Pot, I'd like to introduce you to kettle.
Click to expand...

Honestly, if I've introduced a strawman, please point them out. I don't mind admitting I'm wrong or if I am introducing a fallacy.

And please forgive my outbursts. I'll admit that I'm letting SW's style of veiled insults, cheery picking and dodging questions get to me.
 
JFrankA said:
Honestly, if I've introduced a strawman, please point them out. I don't mind admitting I'm wrong or if I am introducing a fallacy.

And please forgive my outbursts. I'll admit that I'm letting SW's style of veiled insults, cheery picking and dodging questions get to me.
Click to expand...

I am quite amazed you can keep this up and stay so civil/serious. :clap:

As seen above the idea that porn and art does not overlap makes it difficult for me to take a poster serious.
 
quixotecoyote said:
Granted, I'm just a spectator and occasional heckler on this one, but it seems like lots of posts are reasonable when you're responding to lots of posts.
Click to expand...

Who Posted? Total Posts: 589
User Name |Posts Southwind17 |177 JFrankA |87 TraneWreck |64 Belz... |50 quadraginta |34 ponderingturtle |23 Brian-M |16 GreyICE |16 BenBurch |13 Ron_Tomkins |12 SkeptiChick |12
 
Last edited:
ZirconBlue said:
Who Posted? Total Posts: 589
User Name |Posts Southwind17 |177 JFrankA |87 TraneWreck |64 Belz... |50 quadraginta |34 ponderingturtle |23 Brian-M |16 GreyICE |16 BenBurch |13 Ron_Tomkins |12 SkeptiChick |12
Click to expand...

Who Posted? |Total Posts: 589
Porn can never be art because squares aren't rectangles|177 Say what?|412
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
Naw. It's obvious that its intent was to arouse. For certain values of "arouse", at least.
Click to expand...
"Sexually", being the key "value", of course. I assume you're alluding to sexual arousal, no?!

quadraginta said:
Also, it is apparent that its creator is not skilled. If I'm following the syllabus right that means that it may be artistic, but it isn't art.
Click to expand...
Sadly, you're clearly not quite following "the syllabus". If there's no skill applied how can it possibly be "art", or even "artistic"? You think art just "happens", do you, by a combination of chance and fortune?
 
Southwind17 said:
"Sexually", being the key "value", of course. I assume you're alluding to sexual arousal, no?!
Click to expand...


Um ... no. Definitely no.

Sadly, you're clearly not quite following "the syllabus". If there's no skill applied how can it possibly be "art", or even "artistic"? You think art just "happens", do you, by a combination of chance and fortune?
Click to expand...


Maybe. Definitely maybe.
 
BenBurch said:
Art?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic_art_in_Pompeii_and_Herculaneum

(Only an idiot would say "no" in my opinion.)
Click to expand...
"No" to the question as to whether it can be classified as "art", presumably. In which case I'm inclined to agree, on the basis that "erotic art", per the link in your link, is defined primarily as "artistic work" of an erotic nature, not the other way around. In other words "erotic art" is a category of art, tantamount to "pornographic art", if you like. That is to say, "pornography" is not art per se; only "pornographic art", within the realms of porn, is art per se! I think this helps answer the fundamental OP question - thanks. :)

Again, the game of golf has an interesting side effect, that of exercise (one can, of course, elect to use a buggy, thereby avoiding the exercise almost completely, although conversely how a golfer would exercise and avoid the golf is beyond me, other than, say, exercising via a step class or spinning, for example, in which they wouldn't be a golfer, would they (well, not until they pick up a club again)!).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom