art vs. porn

[Beta-Decay]

Hey! I was supposed to make the totally unrelated comment!

I think the intent of the viewer may be more important than the view of the artist. As it has been said before, in more or less words, the purpose of the viewing defines wheither it is art or porn.
If one goes to an art museam, walks around looking at paintings, then goes into the bathroom and... Then I say the paintings would be considered porn, by that particular person.
On the other hand, one can consider something art, whereas others would consider it porn.



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

[Alex]

Ok, so porn gets brought into the bathroom, art does not.

Heck, makes sense. In a Classic Seinfeld episode, George could not return a book to the bookstore because it had resided in his bathroom!

SWARM!!! SWARM!!!

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

[Alex]

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

Very funny....I'll be curious to read your follow-up post.

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

[SHATOUSHKA]

great...

just put me on the spot.

OH THE HORROR!!! THE GUILT!!!

(ok. just gimme time to think of one )

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

General Philosophy

[Mr. Robin]

The 'intent' of the viewer is not controled by the artist, therefore is not subjected to definition of art vs porn.

In the Supreme court case that I had written a definition of imagination for, it involved child porn.

The 'Artist' (for non-lack of several other terms) portrayed young boys in various poses, in the nude. (NO, I didn't go looking for his pics, they were shown on T.V. actually, tastfully so, and probably to show me how they fit the definition I had submitted to the court)

Firstly, these pic's would probably "NOT give a Moralist an erection", but they are, none the less, pornographic, content and intent.

Secondly, to the vast majority of humanity they are pornographic, but, NOT sexually stimulating, even thought that would clearly have been an aspect of the originating artist's intent.

From this we must take only that we can define from the point of view of the production, not assume, nor decide the viewers affectation from viewing as this is something that we have no control over that at all.

This can only be defined from the viewpoint of the one who controls just how/what is presented. To a person who indulges in sado-masochistic tendancies, watching a dog get beaten might be a very sexually stimulating and arousing event (as disgusting a thought that might actually be to most) but in no way can we blame the beater of the dog of pornography, as it wasn't the intent, the manner, the anything to do with sex. So we do not attempt to define that which we have no control over, as it is free chioce in subjective opinion, and expression.

That one person goes off and does......... whatever, in a bathroom, does NOT define that which that ONE person viewed as pornography, other wise you will be allowing me to define the entirety of the human experance as pornographic, based upon my one subjectively arrived at opinion alone. That is not living in the real world.

By the way, I am currently tenting in Ontario, here in Ontario you are well permitted to walk around naked from the waist up, male or female, perfectly legal. Does that make Ontario the 'Pornographic' province?, a leader in equality rights for women (the reason that this was decieded, in the first place)or just a place that respected one womans right, Gwen Jacobs, to see herself as equally entitled in law? (even if she doesn't practise/excersize the right)

Comments?

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

[SHATOUSHKA]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>By the way, I am currently tenting in Ontario, here in Ontario you are well permitted to walk around naked from the waist up, male or female, perfectly legal. Does that make Ontario the 'Pornographic' province?, a leader in equality rights for women (the reason that this was decieded, in the first place)or just a place that respected one womans right, Gwen Jacobs, to see herself as equally entitled in law? (even if she doesn't practise/excersize the right)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i certainly am glad that the priveledge is available.
since i live in central arkansas, the summers (and occasionally every season except winter) is like living within the folds of the devil's groin.
so many times i have argued for the same priveledge.

is ontario pornographic?
i dunno. do they call 'em breasts or tits?

(er...that last question was sarcastic)



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

General Philosophy

[Mr. Robin]

"Hooters", "Knockers" "a Rack" "Boobs" "Tits" "Gabonga's" "A bodeyshious set of Ta-ta's" "Breasts" lots of things like that, just like everywhere else in the english speaking world, inaccordance with the level of the person's language skills.

To this I need add, "Headlights", "Pillows". "Pointers", and out of respect to the Doctors in the province, "Mammary glands", this is simply 'jargon'

So what else is new??

Interesting comment Alex, in due consideration of the crude words posted in other forums on this board.

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


[This message has been edited by Mr. Robin (edited December 11, 2001).]

[Alex]

I hate when posts become rated 17 and over.

It's not fair to the impressionable under 17 crowd.

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

[Mr. Robin]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex:
I hate when posts become rated 17 and over.

It's not fair to the impressionable under 17 crowd.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So does that mean something like Hannibals statement........

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>originally posted by Hannibal
I'm just interested in the sex with hot co-workers...
Fuck long term...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't your comment rather discriminatory??


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


[This message has been edited by Mr. Robin (edited December 11, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Mr. Robin (edited December 11, 2001).]

[SHATOUSHKA]

hanny never actually segregated a particular gender that he would wanna have sex with.
i don't think he was discriminating.

hahahaha!

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


General Philosophy
Discuss This...