Porn vs. Art

[Belz...]

Why do people visit art galleries?

Please answer my question. What is the purpose of art ?

There is. Well, at least reasonably objective, as I've previously shown.

I must've missed it. I remember the artist's hat and such, but if we know an artist is an artist because he does art, then what is art ? Your definition ?

Why? How? How are computers capable of identification of everything that can be objectively defined? Show me a computer that is capable of proving that this:

... in real life is a tree.

<Sigh> Fine. Since you are utterly incapable of understanding this point, please simply give me your definition of art and what its purpose is.

And what is a picture?

A bunch of pixels.

 

[wolftrax]

No, porn is not art. It is images or video of a natural human function that takes very little effort and creativity. A video of me taking a dump is not art. It is a video of a natural human function that takes very little effort and creativity. It may elicit an emotional response, such as disgust, but it's not art. If I farted on stage in a microphone, would that be considered music? If so, I'm sitting on a symphony.

 

[wolftrax]

Now that I really think about it, I suppose porn is an art form. Art, in it's truest sense, is an expression from a being, and in the origins of art we see this in cave art and sculptures. Our alphabet, the concept of writing and numbers all stem from art, they have evolved from images originally intended to express ideas or commerce at the very beginnings of societies. Early forms of pornography were sculpted or made into images that did take effort and creativity.

The thing is, and the problem porn will always have, is it is a negative art form. It has no real socially redeeming value. It has a negative effect on children, just as other negative forms of art do.

 

[Belz...]

No, porn is not art. It is images or video of a natural human function that takes very little effort and creativity. A video of me taking a dump is not art. It is a video of a natural human function that takes very little effort and creativity.

A picture of a tree with the sunlight passing through its leaves is an image of a natural function that takes very little effort or creativity. Therefore pictures of trees are not art.

It may elicit an emotional response, such as disgust, but it's not art.

Then pray tell, what is your definition of art ?

I think you'll find that what is considered to be "art" (and you'd know if you had bothered to read the thread at least in part) is entirely subjective i.e. in the eye of the beholder. Therefore anything can be art, depending who you ask.

 

[Belz...]

The thing is, and the problem porn will always have, is it is a negative art form. It has no real socially redeeming value. It has a negative effect on children, just as other negative forms of art do.

What in the blue hell is a "negative art form" ? And since when does art is required to have a socially redeeming value ?

Also, please explain how it has a negative effect on "children", and what age of children we are talking about.

 

[quadraginta]

Now that I really think about it, I suppose porn is an art form. Art, in it's truest sense, is an expression from a being, and in the origins of art we see this in cave art and sculptures. Our alphabet, the concept of writing and numbers all stem from art, they have evolved from images originally intended to express ideas or commerce at the very beginnings of societies. Early forms of pornography were sculpted or made into images that did take effort and creativity.

The thing is, and the problem porn will always have, is it is a negative art form. It has no real socially redeeming value. It has a negative effect on children, just as other negative forms of art do.

This is a great example of the fundamentally cultural nature of the OP in the first place.

There is no good reason for the depiction of an essentially natural act to be socially reprehensible, and there have been many cultures where the very idea that it should would have been considered a symptom of an unbalanced mind. I think that modern western civilization's (and perhaps Abrahamic religion's) weird preoccupation with sex as forbidden or somehow tainted is a symptom of an unbalanced culture.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Now that I really think about it, I suppose porn is an art form. Art, in it's truest sense, is an expression from a being, and in the origins of art we see this in cave art and sculptures. Our alphabet, the concept of writing and numbers all stem from art, they have evolved from images originally intended to express ideas or commerce at the very beginnings of societies. Early forms of pornography were sculpted or made into images that did take effort and creativity.

The thing is, and the problem porn will always have, is it is a negative art form. It has no real socially redeeming value. It has a negative effect on children, just as other negative forms of art do.

Nonsense. What's your reason for believing that?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I only have one question for Southwind: Is there anything that you personally don't consider art at all (meaning, if it were up to you, you would never put it in a Museum), but that you agree that it obeys all the basic requirements for it to be considered art by society, and that therefore it still is art?
And if so, what would that/those be?

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

The thing is, and the problem porn will always have, is it is a negative art form. It has no real socially redeeming value. It has a negative effect on children, just as other negative forms of art do.

The thing is, and the problem rock and roll music will always have, is it is a negative art form. It has no real socially redeeming value. It has a negative effect on children, just as other negative forms of art do.

The thing is, and the problem comic books will always have, is it is a negative art form. It has no real socially redeeming value. It has a negative effect on children, just as other negative forms of art do.

The thing is, and the problem anime will always have, is it is a negative art form. It has no real socially redeeming value. It has a negative effect on children, just as other negative forms of art do.

 

[wolftrax]

I think you'll find that what is considered to be "art" (and you'd know if you had bothered to read the thread at least in part) is entirely subjective i.e. in the eye of the beholder. Therefore anything can be art, depending who you ask.

I did read the last 4 or 5 pages, and that's pretty much all you've been saying. I don't agree with it. Would you consider me a video of me taking a dump art?

What in the blue hell is a "negative art form" ? And since when does art is required to have a socially redeeming value ?

Pretty much self-explanatory. It has a negative effect. Is art required to have a socially redeeming value? Not if it is negative.

Also, please explain how it has a negative effect on "children", and what age of children we are talking about.

This is a great example of the fundamentally cultural nature of the OP in the first place.

There is no good reason for the depiction of an essentially natural act to be socially reprehensible, and there have been many cultures where the very idea that it should would have been considered a symptom of an unbalanced mind. I think that modern western civilization's (and perhaps Abrahamic religion's) weird preoccupation with sex as forbidden or somehow tainted is a symptom of an unbalanced culture.

Nonsense. What's your reason for believing that?

The thing is, and the problem rock and roll music will always have, is it is a negative art form. It has no real socially redeeming value. It has a negative effect on children, just as other negative forms of art do.

The thing is, and the problem comic books will always have, is it is a negative art form. It has no real socially redeeming value. It has a negative effect on children, just as other negative forms of art do.

The thing is, and the problem anime will always have, is it is a negative art form. It has no real socially redeeming value. It has a negative effect on children, just as other negative forms of art do.

Listening or watching the various people on Dr. Drew who have been exposed to pornography at an early age which effected them and sexual problems they have is a frequent example.

Ted Bundy claimed that an early exposure to hardcore and violent pornography had an effect on him. Was he honest? Who knows.

But more than any of that, Those of you who have an objection to pornography having a negative effect on children, I have a question for you.

Do you show pornography to children?

Please use your right to freedom of expression to give your name and address if you do.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Do you show pornography to children?

No. I also refrain from showing pornography to my boss. I have never shown pornography to my mother. Now that you mention it, the only person I have ever shown pornography to is my wife. That turned out pretty cool.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Pretty much self-explanatory. It has a negative effect. Is art required to have a socially redeeming value? Not if it is negative.

Listening or watching the various people on Dr. Drew who have been exposed to pornography at an early age which effected them and sexual problems they have is a frequent example.

Ted Bundy claimed that an early exposure to hardcore and violent pornography had an effect on him. Was he honest? Who knows.

But more than any of that, Those of you who have an objection to pornography having a negative effect on children, I have a question for you.

Do you show pornography to children?

Please use your right to freedom of expression to give your name and address if you do.

Have you considered the likelihood that stigmatizing a perfectly normal and natural function, and making any references to it a matter subject to condemnation might be the cause of some of these problems?

 

[wolftrax]

quadraginta, Yes I have considered that.

Do you show pornography to children?

 

[not daSkeptic]

Would you consider me a video of me taking a dump art?

I personally cannot answer that question without seeing the particular video. While I find the subject matter repulsive, that alone does not rule out the possibility of me considering it to be art.

It has a negative effect.

Negative by whose definition?

Listening or watching the various people on Dr. Drew who have been exposed to pornography at an early age which effected them and sexual problems they have is a frequent example.

Do you know for a fact that exposure to pornography was the only determining factor in the development of their problems?

 

[quixotecoyote]

"Listening or watching the various people on Dr. Drew"

 

[quadraginta]

quadraginta, Yes I have considered that.

So what did you conclude?

Do you show pornography to children?

What exactly is pornography? I let mine watch TV while they were growing up. By many standards that would be a 'yes'. Is Barbarella pornography? How about The Pink Panther? When it first played in Wheeling I had to sneak in, because I was underage to buy a ticket.

Bond films, anyone?

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Do you know for a fact that exposure to pornography was the only determining factor in the development of their problems?

Or even a determining factor. Or any sort of factor at all.

I wonder how many of 'em ate Twinkies.

 

[wolftrax]

No. I also refrain from showing pornography to my boss. I have never shown pornography to my mother. Now that you mention it, the only person I have ever shown pornography to is my wife. That turned out pretty cool.

Right, the result of watching pornography with your wife was pretty cool, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt you wouldn't think it was cool if you got the same result from a child.

What exactly is pornography? I let mine watch TV while they were growing up. By many standards that would be a 'yes'. Is Barbarella pornography? How about The Pink Panther? When it first played in Wheeling I had to sneak in, because I was underage to buy a ticket.

Bond films, anyone?

C'mon now, you're dancing around the issue, if it's out of discomfort that's understandable, but then again you're avoiding talking about something you are objecting to.

Graphic depictions of sexual acts, intercourse, fellatio, you know, porn? Do you show it to kids?

Negative by whose definition?

Let's go by your definition. Do you show porn to kids?

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>


C'mon now, you're dancing around the issue, if it's out of discomfort that's understandable, but then again you're avoiding talking about something you are objecting to.

No, I'm not. I'm asking you to explain what you mean by the terms you use.

Graphic depictions of sexual acts, intercourse, fellatio, you know, porn? Do you show it to kids?

There, now. Was that so hard?

I never saw the need. Kids will discover that sort of thing on their own long before most parents are ready to confront the subject head-on. I was no exception. But when they did, and asked questions, I made sure not to make them feel like creeps or degenerates for being curious.

How did you handle it?

 

[not daSkeptic]

Right, the result of watching pornography with your wife was pretty cool, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt you wouldn't think it was cool if you got the same result from a child.

The reason it is uncool to try that with a child, is it something inherent in humanity or something deriving from culture?

Let's go by your definition. Do you show porn to kids?

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You made the claim, you have to define your terms. Not me.