art vs. porn

[Hannibal]

*peeks back in the door*
Because your weak arguments surrounding your circular arguments and your utter disregaurd for being on topic make me disturbed, and you know this, so THIS is why it doesn't suprise you.


------------------
As miserable as life may be I hold it pretty precious...

If I lose the light of the sun, I will write by candlelight, moonlight, no light. If I lose paper and ink, I wil write in blood on forgotten walls. I will write always, I will capture nights all over the world and bring them to you.
Word And Voice
Motocross Fanatics
General Philosophy

[Beta-Decay]

I think someone got out of bed too early.
Either that or someone always uses the same argument for everything.
I can't figure it out.

------------------

[Hannibal]

*grumblebitch*he always uses the same circular reasoning, and answeres questions with a question, then calls out those who do the same to him. I won't discuss with a person like that. It's a waste of time.*endgrumblebitch*

------------------
As miserable as life may be I hold it pretty precious...

If I lose the light of the sun, I will write by candlelight, moonlight, no light. If I lose paper and ink, I wil write in blood on forgotten walls. I will write always, I will capture nights all over the world and bring them to you.
Word And Voice
Motocross Fanatics
General Philosophy

[SHATOUSHKA]

i don't really see a difference in the two definitions.
the reason why this topic came up in the first place...
is because occasionally, i visit HB while in my school's computer lab.
this lab has made it explicitly known that no porn will be viewed on their monitors.
every time i go into GP, and i see that piccie i have up there, i look at all the damned signs taped everywhere...
and i chuckle.

you'd think they'd outlaw the word itself...
i mean, c'mon! let's not be hyprocrites here.

------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~

General Philosophy

[Alex]

The agenda for watching porno is pre-deterimined...

The agenda for experiencing art involves a learning process.

There is a difference.

------------------
Alex

[Mr. Robin]

What is circular about the observation that the two ideological 'taggants' overlap?

The reason that it doesn't surprise me is more to do with simplicity, the idea that you do not like it if someone else is right.

As for off topic, that is exactly what you are doing here, I am following?, no, as I prefer to remain on topic, art vs porn.

You just didn't like the "can't prove anything stuff", and the not a "catch 22" stuff either......get over yourself will you!

So how do we disect art from porn and respect the obvious overlapping in the ideology when we deal with pornographic art?

The agenda for porn can also be a learning experiance, but is very clear when you watch porn, that that is what it is. But when you watch a movie, and the characters make love in a scene, you know it isn't pornographic, why do we find the distinction so easily, when it seems so subtle, and the definability of the actions rest in the same
parameters?



------------------

[Hannibal]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The reason that it doesn't surprise me is more to do with simplicity, the idea that you do not like it if someone else is right.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If someone else is right, I bow to them, and give them fair credit, however, if someone answers a question, with another question which is some odd tangent, only use circular reasoning as a way to weasel out of being wrong *we won't name names, we'll call him Mr.R... no that's too obvious, let's try M.Robin* then that's when I get upset, because they refuse to admit the error of their ways. I don't know how many times you've done this.
Ahh, and the way you called us all "back to topic" was classic maneuver. After someone says a person does something, they always then do the opposite immediately thereafter, thus making it a true statement for them to say "no i don't"...
Anyways...
like i said before, i'm leaving this thread. Possibly this board.
Mr.Robin, I post here now my dislike for you. I have my reasons, and if anyone wishes to know them, feel free to ask. I can support them with examples from the many long winded, utterly pointless posts he has made on other boards.
Good day.
*leaves again*

------------------
As miserable as life may be I hold it pretty precious...

If I lose the light of the sun, I will write by candlelight, moonlight, no light. If I lose paper and ink, I wil write in blood on forgotten walls. I will write always, I will capture nights all over the world and bring them to you.
Word And Voice
Motocross Fanatics
General Philosophy

[SHATOUSHKA]

hmmm...
i question the 'intent' argument.
can one be held accountable for 'intent'?
how the hell can another disern, without doubt, one's 'intent'?

------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~

General Philosophy

[doodoo]

He who sees a certain intent in someone's actions is one very likely to act the same way. Beware! The innocent eye sees no porn where porn is, while the wicked eye sees porn where porn is not.

------------------
UlTm8 BOARDOM

[Mr. Robin]

The reason for bringing in intent is the simplicity that all art, or porn, is a produced prodect, ergo it has an intent driving it.

In clearly pornographic films the intent of the producer is usually clear enough inasmuch as it is all, and only, about two people doing (whatever), whereas in art the intent of the producer cannot be as easily adjudicated from a viewpoint of production direction only. A film containing a sexual scene may simply be very germain to the films storyline and NOT the central direction (intent) of the film.

Intent of the producer helps to clarify the reality of pornography, pornographic art, and simply art. The painting in GP is simply art, there is no real pronographic intent on the part of the artist as is demonstrated by the manner of the portrayal of a human figure that leaves out the most specific details of the sexual nature/identity of a female.

The fact that her breasts are being shown is more a historical artifact of the piece, then an intent to titilate, as back in earlier times it was fashionable for a woman to bare one of her breasts in public as to demonstrate her femininity(SP?), so that aspect would not have been painted with an intention of titilation, but simply as demonstrative of the artistry of the human females body.

It is an historical piece after all.

Intent is discernable, but it is as a relative value, and yes, you can just as easily be wrong, or right, but the artist later, after having produced it with intent, lies about it as to ensure that it is publically exhibited. You cannot do it without a doubt, but you can eliminate a great degree of the uncertainty by using acceptable, and understood, parameters of human psyche.

As someone who actualy paints, watercolor and oils, I had to learn to discern myself in all of the artworks that I do, as that statement of "What you see in others" shows up in art really well. Clearly, a little piece of me is in every painting that I do.

The 'proof' of just how good an artist you actually are, with respect to skill and ability, is demonstrated by just how well you can hide that little piece of yourself from view in the artwork that you create.

When an artist does a work of pronographic art, they are revealing a little piece of themselves.


------------------