art vs. porn

[SHATOUSHKA]

ok.
i attempted to post this pic in GP...but for some reason, it wouldn't allow me to.
so...

i hand over the link in discuss this. (simply because i think the already present individuals appearing on this thread have the decency to approach this link in a mature fashion.

go here

and tell me, based on your above post (and all who agree to it), whether this pic is porn or art.
then attempt to justify your answer.


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

General Philosophy

[This message has been edited by SHATOUSHKA (edited December 05, 2001).]

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hannibal:

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*

Hannibal, I found your post offensive.

Just because you fully understand the tactics used by another does not mean their points are worthless.

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

[Hannibal]

Not worthless, pointless.
Sorry to offend.


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

[Alex]

I know someone who thinks of me the way You think of R, not necessarily the same description, but they have "developed" responses that seem to always imply I am attacking them...that somehow the issue is nothing more than my "alleged" disrespect or hate for them when in fact none of that energy exists... .....

Perhaps some yings and yangs just can't get along.

By the way, I'm not a big fan of apologizing...the only scenario I have come up with to apologize on a forum are glib and uncaring responses, your's certainly was not that.

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

[This message has been edited by Alex (edited December 06, 2001).]

[Hannibal]

Alex, you seem to be under the impression that I feel attacked by mr.R. Which is not the case. The fact is I just dislike the way in which he chooses to debate. That's all, because the arguments are usually circular, and if called upon it, then the whole scenario changes...
it's not that I feel he's attacking me, moreover, that the way in which he posts is irritating, due to it's longwindedness, and non-answering appearance. I'm not a huge fan of answering questions with questions, which is all he seems to do in my opinion. Like I said, I can back this, but however, this is neither the time nore the place.
So I guess yins and yangs can get along if need be, some just choose not to associate with others, which seems to be my case
I like a good intellectual conversation, but noe one that is question after question in circles.

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

[Mr. Robin]

One of the easiest manners to prove that the intent of those pic's is pornographic is due to the increased magenta in the photos.

Examine them under a low powered microscope, or even just a good magnifying glass, and you will find the the percentage of magenta (red) has been increased, to give the models skin a 'redder' tone, to give the appearance of the sexual flushing of the skin that actually occurs in humans during the arousal phase.

The purpose of increasing the magneta toning is to elicite a sexual arousal in the viewer.

Hence we can determine, from the study of technique and effects, the intent of the producer of the pictures.

If you study either photography, or art, you will be introduced to techniques that help to focus the human eye upon certain aspects of paintings/photos. How lighting, and highlighting, (which includes shadow and light effects) can bring/draw your attention towards certain features of paintings/photos.

In the pics you chose, clearly the intent is one of attempting to elicite a responce of a sexual nature, and in complete absence of anything else, no other plot line, no other story being told, no other hidden or deeper meanings.

Reasonably speaking, purely sexual content for the purpose of eliciting sexual responciveness.

Also evidenced by the expliciteness of the graphic genital exposure, and centering. (I didn't explore all of them to much, as I have previous knowledge of the imparts of such types of works, as in "I only read them for the articles....really!, Honest!")

Any comments?

[SHATOUSHKA]

ahhh...that was the problem with being unable to post the singular pic.
i really didn't want to go further than the first pic.

i will not argue that the 'intention' of (all of) those pics were to have a sexual arousal, of sorts.

the reason i chose the original pic was because of the positioning of the subject.
based on the contrary pic, i had a profile, a full nipple, half a nipple and little genitalia (if any at all) to use. this was to provide somewhat adequate counter-argument.

considering the un-preparedness of this thread, i had little time...and even less resource to use in finding an adequate subject pic...that, coupled with the fact that i was prohibited in posting the ONE pic, made the case stacked.

i think that your ideas behind subliminal colorings may, perhaps, be the case. however, if we were to allow this argument into the equation, it would be like comparing apples to oranges.

the painting in GP was created by william bouguereau, completed in the year 1882. No doubt mr. bouguereau was 'limited' in using such subliminal coloring techniques--though i will admit, certain techniques were known at the time. (shoot! we all understand the effects color makes on our judgments--though we cannot say for certian why)

the painting was entitled 'evening mood'.

what do you suppose the 'mood' was? what was the painters 'intent'?
no one can say, with all certainty, that they know.
if i were obliged to, i could easily make certain pornographic implications toward such painting, should that be my desire.

it is this that i am making as a claim.


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

General Philosophy

[SHATOUSHKA]

while waiting on that last message to post, the lower half of my screen blazenly showed alex's response about caring toward subject matter.

although i will admit i am, by no means, a representative for ALL artists, i am an artist and i wouldn't exactly say that i CARED for subjects portrayed--whatever they may be.

alex, you work in film. surely you cannot have care for ALL subjects portrayed.
i would argue that what i DO care about, is essentially two things.

1) the desire to create

2) the portrayal of the subject

i don't have to care about an individual, or thing that i use as an image into my work. however, i deeply care about how the image of the subject is portrayed.
this is completely self-gratifying and self-satisfying.

i suppose this will make me appear to be non-compassionate. ok. so it may.
but i find a sense of compassion in composing...not necessarily the subject in itself.

when i am in a situation where i am not able to compose, i tend to sketch aLOT!!!
the strange thing is, whenever this occurs, the subject ALWAYS revolves around equine.
(yeah yeah yeah)
i am fascinated by their physical structure and the movements thereof.

that doesn't imply that if i happen to be drawing from real, present experience...that i give a shit about the horse in front of me. should horses be erradicated from the face of the earth tomorrow, i would prolly still be drawing them (or parts of them) because i desperately care about the fundamental drive within me to create AND because i care of the physical image that they give me.

should horses have never existed, i'd draw deer.

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

General Philosophy

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SHATOUSHKA:
while waiting on that last message to post, the lower half of my screen blazenly showed alex's response about caring toward subject matter.

although i will admit i am, by no means, a representative for ALL artists, i am an artist and i wouldn't exactly say that i CARED for subjects portrayed--whatever they may be.

alex, you work in film. surely you cannot have care for ALL subjects portrayed.

should horses have never existed, i'd draw deer.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have defined how you care....can you give an example of not caring?



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

[SHATOUSHKA]

yes. i would...if i cared about what you thought of it.


(ok. i apologize. i couldn't resist the temptation of using an off-the-wall, spontaneous post. you know i don't mean that. )

(a real answer will come shortly)

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

General Philosophy