A BRIEF ARGUMENT AGAINST PORN AS FINE ART

This all started as a response to Kevin Ferrell,

 

KEVIN FARRELL, SEPTEMBER 20, 2006; 02:30 P.M. (DISAPPROVE)

Well, you might regard me as a villain for commenting that I found you

resurrection picture to be kitsch a la velvet Elvis. Nonetheless I posted a

question in the Philo of Photo forum that might interest you. Not enough

Christians viewpoints in the forums.

 

MY RESPONSE: Actually, I did not; I felt at the time that you were still

wrapped up with the comment I made among only a few others that spoke to one

of manifold issues centered on free speech and pornography versus fine art and

creativity --predisposed by cultural morality. I will attempt to follow one of

my favorite quotes from seventeenth century philosopher, Emanuel Kant, who

wrote, --That which the imagination can play in a purposive and unstudied

manner will always be new to us.

 

Trust me when I tell you the whole world is caught up with authorial intent as

if a writer or painter or as with this site, a photographer can know the effect

(s) and/or metaphoric implications of an image before professional or popular

consensus leads to its designation as in Susanne Langers significant object.

This type of cause and effect is not conventional or commonplace in the sense

of --If I stepped on a bug, my intention was to smashed it, but a purposeless

process spawned in a vacuum with only the artists negative energy and

ambivalence in contention with his imagination and inspiration.

 

For the artist, the urge to create fulfills a need not an intent. What

constitutes creativity in the process of developing ideas should not be

confused with the resulting performance or product; one does not necessarily

lead to the other. Moreover there is a humongous gap here, I believe

responsible for nudging pornography towards acceptance as an art form although

it would be difficult to trudge through the muck and mire commensurate with

the position I hold without writing a treatise. I would like to, however,

make a brief argument against porn independent of the typical cultural and

moral decay platforms; whether I do here, I leave for the experts to determine.

 

The key to understanding Kants statement above is the word purposive (purpose

without purpose, intent without purpose, or intent without intent etc. --

tautologous, I know). The process, which is purposive, is a most potent

component of the creative act yet creativity alone does not necessarily yield

a significant object; an additional component is required; e. g., a consensus

from contemporary and historic culture. And although the imagination can play

with the pornographic image, such play is irrefutably carnal, lascivious, and

a direct assault even on the flesh (soap box here, yea-- I know). Because

they have First Amendment Rights, pornographers need no justification for the

means they enlist to an end for their product: seduction to the level of

preoccupation with a self-fulfilled gratification that merely excites the

loins. It is nothing short of phenomenal that something so grossly lacking in

originality and quality yields billions of dollars annually for the porn

industry.

 

 

What we under estimate is the addictive power of this self-deprecating

thrill. Watching, being entertained by or even reading pornographic short

stories affirms a cultural addiction animated vicariously by self-induced

fantasy. But the attraction has absolutely nothing to do with the imagination

nor should sexual stimulation or gratification be construed as having

aesthetic value in any form or kind. The mud, however, thickens when one

tries to justify how this position is not challenged by acting such as Halle

Barrys nude sex scene in MONSTERS BALL for which she received an Oscar or more

closer to home--nude photography--fine art or smut. (I am listening).

 

Purposive is also commensurate with integrity; i. e., a referent to the

challenge each artist must face whenever a performance or creative act

commences. In conclusion, the aim of fine art has been to inspire world

culture to value and develop a visual intimacy with vicissitudes of images

augmenting aesthetic appreciation with our universe paradigmatically serving

to refine our cultural aesthetic and facilitate our discernment of beauty and

ugliness as contributory evidence to this fact. The intent of pornography is

seduction not fine art; the two are incongruent and incompatible--fine art is

purposive while pornography is purposeful; it is a difference between the

unintentional discovery of an outcome and predicting it. Ironically,

however, it is not pornographers who so often deem such images art but

unfortunately a confused public --Sex would not sell if people did not buy it

(oops!, soap box again, sorry, actually I am not)

 

Your comments are welcomed;

 

Tim

 

(I will be glad when the straighten out the HTML formating on this site)

 

 

 

"Not enough Christians viewpoints in the forums."

 

That's because management only believes in secularism.

"Not enough Christians viewpoints in the forums"

 

Kevin-- That's because "Christianity" belongs in a Christianity forum.

I notice you don't complain about a lack of a Catholic view, or Jewish view, or *gasp* a Budhist view. What is it with the "Christian" egocentricity?

 

Church has nothing to do with photography as such. That discussion is for church, or your "book" club, not for a bunch of people who want to talk cameras, not philosophy.

 

Why is it the ritcheous are so obsessed with vice and other peoples "exposure" (he he) to it? Why is it wrong to smile at a pair of boobs? Jeesh. With so much "evil" in the world... go feed a starving child or something and leave this petty crap alone.

 

And Tim, seriously-- Kant in a photo.net forum, lol? The whole discussion is so beat to death it's insane it carries on here. Change the channel or don't, but nobodys changing their mind.

Actually A. T., my comments are quite appropriate if you understand Kant as an objective resource and fine art (which includes photography) as a subjective cultural manifestation embellished with all the trappings and confused baggage

Actually A. T., my comments are quite appropriate if you understand Kant as an objective resource and fine art (which includes photography) as a subjective cultural manifestation embellished with all the trappings and confused baggage.

There aren't enough viewpoints from scientologists here! This site needs an audit. Who's paying attention to the operating thetan?

Thanks, I had a rough day and I needed a good laugh. You've got some nice photos, I suggest you stick with that and don't worry about what gets people off.

That was brief?

There will always be a group of people that believe what you call pornography is not, and within that group a subgroup that don't think anything else besides that example is art. Let alone what a fundamentalist in a third world country might deem pornography. Relativism everywhere you look ;) In order to make anything stick you'll wind up qualifying it.

 

Art is just too fluid a word to use as a lever for an attack on pornography. I think that trying to sublimate that line from aesthetic theory you'll wind up with an excercise in rhetoric that convinces few here. But I'd read what you write.

Very wise words from Michael. I'd add that a slew of words doesn't alter the fundamental truth that there are no fundamental truths, except, perhaps, gravity and some physicists can't even agree about that. Pornography is in the eye of the beholder and, if I were daft enough to believe in a god, I'd thank him for that.

There was a time (1930s) when Hollywood was ruled by the blue-nose Hays office, and a couple could only be shown in the same bed if each of them had one foot on the floor. Pornography is, indeed, in the eye of the beholder. I should point out that a lot more wars have been fought and people killed over religion than over pornography.

Art? Politics? Porn?

 

In this day and age of Secularism, it's become vogue to eliminate the inconvenience of a moral compass. That being written, sans a moral canon or compass, there's no right and wrong and sans a right or wrong, the intentionally restrictive inconvenience of morality, there's only: "What value do you align yourself with?" As in:

 

"I have no problem with porn, it's you who has issues man."

 

The question morphs into, "What have you done to be the power promoting your values, whether it be in art, politics or porn?"

 

Welcome to Saddam's world of dictatorial culturalism where only the Secularist is allowed to run for office. So if you wish to understand where you have arrived as you ask questions about photographic pornography and philosophy, when it comes to porn and the statement:

 

"Not enough Christians viewpoints in the forums."

 

Welcome to Sodom and Gomorrah:)

Fewer words would suffice. The OP seems to be saying that a photograph that serves only to titillate is not fine art. Correct?

"In this day and age of Secularism,"

 

Actually I would say that in this day and age overt religious doctrine is very much alive and probably stronger than it has been in the last 50 years.

Welcome, Timothy.

 

I do think your division between the aesthetic and the sensual is awfully

strict. I would compare it to a high-contrast photograph. You might be pushing the levels

so high as to miss some of the shades of gray. For instance, the nudes of Jock Sturgis or

David Hamilton are both aesthetically beautiful and sensual. I think the same could be said

of most of the nudes in the canon of Western art. Titian was a great painter who also

produced sensuous nudes. Are we really to ban any work capable of arousal from being

called art?

 

 

You characterize pornography as

appealing only to the sensual. My bet is that you do not look at a lot of porn (correct me if

I am

wrong) and lack familiarity with the material you are criticizing. Pornography is not always

about stirring the loins. It is capable of iconoclastic humor and satire. The writings of the

Marquis de Sade, while graphic, were principally a satire of Rousseau and his rosy picture

of nature. They are for the most part not very arousing, even though they are as graphic as

pornography can be. The mere representation of sex is not in and of itself arousing.

Conversely, there are picture which do arouse and are not at all graphic. Men can become

aroused looking at pictures of fully clothed women. This is not porn. To equate porn with

arousal is a mistake, just as to equate all that is not porn with non-arousal is a mistake.

The neat divisions you are making are not so easily born out through experience.

 

An example of pornography closer to home with which you most certainly ARE familiar

(since you

commented on them) would be the photographs of our own Ms. Sylvie Lueders. Though

they must be considered pornographic, I do not think the principle aim in most of the

photographs of Ms. Lueders is to arouse the viewer. Usually, her pictures are wry political

commentary, social satire, absurd humor or caricatures. She is essentially a cartoonist. The

eroticism in her photographs is generally undercut by irony. She is making comments

about life. The pictures are not meant nor presented in such a way as to be taken literallly.

Are they pornographic? Most certainly. Are they intended to arouse? I do not think this

their principle aim. Ms. Lueders does produce some photographs that are hot. However,

today I want to limit myself to stressing that porn is not always about the hot. At another

point I want to talk about whether hot is art.

 

I am going to stop here and allow others to comment. This is a huge area. I am glad you

have posted this thread, Timothy. Pornography should be discussed on pnet. I do not

understand why my fellow liberals are so very loath to talk about it. The nudes category

gets ten times the traffic any other category gets. It is a source of controversy. The only

photographs that are censored here are the pornographic. Those here that ridicule your

posting should do more than laugh. They should come up with arguments.

Well, I guess I should have expected a morality versus anti-morality platform and that is OK but such positions are introverted, perverted, private, personal and at best, subjective --contributing little to the understanding; in fact, you already know the issues that restrict pornographic materials and their sale on legal grounds; and you have knowledge of extreme perversions from kitty porn to bestiality (and more that I would not even think about let alone write here) all couched under freedom of speech and sorry A. T., it all started with a smile at a pair of boobs.

 

Understand this, to avoid circuitous arguments and useless bantering back and forth which you have the right to do and have begun to show here, you may try seeing the issues outside of your own closet perversions assuming you like porn; my statement does not enlist morality or the lack there of for a ground. Now, if we look at the origins of pornography as phenomena, we can then ask the question, which came first, art or pornography? Careful, the answer may not be as simple as it appears. ( and Kevin, your points are well received; I will attempt to address the issues you broached later. Today, however, is put my front porch back together day so that I may again enter my front door day.)

 

Take care everyone,

 

Tim

That was an interesting post, Kevin. If Sylvie's work is intended as satire, then satire it must be. On the other hand, if the viewer sees it as pornography, then pornography it is. T'is a good example of the artist proposing but the viewer disposing.

"Actually I would say that in this day and age overt religious doctrine is very much alive and probably stronger than it has been in the last 50 years."

 

A valid point to consider indeed but to me, these words don't ring true around here being the point. And they surely don't ring true for the politics surrounding San Francisco, the local courts and the governing bodies of the South Bay Area.

 

Mention God around these here parts of the hundred acre woods and the politicos will quite literally cut your mic and eject you from the meeting hall. Not trying to be argumentative but to me, that's neither being strong or alive.

 

Being strong or alive to me, is being able to bring your faith where ever it is you choose to go, without fear of having your mic cut.

 

My photographic efforts are guided or even dictated by my religious beliefs but one can't allow religious Canon to interfer with their understanding of the whole enchilada. To me, nobody can understand life's realities if interpreted by a hardline fanciful (idealogue) set of rules.

"Being strong or alive to me, is being able to bring your faith where ever it is you choose to go, without fear of having your mic cut."

 

Perhaps that's because bringing faith into the mix usually means passing moral judgement and often in a very aggressive and frightening way. Having a personal moral opinion is one thing but when it's done through the threats of an imaginary entity it gets kind of freaky.

<i>In this day and age of Secularism, it's become vogue to eliminate the inconvenience of a moral compass. That being written, sans a moral canon or compass, there's no right and wrong and sans a right or wrong, the intentionally restrictive inconvenience of morality, there's only: "What value do you align yourself with?"</i><P>

That's hardly a trait exclusive to secularism; if anything, it's even more profound among the religious. How many have been piously slaughtered by keepers and protectors of "the faith" (whichever one it might be)?

"In this day and age of Secularism, it's become vogue to eliminate the inconvenience of a moral compass."

 

I've always found the notion that morality is only acheived through the acceptance and writings of a 'god' to be utter nonsense with absolutely no basis in reality. Being in science many of the people I've come to know are aetheists yet they exhibit the very same morals that religious folk do. On the other hand, religious people don't appear to have a great track record of sticking to their morals. They kill, cheat, lie, molest, steal, and covet just much as anyone else in the world.

"How many have been piously slaughtered by keepers and protectors of "the faith" (whichever one it might be)?"

 

How many dictators can dance on the head of a pin? It's helpful to maintain historical context and one must eliminate the past in conversation (get over it for these are all transgressions of the distant past not recent past) and speak (write) in contemporary terms as nobody I know of encourages the atrocities or validates the Christian religious past in contemporary times as it was all a stupid egocentric power struggle on "everybody's" part; Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Spartans, Huns, Ancient Chinese Royalty at their death, Ottoman, Turks, Mayans, North American Aborigines, Hawaiian Islanders ect., ect., ect. No one group was innocent or peaceful as again, everybody was doing it. History is a terrible thing to waste .

 

If you don't get over it or move forward into the present then this breaks down into a childish finger pointing game. Shall we make note of noted contemporary secularists in these here contemporary times? Let's see, who comes to mind, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, Saddam, Kim ll-Sung and Kim Jong-il , Darfur, Somalia, Tusi's/Hitsu's, Gang of Four just for contemporary starters and the Pope, (whom I don't support), ain't doing or encouraging any of this sort of behavior.

 

My point, I think "valid" references, so as to maintain historical context, needs to stay in the present, not dredging up the past from a millenium or two ago.

"I've always found the notion that morality is only acheived through the acceptance and writings of a 'god' to be utter nonsense with absolutely no basis in reality. Being in science many of the people I've come to know are aetheists yet they exhibit the very same morals that religious folk do."

 

That's like saying one doesn't need benfit of unions cause the unions values have been codified into law.

 

Law; the codification of ethics and morality. If murder hadn't be codified, it'd be happening in mass qualities, much more so then it is now. Nobody has a lock of morals. And aetheists didn't come up with these can't we get along rules as they're a product of Judeo/Christian principals. Step outside of law and it's unarguably social anarchy. Which is fine as that's the way it is. I'm just making note of it's genesis. No condemnation, or value judgement.

"...mass qualities,..."

 

Aaaaah, that's "mass quanities" as opposed to qualities. Doh!

"In this day and age of Secularism, it's become vogue to eliminate the inconvenience of a moral compass."

 

You must live in a Blue state. My favorite example of moral compassing is the struggle over Route 666, which the religious lobbied to have changed because...you know...

 

So, it is officially (IIRC) Route 491. But many locals objected to the change for several reasons (not the least being the absence of the tourists who used to wander down from the Interstate just to drive 666 therefore lowering the locals sales of this and that). Many handdrawn signs Route 666 appeared. Many Route 491 signs were stolen. All the old Route 666 signs were stolen as soon as the change was made known. Now alongside the 491s are official Old Route 666 signs.

 

And to get closer to being on-topic, can anyone explain why on I70 crossing Missouri all the porno shops (as well as fireworks shops) are in the bible belt part of the route?

 

Well, that's the fun side of religion.

 

As for the serious side of moral compassing, don't you worry about that! It may take another generation or two to turn nice common everyday Americans into pig ignorant fanatics eager to sign on to a crusade against the infidels -- whoever they might be. As the recruiters will tell you, the process is not very advanced yet.

 

--

 

Don E