Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[Southwind17]

Why? Because I used an actual definition?

On the contrary. Because you used an actual definition that gives not even a hint that pornography is an art form. You'd might as well as cited a definition of "desperate".

If porn is not an art form then what is it?

What sort of a question is that? A telescope is not an art form. It happens to be a telescope.

Are the works of Andrew Blake artful even though they contain nudity and sexual situations?

Some is. However, the fact that one can introduce artistic style into pornography doesn't necessarily make pornography an art form. Some artists have introduced artistic style into portrayals of death. Does that necessarily mean that death is an art form?

Is this porn or art?
(The image below may not be safe for work)
http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00I/00IKPG-32810184.jpg

Art.

If it's intent is to arouse then can it be art?

No, it's porn. It can be artistically stylised porn, but it's still porn.

If it's intent is not to arouse, but something else, but arouses anyway, is it porn?

No. Some people, I suspect, are aroused by tomatoes.

How do we know what the artist's intention was? How do you actually know?

How do we know what the intention of somebody who kills another was?

I'm not grasping at any straws. I'm challenging you.

And your challenge is proving as easy to dispel as your literary attempt to show that pornography is an art form.

 

[AWPrime]

I don't deny that, but we haven't always been

Now that doesn't make any sense. If the humanoid group of species are social species, then at what time were we humans not a social species? This isn't logic, so either correct this or admit that your concept doesn't work.

It follows simple logic applied to a natural process. Your alternative relies on a man-made notion (rights) that clearly didn't exist at some point in the past.

Social rules always existed with species that needed them. And rights are a part of the formalized social rules.

If you wish to show my logic false then the burden is on you to show that rights amount to something more than simply acknowledging restrictions on absolute freedom.

You haven't even started supporting your basic concept, you need to first try and prove your statement.

 

[AWPrime]

On the contrary. Because you used an actual definition that gives not even a hint that pornography is an art form. You'd might as well as cited a definition of "desperate".

Its quite simple, his definition defined art as a 'medium of artistic expression', and porn is clearly a visual medium quite suitable for expression.

What sort of a question is that? A telescope is not an art form. It happens to be a telescope.

A telescope isn't a medium of artistic expression.

No, it's porn. It can be artistically stylised porn, but it's still porn.

Something suitable as artform doesn't always have to be an attempt at art or good art.

 

[JFrankA]

On the contrary. Because you used an actual definition that gives not even a hint that pornography is an art form. You'd might as well as cited a definition of "desperate".

Seems to me that it's more desperate if one makes up with their own definition and then defend that as truth pretending it's not an opinion, but we don't know anyone who does that.

One of the defintions is

a medium for artistic expression

so I declare the porn I make as also my art.

The intent of my art is to use the medium of porn to show beauty of a humans when they express pleasure. That's my intent. If you get aroused or not, viewing it, then that's you. It is not my intent to arouse.

It is my porn. And my art.

What sort of a question is that? A telescope is not an art form. It happens to be a telescope.

It can be art. I've seen some very artistic telescopes. In fact, the design of a telescope is artistic in itself. Too bad you choose not to see it that way.

Some is. However, the fact that one can introduce artistic style into pornography doesn't necessarily make pornography an art form.

According to.....?

Some artists have introduced artistic style into portrayals of death. Does that necessarily mean that death is an art form?

Most definately. Why wouldn't it be?

Art.

Well it arouses me, therefore it's porn.....if I go by your definition and not the actual definition....

No, it's porn. It can be artistically stylised porn, but it's still porn.

Then the statue in question is an "artistically stylised porn", according to your definition. There you go! You're wrong. The statue is porn. Not art.

No. Some people, I suspect, are aroused by tomatoes.

Then, again, per your definition, tomatoes are porn. That settles that.

How do we know what the intention of somebody who kills another was?

Good. Now that you are asking the question, you've taken one step closer to wisdom. That's good, Grasshopper.

And your challenge is proving as easy to dispel as your literary attempt to show that pornography is an art form.

And your answers is proving as easy to dispel as you attempt to make your opinions truth.

 

[JFrankA]

What sort of a question is that? A telescope is not an art form. It happens to be a telescope.

You know, come to think of it, a telescope and extend and retract like a certain part of the male anatomy. Perhaps if someone made a working telescope that resembles that part of the male anatomy with the intent to arouse, then does it become art or porn or both?

 

[JFrankA]

Oh, and have you forgotten your promise?

I'm sorry JFrankA, I have nothing to prove here. You've made a claim about some allegedly scientific studies, I've asked you to show me the science, you haven't, so I'm going to remain sceptical of the studies. I'd be happy to review the "scientific" aspects if you want to post or specifically link to them. If you don't, or can't, I'm cool with that - BAU.

Oh, by the way, here's the study http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-244X/9/43 from the article I posted earlier (http://www.physorg.com/news166769376.html).

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Something suitable as artform doesn't always have to be an attempt at art or good art.

Indeed. An example of that is the Bauhaus, in which art combines with architecture. Art can also have other purposes. It certainly isn't limited to being "artsy".
Food is considered an art also. Most specifically the "Culinary Arts". These are forms of art that are, additionally, edible.

 

[JFrankA]

Indeed. An example of that is the Bauhaus, in which art combines with architecture. Art can also have other purposes. It certainly isn't limited to being "artsy".
Food is considered an art also. Most specifically the "Culinary Arts". These are forms of art that are, additionally, edible.

Hey, even inside the naked body is art.

http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/dn17411-art-made-in-a-ct-scanner/1

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Hey, even inside the naked body is art.

http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/dn17411-art-made-in-a-ct-scanner/1

Dude, that is SO hawt!!!!!

 

[JFrankA]

Dude, that is SO hawt!!!!!

Oh no! You know, I should've put a "Not safe for work" tag on that link!!!!

 

[Southwind17]

Now that doesn't make any sense. If the humanoid group of species are social species, then at what time were we humans not a social species? This isn't logic, so either correct this or admit that your concept doesn't work.

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.

Social rules always existed with species that needed them. And rights are a part of the formalized social rules.

Maybe so, but see above. 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.

You haven't even started supporting your basic concept, you need to first try and prove your statement.

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. Feel free either to attempt to show so or decline. Your choice. 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"? Be off with you.

 

[Southwind17]

Its quite simple, his definition defined art as a 'medium of artistic expression', and porn is clearly a visual medium quite suitable for expression.

Let me get this straight:

Art is a "medium of artistic expression", and
Porn is [clearly?] a "visual medium quite suitable for expression"

Ergo porn is art! I see a critical word missing from that second statement that's present in the first. Allow me to show by example why your logic is fundamentally flawed:

A = B and C = D ergo A = C

A telescope isn't a medium of artistic expression.

Exactly - you got it!

Something suitable as artform doesn't always have to be an attempt at art or good art.

So it's "artistic" by chance? Is that what your saying? Regardless, I fail to see how this statement even seeks to legitimize porn as art let alone serves.

 

[Southwind17]

Seems to me that it's more desperate if one makes up with their own definition and then defend that as truth pretending it's not an opinion, but we don't know anyone who does that.

Clearly, you still either don't appreciate the purpose of my positing a definition for child porn or this is simply an immature retort. It certainly reads like the latter in any event.

One of the defintions is

a medium for artistic expression

so I declare the porn I make as also my art.

You might like to think like that, and nobody should seek to stop you thinking like that. However, go try to get your work reviewed by a renowned art critic (or even a less-than-renowned art critic) and get an article published in a renowned (or even less-than-renowned) art journal, then. Show me some examples of professional productions that are openly defined as pornography appearing in renowned art journals. Show me a reputable public art exhibition that openly defines some of the exhibits as "pornography".

The intent of my art is to use the medium of porn to show beauty of a humans when they express pleasure. That's my intent. If you get aroused or not, viewing it, then that's you. It is not my intent to arouse. [emphasis added]

You seriously don't realize what a complete and utter contradiction this is, do you? You seem not to have even a perception of what porn is. No wonder this thread has dragged out for so long!:

por·nog·ra·phy (pôr-nŏg'rə-fē)
n.

1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal [emphasis added].
   
2. The presentation or production of this material.
   
3. Lurid or sensational material: "Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the ... pornography of the era" (Morris Dickstein).

[dictionary.com]

It is my porn. And my art.

... remarked the child pornographer as he was led away from the dock. Think what you will.

It can be art. I've seen some very artistic telescopes. In fact, the design of a telescope is artistic in itself. Too bad you choose not to see it that way.

Pun intended? It seems you see art in just about everything. I suggest that you don't seek to rely on that for your legal defense for just about everything, though!

According to.....?

Who do you think?

Most definately. Why wouldn't it be?

Again, I suggest that you never rely on death being an art form as a defense to homicide!

Well it arouses me, therefore it's porn.....if I go by your definition and not the actual definition....

My definition? "The actual definition"? What on earth are you alluding to?

Then the statue in question is an "artistically stylised porn", according to your definition. There you go! You're wrong. The statue is porn. Not art.

I suggest that you review what I sought to define first, and then, if deemed necessary, read the definition carefully!

Then, again, per your definition, tomatoes are porn. That settles that.

Again, I suggest that you review what I sought to define first, and then, if deemed necessary, read the definition carefully!

Good. Now that you are asking the question, you've taken one step closer to wisdom. That's good, Grasshopper.

And do you have an answer to the question?

And your answers is proving as easy to dispel as you attempt to make your opinions truth.

Would you care for a generous slice of humble pie to accompany those ill-considered words?!

 

[Southwind17]

You know, come to think of it, a telescope and extend and retract like a certain part of the male anatomy. Perhaps if someone made a working telescope that resembles that part of the male anatomy with the intent to arouse, then does it become art or porn or both?

You're obviously not up to speed with modern telescopes!

 

[TokenMac]

SW you said telescopes, death and porn can't be art, so what are these?

Telescope art
http://www.pem.org/writable/resources/image/overlay_full/e82764telescope_copy1.jpg

Death Art
http://www.bodiestheexhibition.com/

Porn is a little harder because not everyone is turned on by the same things. So here are some links,tell me porn or art?
http://www.guidespot.com/guides/funny_bodyart_crazy_odd

http://www.freewebs.com/emeraldvioxx/Emerald_Vioxx_is_the_Sexy_X3_by_MelanieFur.jpg

http://www.art2bank.com/new_york_art_news/pics/Morgan_Lehman_Gallery_Sexy_Time_New_York.jpg

http://cdn1.ioffer.com/img/item/510/230/56/o_pinup_decals21_1198394941.jpg

 

[Southwind17]

Oh, and have you forgotten your promise?

First, I promised nothing. Second, I wrote:

I'd be happy to review the "scientific" aspects if you want to post or specifically link to them.

Ordinarily, if you would care to post just the "scientific" aspects of the study or specifically link to just the "scientific aspects", I'd still be happy to review them. As I wrote earlier:

Given your history of less-than-sound interpretation, would you mind posting compelling extracts from those studies that purport to show what you claim here. No doubt you can locate them immediately, whereas I might end up reading the entire articles and still be left wondering which parts you're alluding to. I'm sure, given your confidence and my scepticism, you'll agree that I'm affording you any advantage here, which you'd be foolish not to take.

However, any "scientific" study that draws the following conclusion:

Conclusion
Consuming child pornography alone is not a risk factor for committing hands-on sex offenses – at least not for those subjects who had never committed a hands-on sex offense. The majority of the investigated consumers had no previous convictions for hands-on sex offenses. For those offenders, the prognosis for hands-on sex offenses, as well as for recidivism with child pornography, is favorable. [emphasis added]

can hardly be said to address the VCP aspect of this thread in anything close to a comprehensive and conclusive way.

So please don't trouble yourself. You'd be wasting your time as, clearly, even if the "science" holds up, the study was neither sufficient in scope nor sufficiently conclusive to influence the VCP debate here. No doubt you'll disagree, though, by virtue of some more spuriosly obscure logic or reasoning.

 

[Southwind17]

Indeed. An example of that is the Bauhaus, in which art combines with architecture. Art can also have other purposes. It certainly isn't limited to being "artsy".
Food is considered an art also. Most specifically the "Culinary Arts". These are forms of art that are, additionally, edible.

As I wrote, artistic style can be applied to most things. That doesn't somehow make those things "art", though. One could apply artistic style to murdering somebody. Does that somehow make murder art?! It's still murder (which, in case you'd forgotten, is still illegal, regardless what colour you'd care to paint the corpse!).

Sometimes the lack of applied logic and ill-considered reasoning from numerous people on this forum actually astounds me.

 

[Southwind17]

SW you said telescopes, death and porn can't be art, so what are these?

I think you'll find that I stated that none of those are art forms per se, if you read carefully. You'll also be aware that I've stated that artistic style can be applied to most things, but that that doesn't change what those things inherently are.

 

[JFrankA]

Clearly, you still either don't appreciate the purpose of my positing a definition for child porn or this is simply an immature retort. It certainly reads like the latter in any event.

I don't what you mean by this. I don't know anyone on this thread who resorts to immature retorts. I'm sorry you see my reply as an intent to be so.

You might like to think like that, and nobody should seek to stop you thinking like that. However, go try to get your work reviewed by a renowned art critic (or even a less-than-renowned art critic) and get an article published in a renowned (or even less-than-renowned) art journal, then.

Well, then an art critic would call it "good" or "bad" art. And one art critic would love it and another would hate it. In any case, it's still art.

Are you an art critic?

Show me some examples of professional productions that are openly defined as pornography appearing in renowned art journals. Show me a reputable public art exhibition that openly defines some of the exhibits as "pornography".

Well, there are nudes in an art gallery and earlier in this thread we talked about Malplethorpe. There's the Sex Museum in New York and the AVN awards which give out awards for the best scenes and performances like the Academy Awards.

Sounds like art to me!

You seriously don't realize what a complete and utter contradiction this is, do you? You seem not to have even a perception of what porn is. No wonder this thread has dragged out for so long!:

(Side note, just because it's long, doesn't mean it's good, many men don't realize that.)

But you definition just confirmed it for me. Since one of the definitions of porn is

Lurid or sensational material

and one of the definitions of art is

a medium for artistic expression

Then I say again: The intent of my art (a medium of artistic expression) is to use the medium of porn (lurid or sensational material) to show beauty of a humans when they express pleasure. That's my intent. If you get aroused or not, viewing it, then that's you. It is not my intent to arouse.

You may not like my art. Some people may call it bad art. But it's my art none the less.

By the way, just wanted to point out that because you used an actual definition that gives not even a hint that pornography is an art form, you might as well as cited a definition of "desperate".

... remarked the child pornographer as he was led away from the dock. Think what you will.

Clearly, you still either don't appreciate the art of my porn or this is simply an immature retort. It certainly reads like the latter in any event

Pun intended? It seems you see art in just about everything.

Don't you? You mean, that a design of even how this forum works isn't artistic? The very similes you use aren't artistic?

I suggest that you don't seek to rely on that for your legal defense for just about everything, though!

Legal defense? Are you arresting me? On what charges?

Who do you think?

I don't know. I'm asking you. That's why I asked.

Again, I suggest that you never rely on death being an art form as a defense to homicide!

Are you a lawyer?

Besides, Lenny Bruce went to jail for his art. Seems to me that if someone killed someone else simply as an artistic expression, then even though that person goes to jail and it's unethical to do so, it's still an artistic expression.

My definition? "The actual definition"? What on earth are you alluding to?

I am not willing to repeat myself right now. If you don't understand, I suggest you re-read the thread to understand the difference between your definition and the actual definition.

I suggest that you review what I sought to define first, and then, if deemed necessary, read the definition carefully!

It is clear you do not comprehend what I have clearly stated. May I politely suggest you re-read your own definition because that is what I am referring to.

Again, I suggest that you review what I sought to define first, and then, if deemed necessary, read the definition carefully!

No, I understand your definition clearly. I am sorry to say that it is you who doesn't understand at all.

And do you have an answer to the question?

Do you?

Would you care for a generous slice of humble pie to accompany those ill-considered words?!

Sure I'll have a bite of what you are having on your plate, though I prefer cake.

 

[JFrankA]

You're obviously not up to speed with modern telescopes!

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....