Porn vs. Art

[Belz...]

Not quite. The art doesn't necessarily have to represent something

And yet it must NOT be made with the intent to arouse.

 

[Belz...]

He certainly isn't a particularly polite person, but one thing I've noticed is that insulting someone back hardly ever works.

That's my experience, too. However I figure I stood nothing to lose, at this point.

 

[Belz...]

Intent to sexually arouse, I think you mean (otherwise you've completely missed at least one critical point), which is, after all, a defining fundamental of "porn", isn't it!

Well, there's my answer, I guess.

So, there you have it! You have defined porn and art in such a way that one cannot be the other. No wonder you conclude that they can't.

 

[Belz...]

I assure you there's no gamesmanship on my part.

Do you mean that you're not wearing a gamer's hat, or that you have no gamesmanship skills ?

 

[Mirrorglass]

Impossible. Many artists produce works for their own satisfaction only; satisfaction in producing it, not perusing it afterwards.

Then what makes those works art? I'll ask once more, what is the purpose of art, the purpose that defines something as art? Also, in my opinion it doesn't matter whether or not a work of art is ever viewed. Even if I paint a beautiful painting and burn it, or hum a tune but never write it down, it was still a work of art. The act of observing something does not change it. Well, not on macroscopic levels, anyway.

That's the defense that the law needs to protect against. You do realize, don't you, that in making this sweeping assertion you're actually seeking to validate, for example, a virtual image of a 3-year-old child being sodomized by an adult for the benefit of sick perverts who wish to view the image for the sole purpose of sexual gratification?

Nonsense. I said in my very first post in this thread that the question of whether or not something is art is irrelevant to whether it should be legal. Art can be good, and art can be evil. Art can portray flowers and smiling faces, or dying children, or naked children being abused. None of that makes it any less art.

And being art doesn't justify doing something evil. This virtual image of a 3-year old child being sodomized (thanks a lot for the mental image, by the way) is horrible, wrong and should definitely be illegal to display. But it is art.

This whole argument is based on you claiming that the word "art" means something beautiful and just, always correct. It doesn't. Art can be great, but it is inherently neither good nor evil. It just is.

 

[Southwind17]

I like to think that the majority of people on this planet know and love their child enough to do what's best and what's right for them. I could be wrong.

And you are. How can a child's posing nude given the potential risks it carries possibly be "what's best and what's right for them"? How can a child's posing nude given the potential risks it carries possibly be better than not posing nude? No doubt you'll now cite a list of reasons why jeans might be bad for kids!

Children should not be involved in any sexual production.
Just because someone is nude in a production doesn't automatically make it a sexual production.

Absolute nonsense. What purpose, exactly, do you believe nudity in art and porn serves if not one of sexuality?

Just because someone is clothed in a production, and even though the intent of the production is to do something other than sexually arouse the viewer, there will be viewer who will be sexually aroused by the production.

Strawman extraordinaire. If somebody dies in a car accident whilst wearing a seatbelt does that mean we should abolish the (obviously futile! ) compulsory wearing of seatbelts? Jeez - the absolutist stance, yet again.

People can and will see something sexual in any production at all. Some people will get aroused by a completely innocent production. It can't be helped. Intent, when it comes to any production, doesn't matter to the viewer.

Same old strawman.

Just because someone made a production with the intent of the viewer to be sexually aroused doesn't mean it's not art, per se.

By definition it's porn. How can it then be art?! Artistic? Maybe. Art per se? Nope.

Sorry for the long response. I"m trying to be as honest and as complete as I can be.

And it's impossible to be honest and complete concisely? Obviously for you.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Absolute nonsense. What purpose, exactly, do you believe nudity in art and porn serves if not one of sexuality?

<snip>

Are you saying that nudity in art can only be sexual? I thought you just got through claiming that the only thing that mattered was the intent of the artist.

 

[Southwind17]

This all assumes that there is some universal consensus on what constitutes an intent to arouse. There isn't.

Just like there's a universal consensus on what constitutes an intent to kill?! There isn't. Doesn't seem to unduly hinder the judicial process in homicide trials though, does it!

A harmless underwear ad to one group or community may be a licentious provocation to another.

I'm sorry, "harmless", you say?!

The reaction of this judge or jury you so blithely speak of is completely dependent on their indivdual predilictions and cultural background, including religious faith, schooling, and immediate social group.

I'm sorry, are you referring to the jury in the trial of the pornographer here or the jury in the trial of the killer?! You do realize the purpose of jury selections, and why they can take so long, yes?!

There is nothing intrinsic about an viewer's reactions, which means that the concept of "art per se" is equally variable. In other words, not "per se" at all.

You're assuming that it is the viewing of a work that determines whether it is art. That's plainly not a generally accepted view.

That is where it is leading.

I see - exactly nowhere!

 

[JFrankA]

And you are. How can a child's posing nude given the potential risks it carries possibly be "what's best and what's right for them"? How can a child's posing nude given the potential risks it carries possibly be better than not posing nude? No doubt you'll now cite a list of reasons why jeans might be bad for kids!

Ask the now adult actor who was naked as a child in the Superman movie. He did not suffer any ill effects for being naked.

As to the jean ad, I seem the remember the big hoo-ha over an under aged Brooke Shields saying "there's nothing that comes between me and my jeans". She wasn't nude, but plenty of people found that sexual.

ETA: I'd like to add that at the time the ad came out, I thought the whole controversy over her ad was ridiculous.

I'm stating that the parents should have the final say and the responsibility. They should know their own child well enough to not allow a child to pose, and judge the situation of the production as harmful to their own child even if the child is all for it.

Absolute nonsense. What purpose, exactly, do you believe nudity in art and porn serves if not one of sexuality?

Funny, you make such a bold statement while posting this statement:

Consider this: I consider myself pretty liberal. I uncaringly walk around the bedroom, sometimes other rooms(!), naked in the presence of my kids (all boys - 13, 9 and 9). Always have done. But for some reason that I honestly question but fail to understand, they've taken to finding it amusingly squeemish. Moreover, and more importantly, they all three (especially the eldest) are embarrassed if inadvertently observed naked by either my wife or me, and seek to avoid such situations at great inconvenience to them. Why is that? I've consciously but passively endeavoured to raise them with little or no inhibitions whan it comes to nudity in the privacy of our home, albeit in the presence of each other. The bottom line is, for whatever reason, nudity in the presence of others, at some point, seems to become a psychological issue for kids. Plain and simple. That, to me, is enough to question the wisdom of promoting it in anything other than an "incidental" manner.

Now since you say "What purpose, exactly, do you believe nudity in art and porn serves if not one of sexuality?" and then you express the "seemingly psychological issue" when you are nude in front of your children, why did you walk around nude in front of them in the first place? Do you still do it?

(By the way, it's far different for a child to see a parent nude than a stranger. You do realize that, right?)

Let me make this clear: I am not accusing you of anything. I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of your statement of "What purpose, exactly, do you believe nudity in art and porn serves if not one of sexuality?"

Also, I'm going to answer that question with an example. I'm going to go back to the Superman movie. In that scene a naked, three year old boy steps out of a wrecked spaceship, stands up in front of an older couple, smiles and holds up his arms as if asking for a hug.

I did not see that as sexual. In fact, when I saw that in the theater, the whole audience went "Awwwwwwwwww". It was an expression of innocence, it was an expression of trust. That's what I saw.

I'm sorry, Southwind, if you see that scene and think it's something sexual, then that's YOUR problem.

Strawman extraordinaire. If somebody dies in a car accident whilst wearing a seatbelt does that mean we should abolish the (obviously futile! ) compulsory wearing of seatbelts? Jeez - the absolutist stance, yet again.

Excuse me for my tone but what the hell are you talking about??? That response made absolutely no sense.

Same old strawman.

Err... Do you know what a "straw man" is?

Here, let me help you:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

I wasn't basing anything on another person's position in what you quoted. I was stating MY position.

....do you even read the thread or do you just arbitrarily post insults?

By MY definition it's porn. How can it then be art?! Artistic? Maybe. Art per se? Nope.

There. Fixed it for you.

Here's my definition. Points made by Southwind are not valid. Per se. His post may have a valid point in it, but the post overall is not valid. Per se

See how that works?

By the way, Porn is art. Per se.

And it's impossible to be honest and complete concisely? Obviously for you.

At least I got the honest part.

 

[LashL]

Numerous bickering posts have been split and sent to AAH. Please remember your Membership Agreement, and please address the argument and not the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[JFrankA]

Numerous bickering posts have been split and sent to AAH. Please remember your Membership Agreement, and please address the argument and not the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

My apologies. I let my emotions get the better of me.

 

[Southwind17]

So, there you have it! You have defined porn and art in such a way that one cannot be the other. No wonder you conclude that they can't.

Actually, I've cited recognised dictionary entries, which, you might know, catalogue common usage, or "meaning". That's why I conclude that they can't. So, there you have it!

 

[tesscaline]

Where in any of that did I claim that he claimed such things are intrinsically art?


What does claiming something as "art" mean if not art per se? "Oh look, there's a helicopter. Not a helicopter per se, just a helicopter."

And we're back to you not knowing the meaning of "per se".

 

[Southwind17]

Then what makes those works art?

The fact that they fit a sufficiently widely recognised meaning of "art".

I'll ask once more, what is the purpose of art, the purpose that defines something as art?

The "purpose" of art and what defines something as art are not related. Whether something constitutes "art" or not can, in a sense, I repeat, in a sense (got it? (not necessarily you Mirrorglass )), be determined as a matter of fact, subject to the breadth of the applicable definition of "art". Art, of course, has no single purpose per se. The purpose that motivates an artist, however, and purpose he/she intends (if any) for the finished work varies considerably, I suspect.

Also, in my opinion it doesn't matter whether or not a work of art is ever viewed. Even if I paint a beautiful painting and burn it, or hum a tune but never write it down, it was still a work of art. The act of observing something does not change it. Well, not on macroscopic levels, anyway.

I agree, and the definition of "art" that I cited previously from my Chambers Dictionary supports this.

Nonsense. I said in my very first post in this thread that the question of whether or not something is art is irrelevant to whether it should be legal. Art can be good, and art can be evil. Art can portray flowers and smiling faces, or dying children, or naked children being abused. None of that makes it any less art.

By your reckoning ANY image of a child being abused is art. That's not only technically incorrect but highly dangerous territory, as it opens the door to legitimacy of child pornography.

And being art doesn't justify doing something evil. This virtual image of a 3-year old child being sodomized (thanks a lot for the mental image, by the way) is horrible, wrong and should definitely be illegal to display. But it is art.

So you're claiming that some art should be allowed to be "displayed" whereas the "display" of other art should be illegal, suggesting that provided it's not "displayed" it's OK to create/possess/distribute. How do you reconcile that position both morally and legally?

This whole argument is based on you claiming that the word "art" means something beautiful and just, always correct. It doesn't. Art can be great, but it is inherently neither good nor evil. It just is.

Art "just is". With respect, that's hardly a meaningful position.

 

[Southwind17]

Are you saying that nudity in art can only be sexual?

Yes, pretty much.

I thought you just got through claiming that the only thing that mattered was the intent of the artist.

I'm sorry, where do you believe I claimed this, and in what context?

 

[Southwind17]

And we're back to you not knowing the meaning of "per se".

You speak for yourself!

 

[JFrankA]

Are you saying that nudity in art can only be sexual?

Yes, pretty much.

Huge flaw in your "logic".

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/jacobitevirtuosi/images/cherubs_th.jpg

So this isn't art. It's porn. Specifically, child porn.

Again, I quote: "Are you saying that nudity in art can only be sexual" "Yes, pretty much" "Porn isn't art, per se".

Therefore, the painting above is child porn. Have I got that right?

 

[Belz...]

Actually, I've cited recognised dictionary entries, which, you might know, catalogue common usage, or "meaning". That's why I conclude that they can't. So, there you have it!

It's like saying that artworks can't be art if they are also funny, because the purpose of humour is to cause laughter. I don't see how they are mutually-exclusive.

I also didn't see those dictionary definitions.

 

[JFrankA]

You speak for yourself!

Please enlighten us.

What does "per se" mean?

 

[not daSkeptic]

What does claiming something as "art" mean if not art per se? "Oh look, there's a helicopter. Not a helicopter per se, just a helicopter."

Your repeated use of the same phrasing and terminology with no variation suggests that your language skills are not as good as you would like to believe. If you really are as good with English as you claim, then prove it. Rephrase things.