Printable View
ok...i'm gonna walk the thin wire into this topic.
i say there is no line between art and porn.
some would argue otherwise.
if there is a line, where is it?
(anyone wanna argue 'value' thereof?)
------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
Penis insterted in vagina = porn
penis not instered = art
------------------
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
that's a good way to define it. however, i am not convinced that everyone will agree with that. exposing nipples is a fine way to have others dub you to be pornographic...even if it happens to be really cold outside. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/wink.gif
er..a...anyway...
on the other hand, i have seen exhibits (namely koonz) that features penetration as 'art'...
so whats the difference?
------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
If the insertion is tastefull then I guess it is art.
However, if his balls are unshaven, OFF TO PORN LAND
------------------
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
I was thinking in terms of film:
'tasteful' sex + plot = art
sex=porn
In terms of exhibitions etc:
If you believing (you being creator) it to be art + some high brow arty vocabulary + disdainful nonchalance = art.
All else = porn
------------------
This is a tough one.
I think the difference is with ART, you care about the subjects portrayed, ALWAYS.
With porn, caring about the subjects is not relevant.
------------------
Alex
The differance is in the portrayal, it is in the portrayal that the differentiation between art and porno is found. But tell me where, and how.
------------------
Then what you are stating is that there exists such a thing as 'pornographic art'?
There clearly is a difference in the intent of pornography and art, just as there is a difference between art and pornography.
How do we find the differance?
------------------
OH geez... *stomps off from this thread*
------------------
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
Why doesn't that surprise me...... http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/tongue.gif
------------------
*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
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.
------------------
*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
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
The agenda for watching porno is pre-deterimined...
The agenda for experiencing art involves a learning process.
There is a difference.
------------------
Alex
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?
------------------
<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
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
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
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.
------------------
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).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hannibal:
Hannibal, I found your post offensive.Quote:
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*
Just because you fully understand the tactics used by another does not mean their points are worthless.
------------------
Alex
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
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).]
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 http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/wink.gif
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
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?
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. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/wink.gif
------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
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. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
<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. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You have defined how you care....can you give an example of not caring?
------------------
Alex
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. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/wink.gif)
(a real answer will come shortly)
------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
Hey! I was supposed to make the totally unrelated comment! http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
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.
------------------
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
<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. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/wink.gif)
(a real answer will come shortly)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Very funny....I'll be curious to read your follow-up post.
------------------
Alex
great...
just put me on the spot.
OH THE HORROR!!! THE GUILT!!!
(ok. just gimme time to think of one http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/wink.gif)
------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
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?
------------------
<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) http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif
------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
"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).]
I hate when posts become rated 17 and over.
It's not fair to the impressionable under 17 crowd.
------------------
Alex
<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).]
hanny never actually segregated a particular gender that he would wanna have sex with.
i don't think he was discriminating.
http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/wink.gif
hahahaha!
------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
Discuss This...