Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[Southwind17]

Is pornography an art form?
Clearly, yes.
Next question.

Clearly why?

 

[Southwind17]

Please detail your particular refutations of the study in question. Did you find fault with the methodology? Please provide examples of those "holes" you have discerned, along with the evidence supporting your criticisms.
Your blanket dismissal does not constitute a refutation of any value. It is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!".

I actually toyed with doing so, you know, but decided I couldn't be bothered, even though I figured I would probably enjoy it. So, you've swayed me now, but I'll do it tomorrow - something to look forward to!

 

[Southwind17]

Please elaborate on this apparent suggestion that one excludes the other.
I would go so far as to say that from many perspectives one often encompasses the other.

Something that is purely functional (literally) has no intrinsic artistic merit. That's not to demean engineering design. If an engineer designs a component that requires no aesthetic or ergonomic quality such that it is as simple and minimalistic as possible then he is just doing his job, albeit in a highly skilled, professional and arguably great way. The fact that an iPod, Bang & Olufsen TV or Bose Lifestyle Home Theatre System, for example, exudes minimalist simplicity is testament to great design, focusing on both function more so than form, but the "form" aspect, with great respect to Apple, B&O and Bose, whilst undoubtedly artistic to a degree, can hardly be described as "flair" in the more conventional sense of the word.

My views of things are flavored by an engineering background. I often see simplicity and find functionality in structures, objects, and devices as "artistic". To me the complications of additional features or form for "art's sake" is often less artistically attractive. I might refer to this as "baroque" or with some similar adjective, and the intent is not complimentary. I can find a solution to a problem which is more direct and less convoluted or complicated to be quite "artistic". I have reason to believe that I am neither unique nor even noticeably unusual in this attitude.
In a similar vein, the term "elegant" is used among programmers to describe particularly attractive pieces of code. It is interesting to note that the intent is to compliment that code for its functional simplicity. This might seem counter-intuitive to a more mundane usage of the word "elegant", but the meaning is quite clear. The simple and functional is considered artistic primarily because of those aspects.

Very eloquent - seriously - and I tend to agree with you, but where you see efficient design as "artistic" I see it as simply required and expected. Unfortunately, from my experience many civil and structural engineers, for example, fail to deliver, electing to over-design on purely commercial grounds for fear of prejudicing their PI insurance record!

Oh, BTW, this is only my opinion, in case you're wondering. Feel free to differ.

 

[quadraginta]

Demonstrating, as I previously claimed, that you have no perception of what porn is. "Blatant sexual situations going on" are not necessarily porn.
<snip>

They are if someone "perceives" them to be. At least if we accept the SW definition.

Precision! SW.

Comprehension!

Oh, yeah...

Memory!

 

[Thunder]

who said anything was wrong with corn? I love corn. Corn on the cob. Corn chowder. Corn bread. Corn flakes. Corn pops. Even corn muffins.

Oh....wait.....PORN...not corn. Ooops.

 

[Belz...]

You're claiming pornography is an "art form"?

What else would it be ? Isn't entertainment considered art ?

 

[Belz...]

So it's "artistic" by chance? Is that what your saying?

It can be.

I get the distinct impression that this is a "I know porn when I see it" scenario. You're basically operating on your own definitions. Normally that'd be fine, so long as we all understand what those definitions are.

However since those definitions seem to be changing with your "opponents"' arguments, it's my impression that you are attempting to "win" the argument by any means necessary, perhaps having painted yourself in a corned when you chose which "side" of the argument to stand on early in the thread.

Of course, no one here would think any less of you if your changed your mind. Certainly not I, anyway.

 

[Belz...]

That makes perfect sense to me - thanks for the endorsement. Successfully countering others' arguments serves to strengthen mine.

That's what IDers seem to think. Unfortunately for them, or you, that's not how it works. You need to make YOUR point, not simply show that other people's points don't hold, which you haven't done.

 

[Belz...]

Then how do we know it's purporting to be pornographic?

I'll have to go with Frank, here. If it's required for you that porn refer to itself as porn, then you'll find there is little porn anywhere on Earth. Otherwise if, as you seemed to hint at, there is an objective or at least legal definition of what porn is, regardless of interpretation, then what it labels itself as shouldn't matter.

 

[sugarb]

A big, long, hard cylindrical object thrusting through an opening that it just fits into in the deep night to penetrate the mystery of the ages?

A long tube floating in the darkness voyeuristically watching a collision between two heavenly bodies from far away?

...sounds very sexual to me....

"Calling Dr. Freud, calling Dr. Freud..."

 

[Belz...]

I haven't made an outrageous, paranormal claim.

Irrelevant. Your "belief", if it isn't supported by evidence, can't be taken at face value.

 

[JFrankA]

Demonstrating, as I previously claimed, that you have no perception of what porn is. "Blatant sexual situations going on" are not necessarily porn.

Oh. Well then. That means if I animate an animated cartoon of a virtual child in a blatant sexual situation with a virutal fourty year old man, with the intent to have the view feel sorry for the child, and to make people feel anger and disgust for people who would do such a thing, to be careful of those kinds of scumbags. This will be my art.

And to be clear, it wouldn't be VCP (since the "P" in "VCP" stands for porn). It is art.

I'm good with that, if that's what you think it is. I would, however, advise that you be careful, though, if you seriously intend to seek to pass off what could rightly be deemed to be porn simply as art. I can assure you the judicial system will not look on you sympathetically should you find yourself on the wrong side of the law.

I will go to jail for my art. It would be worth it:

The people need to feel sorry for the children. To know what kind of monsters are out there. I feel that showing it in this way will make people realize how horrible child molestion is. My art will make people see and feel the evil, the vileness of the molester. Just like the driving instruction videos of real accidents, my intent is to make people so sick to their stomachs, so that they would do anything to stop child molestation. Or just like anti-abortionists who show ads of a real aborted fetus' feet to curb abortion. However, since I do not want to hurt real life children, I'll do it all by using virtually made people, such as drawings or computer models.

This will not be porn, though it will show a blatant sexual situation, it is art. Art with the intent of making people feel sorry for the virtual child, and disgust for the virtual molester.

It is important that my art will make people feel the horror of this act.

Good luck with that - but why didn't you do that before, I wonder. Regardless, no offence, but I'll not be buying shares if you're considering an IPO.

Well, I guess I needed see your definitions and stances clearly. I'm glad it worked out to something we both agree with.

Great (whatever that means!).

I've just explained my intent. That's what my art is about - that is what stands for.

It can wait until you return - no rush on my part.

Thank you.

Are you denying you read "third-ranked" as "third rate" and proceeded to bark not only up the wrong tree, but in the wrong woods?

I didn't deny anything. I simply said you are the one who is saying that you are confused and using the "" smilely.

What I wrote applies whether I read only the headline or the entire article (truth is, I skim read the entire article). Bottom line is they removed it, as I rightly stated.

Interesting that you skipped over the fact that the curator felt that the nude ten year old picture of Brooke Shields was art. You should read it more carefully to see what the curator felt, and how lawyers felt it was okay.

So you don't know then, because there will be none. Thank you.

You asked. I answered. Manga. It's in some of them. Possibly in Japan. If you are so interested, maybe you should go there. And by the way, weren't we talking about a nude ten-year-old Brooke Shields picture a moment ago?

No, but I'd love to hear your views as the artistic styling of these things. Go ahead ...

Okay, you asked for it.......

http://www.nailtools.net/USERIMAGES/SCAN0012(1).JPG

Look at the nails, not the picture. See how someone created a way to make them easy to keep these nails together in not only a practicle way, but in an aesthetic way. A simple design that does so much.

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/870/20093129.JPG

Why the "I" shape? I someone had to make the girder and design it and figure out what the best shape it should be to hold tons of weight, yet so easy to use. That kind of design just doesn't happen.

http://image.automotive.com/f/techa...z+blown_alky_ls+ls_series_6l_truck_engine.jpg

The belts, the pistons, along with tiny explosions all moving is a perfect flow of rhythms to propell heavy truck, and more making it able to pull heavier items, makes the engine of a truck the heart of it. This mimics a horse. In fact, that's why they use the term "horsepower". Reminds one of the old frontier.

http://www.roseville.ca.us/images/EU/CIRCLES.JPG

Look how the circles sit next to each other. Each pool a different shade of color while in each step of making water unsafe to drinkable. Cleansing the very nature of life itself - how is that, in itself, not beautiful and artful?

http://files.myopera.com/rfhurley/albums/475833/powerStation.jpg

Now we have the artful steel girders creating something that is also artful. Look how they criss cross with each other, along with wires and other steel forms not only to make a maze of steel, but providing power so that people can live comfortably. Trace a wire in the picture, see where you go, like a spark of electricity, travelling through the metal maze.

http://www.conversionrate.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/staples.jpg

Back to one simple piece of metal. Standing in it's orginal form in a formible pose, like two teeth ready to strike, puncturing the helpless paper below it. Then as it bends, folds, submits to pressure, those teeth that have bitten, eventually hugs the papers, making them come together into a unity.

http://www.gwestern.com/images/superior wood spade.jpg

Metal married to wood. The wood is the sturdy backbone of the spade, while the metal does the actual tasks. One piece ensures that the hand can steady the spade, the other, like the staple, bites into the ground, upsetting the earth under it's one tooth. However, once that tooth has bit the dirt, it then supports and carries that same earth for as long as one can or want to. Kind of like the staple, it strikes, then comforts.

http://img.alibaba.com/photo/101285..._Internal_Modem_XP_Vista_32bit_Compatible.jpg

A small, colorful board. Made to take up as little room as possible, yet able to communicate with the outside world. One can place those transistors, chips, resistors, etc anywhere on the green board, as long as the gold racing stripes connects them correctly. This one has a green with a yellow accent. I have seen other colors.

http://simplethinking.com/photo/phone/vintage/images/P6110007.jpg

Have you ever been in a room with a telephone exchange in it? I have. There are thousands of phone calls happening - calls starting and ending, each one with a click. When I used to work for Verizon, I used to love going to the local exchange room where these machines stayed. The clicking sounded like thousands of crickets chirping on a lonely night. It was soothing and beautiful because there were people behind each click, connecting and communicating. Thousands of clicks echoing in a big room.

One more thing I'd like to point out about all these items. For every one, you can see each item in different places, and even though you will see the same basic design and purpose, you will see difference between the two items. For example, there are different sized nails, different kinds of staples, spades with a bigger tooth but smaller handles, etc, etc. Not all truck engines look exactly alike.

Southwind, how can you NOT find art in any of these things? If you see no art in any of these items, then I'm sorry to say that you must be very jaded. I feel very sorry for you.

OK - me!

Ah. I see. So it's only your opinion, then. Thank you.

No. An illegal act can, sometimes, have artistic styling associated with it, is what I'm saying.

Since it can sometimes have artistic styling, then an illegal can can be an art form ("the more or less established structure, pattern, or scheme followed in shaping an artistic work") .

There see? We agree again!

If people break the law or "cross the line" then that's what they do. If they seek to hide behind "art", as you've stated you will (tongue-in-cheek, I believe, but regardless), then they're either foolish, naive, irresponsible, arrogant or careless (or a combination of these).

Or they believe in their art so much, they will go to jail for it. Many people have before and their art survives.

 

[AWPrime]

Just keep going back in time until the "social" trait peters out. If you have to go back beyond the human species then so be it. Bottom line - social traits haven't always been an Earthly phenomenon.

If you go this far beyond the human species it becomes utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

And in any event, that goes no way to showing that rights are not simply an acknowledgement of a restriction of freedom, even in the most liberal of societies.

Based upon what?

I don't need to try to prove anything. I've made a statement that I believe to be true. As I've stated very recently in this very thread, the burden of showing something to be wrong lies with the person wishing to show it to be wrong.[snip]Do you believe that every time Obama, for example, makes a speech that some people don't agree with (probably always) he's challenged to "prove his statement"?[/snip]

This is a discussion forum, that makes this thread a debate and not a speech. There is a distinct difference between those two, if you want to make a speech start your own website, but this forum is for debates.

So please be civil and try to prove that your opinion is correct. Others have come with evidence and you didn't, this allows us to dismiss your opinion as it has no weight behind it.

 

[JFrankA]

"Calling Dr. Freud, calling Dr. Freud..."

I'm glad someone picked up on that.

 

[Southwind17]

They are if someone "perceives" them to be. At least if we accept the SW definition.

Wrong. There has to be intention to sexually arouse. BTW - my definition concerns only child porn.

 

[Southwind17]

who said anything was wrong with corn? I love corn. Corn on the cob. Corn chowder. Corn bread. Corn flakes. Corn pops. Even corn muffins.

Oh....wait.....PORN...not corn. Ooops.

Cornography, n

Cereal, accompaniments and snacks made from or comprising largely corn presented in a more or less irresistable way intended to arouse gustatory excitement

 

[Southwind17]

What else would it be ? Isn't entertainment considered art ?

Not per se, no.

 

[popscythe]

Triple posting abounds.

 

[Southwind17]

I didn't deny anything. I simply said you are the one who is saying that you are confused and using the "" smilely.

So you admit that you read "third-ranked" as "third-rate", incorrectly assumed an inference and context and proceeded to bark in the wrong forest then.

 

[JFrankA]

Wrong. There has to be intention to sexually arouse. BTW - my definition concerns only child porn.

Post # 1093

I can't view the first picture, but I can the second, and based on that one it's obvious that you're (inadvertently, I'm supposing) being selective with the definition of porn. Allow me to reiterate:

pornography books, magazines, films, etc. dealing with or depicting sexual acts in a more or less explicit way, intended to arouse sexual excitement.

Post #1231

And don't forget this: Why do people, generally, watch or read porn - any type of porn? They watch or read it because of what porn is designed to do - sexually arouse.

See the bit that you're now conveniently overlooking? (you don't really want me to go defining "sexual acts" for you now, do you?! )

Post #1311

Incorrect. You need to go back and look at the definitions of "porn", particularly that which I have used (essentially "more or less sexually explicit images intended to sexually arouse").

Post #1450

The intent of virtual child porn, "real" child porn, in fact any porn, by definition is to sexually arouse.

Post #1454

Wrong - check the definition of "porn" ("... intended to sexually arouse ...")