Porn vs. Art

[Mirrorglass]

I think that's a good idea. Ironically, I don't think the exact definition of "per se" is particularly important, but when pressed ...(!)

What is important, however, is to appreciate that there is a distinction between something constituting "art" (I'll refrain from using "per se", and hope we can dispense with such term on the assumption that it's inferred) and something having a degree of "artistic merit". Trouble is, there's the rub. There are some people who believe (or at least claim to believe) that, at best, virtually everything constitutes art, and at worst at least has artistic merit. I'm not sure there's any mileagle in debating with such people - what could it possibly achieve?!

To use the music analogy, again, whilst "playing around" on a piano, for example (be it child or adult), with no or minimal musical skill, could generate sounds that the more imaginative amongst us might classify as "music" (or at least "musical"), I, personally, set a higher skill threshold for such classification. Again, I struggle to see what possible meaning "music" and "musical" have if everything audible constitutes music. To my mind "music" and "sound" are simply not synonymous, just like "artistic" and "everything visible (and audible?)" aren't.

What I don't understand is where you get your definition. For example, take Andy Warhol and his infamous urinal, can of soup, or short story about buying underwear. The first, at least, fails to satisfy your definition of art in every way, and the two others are questionable. Yet there is consensus that they were art, nonetheless.

The definition of art you propose simply isn't generally accepted today. Historically, you're pretty close to some ancient Greek philosophers and some of the more conservative leaders of the French Academy, but those views are pretty outdated.

 

[soylent]

If it is clearly true that porn is not art, why is it so hard to provide a definition which clearly seperates the two?

If you lose interest after masturbating it is porn.

 

[quadraginta]

If you lose interest after masturbating it is porn.

If you lose interest without masturbating is it art?

 

[Mirrorglass]

Is it masturbation if you do it artistically?

 

[not daSkeptic]

... I struggle to see what possible meaning "music" and "musical" have if everything audible constitutes music. To my mind "music" and "sound" are simply not synonymous, just like "artistic" and "everything visible (and audible?)" aren't.

I agree, the terms are not synonymous. But I don't recall anyone suggesting that everything audible is music to everyone, rather that everything audible could be music to someone.

 

[Southwind17]

What I don't understand is where you get your definition. For example, take Andy Warhol and his infamous urinal, can of soup, or short story about buying underwear. The first, at least, fails to satisfy your definition of art in every way, and the two others are questionable. Yet there is consensus that they were art, nonetheless.

Consensus by whom? Presumably a particular category of people who, acknowledging Andy Warhol as an established artist, are incapable of or extremely averse to critical objectivity when it comes to differentiating art from "non-art", possibly purely in their own self-interests or delusion. I'm not familiar with the "works" to which you refer. I strongly doubt, however, that they were contributory to establishing Andy Warhol as a "renowned artist". I might be wrong, but if not don't you find that interesting?!

 

[Southwind17]

I agree, the terms are not synonymous. But I don't recall anyone suggesting that everything audible is music to everyone, rather that everything audible could be music to someone.

I don't recall suggesting any such suggestion. But of course, everything audible could be "music" to someone. That doesn't necessarily validate it as "music", though, by any commonly used meaning of the word.

 

[tesscaline]

Consensus by whom? Presumably a particular category of people who, acknowledging Andy Warhol as an established artist, are incapable of or extremely averse to critical objectivity when it comes to differentiating art from "non-art", possibly purely in their own self-interests or delusion. I'm not familiar with the "works" to which you refer. I strongly doubt, however, that they were contributory to establishing Andy Warhol as a "renowned artist". I might be wrong, but if not don't you find that interesting?!

You don't know whether or not the art referenced contributed to Andy Warhol establishing himself as a renowned artist, and you're not even actually familiar with the works in question at all. And yet you think you can even begin to posit upon why those works were considered art by the people who considered them art. Where in the heck is the logic there?

Do you seriously feel it is appropriate for you to draw conclusions about subjects that you have NO knowledge about? Really?

 

[not daSkeptic]

But of course, everything audible could be "music" to someone. That doesn't necessarily validate it as "music", though, by any commonly used meaning of the word.

Why not?

 

[quadraginta]

You don't know whether or not the art referenced contributed to Andy Warhol establishing himself as a renowned artist, and you're not even actually familiar with the works in question at all. And yet you think you can even begin to posit upon why those works were considered art by the people who considered them art. Where in the heck is the logic there?

Do you seriously feel it is appropriate for you to draw conclusions about subjects that you have NO knowledge about? Really?

I had almost the exact same reaction when I read that.

His ignorance armors his arrogance.

What's even more ironic is that Warhol was a star character in the modern debate about what is and is not art, arguably a cause of that debate, and the Campbell's Soup can paintings not only were part of making him a "renowned artist", but central to that debate. It seems odd that such an authority on the nature of art as SW would be so completely unaware of them.

Warhol's works from that time routinely sell for millions, most of the Campbell's Soup series for at least $10 million apiece, and Eight Elvises sold for $100 million just last year, putting it in the top ten of prices paid for any painting ever. Maybe SW can explain if it is "self interest" or "delusion" which commands those sorts of prices.

 

[Southwind17]

You don't know whether or not the art referenced contributed to Andy Warhol establishing himself as a renowned artist, and you're not even actually familiar with the works in question at all. And yet you think you can even begin to posit upon why those works were considered art by the people who considered them art. Where in the heck is the logic there?

...

For example, take Andy Warhol and his infamous urinal, can of soup, or short story about buying underwear.

Enough said.

Why not?

Please show me a commonly accepted meaning of "music" that includes the noise made by a jack-hammer. Maybe you can go further and link to a CD on Amazon, for example, being a recording of a road gang in full flow, or such like!

What's even more ironic is that Warhol was a star character in the modern debate about what is and is not art, arguably a cause of that debate, and the Campbell's Soup can paintings not only were part of making him a "renowned artist", but central to that debate.

Well there you go. What better way to test the legitimacy of a urinal as art than to seek the endorsement of the "Artist" himself!

Warhol's works from that time routinely sell for millions, most of the Campbell's Soup series for at least $10 million apiece, and Eight Elvises sold for $100 million just last year, putting it in the top ten of prices paid for any painting ever. Maybe SW can explain if it is "self interest" or "delusion" which commands those sorts of prices.

It seems no explanation is necessary. Some people are prepared to pay millions for a picture of a can of soup. How can it possibly not, therefore, be "art"? In fact, perhaps we should rate the "quality" of works of "art" according to their respective selling price. Yes, that seems eminently sensible and logical.

 

[jiggeryqua]

For example, take Andy Warhol and his infamous urinal, can of soup, or short story about buying underwear. The first, at least, fails to satisfy your definition of art in every way, and the two others are questionable. Yet there is consensus that they were art, nonetheless.

You must have missed this the last time you credited the urinal to Warhol in this thread:

Marcel Duchamp's 'Fountain' (1917) - but it's only art, and you'd probably mostly get away round here with sticking Warhol's name on anything edgy (I'd recommend 'Monet' for anything chocolate-boxy and 'Rembrandt' for big oils of long-dead worthies).

 

[Mirrorglass]

You must have missed this the last time you credited the urinal to Warhol in this thread:

Oh, sorry about that. To be fair, you didn't say you were talking about the urinal I mentioned, so I thought you were just giving another example. I wonder where I got the idea it was Warhol? Oh well, good to know better.

Please show me a commonly accepted meaning of "music" that includes the noise made by a jack-hammer. Maybe you can go further and link to a CD on Amazon, for example, being a recording of a road gang in full flow, or such like!

http://www.amazon.com/Silent-Hill-Akira-Yamaoka/dp/B000CBOXOG

It seems no explanation is necessary. Some people are prepared to pay millions for a picture of a can of soup. How can it possibly not, therefore, be "art"? In fact, perhaps we should rate the "quality" of works of "art" according to their respective selling price. Yes, that seems eminently sensible and logical.

What we're interested in here is the common definition of art. The fact that pieces referred to as art sell for millions strongly suggests there are a lot of people who regard them as such.

Anyway, I've given examples of pieces that are considered art by many. Instead of simply saying those many are all foolish, I'd like to ask you to present your reasons for thinking the "real" definition of art is different. Can you give any examples of people who agree with your definition?

 

[Southwind17]

http://www.amazon.com/Silent-Hill-Akira-Yamaoka/dp/B000CBOXOG

Doesn't sound like a "road gang in full flow, or such like" to me. Sorry. It's not much better, mind!

What we're interested in here is the common definition of art. The fact that pieces referred to as art sell for millions strongly suggests there are a lot of people who regard them as such.

You think so? Suggests to me that there are a lot of people lacking sufficient imagination to dispense with their cash in a worthwhile way (unless, of course, the selfish feeling that exclusivity engenders or investing in a hollow secondary "commodity" market is considered "worthwhile").

Anyway, I've given examples of pieces that are considered art by many. Instead of simply saying those many are all foolish, I'd like to ask you to present your reasons for thinking the "real" definition of art is different. Can you give any examples of people who agree with your definition?

Well, first, for the avoidance of possible misunderstanding, what, exactly, do you believe my definition is?

 

[Marcus]

Or maybe 25 pages establishing that "per se" doesn't mean what you thought it did?! Regardless, good to see you hung around awaiting my "release"! Thanks for that.

I'm still curious to know if you think that porn can be art. Without the "per se".

 

[Mirrorglass]

Well, first, for the avoidance of possible misunderstanding, what, exactly, do you believe my definition is?

Don't you think it would be simpler if you just gave your definition? Then we might actually get somewhere.

 

[Southwind17]

I'm still curious to know if you think that porn can be art. Without the "per se".

Well now, that's a whole different question from where we started, ain't it, raising a question as to relevance. Unless, of course, we're agreed that "per se" is superfluous, in which case of course porn can't be art. Again, "artistic"? Yes; "art"? Nope.

Don't you think it would be simpler if you just gave your definition? Then we might actually get somewhere.

Ha ha ha ... I thought as much. You kill me baby!

 

[Mirrorglass]

Ha ha ha ... I thought as much. You kill me baby!

So you don't actually want this argument to go anywhere? Fine. I'll answer the question you presented, but if you insist on derailing this again, I'll be forced to abandon this debate as a lost cause.

Well, first, for the avoidance of possible misunderstanding, what, exactly, do you believe my definition is?

Well, from your posts I've gathered your definition is something like "A work created by a person skilled in making those kinds of works, with the intention of making true art and definitely not arousing any sexual reaction in the audience that is also accepted as art and considered beautiful and conforming to some other vague standards set by SW". Feel free to correct me if I left something out.

 

[tesscaline]

...

Enough said.

No, not enough said. You are making conclusive judgements about things that you know nothing about. In fact, you know so little about them, you don't even realize that the urinal referenced is not an actual Warhol work.

Why do you think it is appropriate for you to make conclusive judgements about things that you have NO knowledge about?

Please show me a commonly accepted meaning of "music" that includes the noise made by a jack-hammer. Maybe you can go further and link to a CD on Amazon, for example, being a recording of a road gang in full flow, or such like!

Please look up the Industrial music genre.

Well there you go. What better way to test the legitimacy of a urinal as art than to seek the endorsement of the "Artist" himself!


It seems no explanation is necessary. Some people are prepared to pay millions for a picture of a can of soup. How can it possibly not, therefore, be "art"? In fact, perhaps we should rate the "quality" of works of "art" according to their respective selling price. Yes, that seems eminently sensible and logical.

Hmm... More commenting on something that you admittedly know nothing about.

Do you really think that's wise?

 

[not daSkeptic]

Doesn't sound like a "road gang in full flow, or such like" to me.

Perhaps you should have actually asked for only that.