A BRIEF ARGUMENT AGAINST PORN AS FINE ART

"You must live in a Blue state."

 

San Francisco is a "Blue state?" What are the chances? :)

 

 

"My favorite example of moral compassing is the struggle over Route 666,..."

 

I started chuckling the moment I read 666. LOL.

 

"which the religious lobbied to have changed because...you know..."

 

Yepper's, all happened because we named that road 666. They should have known and now look what's happened. Hell in a hand basket I tell ya. LOL

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

That's too much. Hollyweird couldn't write a script to match that battle.

 

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

 

"Well, that's the fun side of religion."

 

Look at all I'm missing out by only seeing the "Blue" side of the coin:) Jesus would hide his head in shame..... but that's another story.

 

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

 

"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."

 

Goes to show what-cha missin when you don't live in the Bible belt.

 

Thanks for the insight:)

To me the reason why religion muddies the waters of these sort of conversations is what is in reality discussed is traditions, or its effects. Its very rarely metaphysics, both because doctrine often prescribes rigid ideas about it, and because party politics (its leaders) have drawn imaginary lines in the sand that it is hard not to have strong feelings about a block of issues. It doesn't mean I don't enjoy the lessons of Christ, the Buddha, or the Bhagavad Gita (etc) - its just that I come here for all of your views, I can read theirs more directly. But thats a tangent maybe for another thead =)

 

As for what came first, art or pornography, art did I believe. Per wikipedia (I know, not exactly a primary source), in the western world the idea and treatment of pornography came about in the Victorian era when the Roman art of Pompeii was excavated. I'm quite sure there were other spots in history many times over many hundreds of years before where leaders deemed this or that unacceptable, but surely the idea of art came first when using pornography applied to art. Someone had to see something inappropriate to deem it to be so would be my line of reasoning.

 

Cheers.

The current major religions are fairly recent, striding onto the world stage between, roughly 500BCE-600CE. An exception is the Hindu religion which is at least 1000 years older (interestingly, Hindu religious art tends to be far more sensual and rich than the newer religions'). The older and now vanished religions, such as those of ancient Middle East, art was often pornographic if current mores are applied to it. Prostitution was a religious institution, as well. There are carvings, bas relief I think, showing a city boss and a priestess copulating in a temple. These may have been public rites. I've seen photos of a sculpted piece, from I think 6000BCE or so, which is both male genitals and the female form at once. Sex was obviously a big positive deal for those ancients, just as it is a big negative deal in the religions that replaced them.

 

The Roman examples mentioned, aren't they all associated with whorehouses? It is definitely secular stuff. An objection can be made against the Roman origin or source in that the Ancient Greeks had pornography, not unknown to European gentlemen. Maybe the Greek stuff is too humorous and amusing, unlike the forthright Roman kind, for it to be useful except aesthetically.

 

--

 

Don E

Heather M:<i>There aren't enough viewpoints from scientologists here! This site needs an audit. Who's paying attention to the operating thetan?</i><p>And let's hear from some bi-coastal Thespian Wiccans!

Well, sex IS a negative. It is a big problem for us. It is especially a problem for women. It can

lead to unwanted pregnancy. Women get diseases more easily. Women can be raped if they

are not cautious. If a woman got pregnant before one hundred years ago, there was a good

chance she could either die in childbirth, or be permanently injured. And from a woman's

point of view, men tend to be bad in bed.

This is friggin' 21st century, people, and we are still talking

religion, moral judgment, etc? What the F-up world...

 

<p><i>seduction to the level of preoccupation with a self-fulfilled

gratification that merely excites the loins.</i></p>

 

<p>If the original poster bothered to do some research, he would

have discovered that sexuality is as Central-Nervous-System-based as

anything else we perceive.</p>

"Well, sex IS a negative. It is a big problem for us."

 

Mortality is a big problem for us. Thus: sex and religion, pornography and art.

 

 

--

 

Don E

"This is friggin' 21st century, people, and we are still talking religion, moral judgment, etc? What the F-up world..."

 

I know, it's astonishing that the 21st century is starting the same as the 11th with the GD Christians and the GD Muslims squaring off for the big one.

"know, it's astonishing that the 21st century is starting the same as the 11th with the GD Christians and the GD Muslims squaring off for the big one."

 

That may be, Andy, but we may be blindsided, instead, by an all out war between Hindus and Muslims, the oldest and the newest of the major religions. Christians, Jews, Muslims fight each other because they are so similar only different 8-), but Hinduism and Islam might as well be from different galaxies. That might not be a problem if they were separated by the Pacific Ocean (or intergalactic space), but they are all together in a bunch, and both have large populations which have not quite made it to the 19th, much less the 21st century.

 

 

--

 

Don E

Timothy ,

 

You might want to read this --http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/

o79e/

part42.html -- it is George Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language" -- before

posting

another philosophical tract. Particularly pay attention to the parts about "operators" and

"pretentious diction".

 

One last note: The last time I checked pornography usually had more to do with sexual

arousal in the viewer or reader as a stimuli for masturbation than as a tool for seduction

of

a potential sexual partner.

"I know, it's astonishing that the 21st century is starting the same as the 11th with the GD Christians and the GD Muslims squaring off for the big one."

 

Yeah! But this time, they started it. (said in a childish whine) LOL

 

"The Eastern world, it is exploding."

 

"Violence flaring, bullets loadin..."

 

"Eve of Distruction" Barry McGuire

 

http://artists.letssingit.com/barry-mcguire-eve-of-destruction-s1m88lj

 

Sadly, somethings never change.

You know, there were divisions in the Muslim world during the Middle Ages, just as there

were divisions in the Christian. It was not as simple as Muslims against Christians. There

were alliances of Muslims and Christians against other similar alliances. The same is true

today. Musharif and the Pakistani middle-class are Muslims and pro-American. So is the

Saudi royal family and those that side with them. So are Mubarek and his friends. The young

urbanites in Iran like the Americans to an extent, yet are Muslims. The French and the Soviets

backed Saddam, the Americans and British are somewhat friendly with the Shiites in Iraq.

There are divisions in both worlds which can and are exploited. It is not so simple as a

religious war.

As a simple Christian I would see the purpose of pornography as 1. to lower the common demominator 2. to weaken the spirit 3. to stop the thought process. Each piece stands on its own merit. We've all seen plenty of porn that had no nudity or sexuality at all. Even a mass murderer will kick a pedophile's butt just for thinking out loud. Many things have no value whatsoever until we decide they do, ie., money, nudes, sport, Paris Hilton.

 

One of the great draws of sports, is that, in and of itself, sport is sinless. Regardless of any beliefs, or no beliefs of the viewer or participant.

"Sex is a negative." !?!?!?!???? Are you kidding? That was the philosophy of the Shaker religion......yep, sure are a lot of Shakers around these days....

 

Masturbation "weakens the spirit" and "stops the thought process." Trust me, the spirit and thought processes are working just fine...

 

Religion and morality? A friend used to be in charge of stocking movie rentals in the local hotels. He used to double the porn offerings whenever there was a major religious conference because it was a big money maker.

 

And porn is never made with the intention of being fine art, to answer the original question, it is made to entertain, stimulate, arouse...and I am just fine with that.....

 

I forget who said it, but "with the guts of the last king, let's strangle the last priest..."

Porn has no innocence. That is its inherent saddness. Without making a value judgement, only an observation, that perspective can be art.

Oooooonward Christian soldiers...

 

It's been bugging me so I'd like to pick a bone with Timothy Hicks, so to speak.

 

He said:

 

"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."

 

Am I correct in thinking that Timothy is saying, in the heat of of the moment, that smiling at boobs leads to kitty porn (?) and bestiality?

 

If you use such watertight logic, Timothy, how can I argue back! Go find me a kitty! A Garfield look alike if you please.

 

Or perhaps that kind of argument is similar to saying that being a Catholic priest leads to sex abuse? What do you reckon, Timothy?

"Or perhaps that kind of argument is similar to saying that being a Catholic priest leads to sex abuse?"

 

All and all considering, would you trust your young ten year old son with a Catholic priest? As a Christian, I know I wouldn't. But then again, as a Christian, I wouldn't encourage my son to go into "any" organized religious center. Does that help?

Why? Cause they all goofy.

One of the curiosities of contemporary christianity, at least in the US, is its atomization, where there is no church -- or at least no material church.

 

--

 

Don E

Well, Tim B., I guess I was picking on A. T. a little but porn like any addiction raises its ugly face in the form of excessive perverted appetites. Notwithstanding, as if anyone noticed, my original argument is against porn as fine art; for example the published photographs of Robert Mapplethorpe that caused an uproar with clergy, government and public officials; The National Endowment for the Arts lost funding and had to lay off a number of its staff administrators; and along with The National Endowment for the Humanities under went stringent scrutiny due to the overt obscenity and perverted sex acts depicted in the photographic art of Robert Mapplethorpe (and I not talking about his floral photography). Objections to the sadomasochistic homoerotic acts prompted officials at the Corcoran Gallery to cancel the show two weeks before the scheduled opening (I could go on with the ramifications of this historic exhibition but it is not necessary, just go to Google and type in the words Robert Mapplethorpe).

 

As ambiguous and ephemeral the word art continues to be, there exists clear cultural boundaries protesting what art is not, thanks albeit negatively somewhat to Robert Mapplethorpe. Public and government funding of the arts has returned but private galleries are free to feature shocking erotic and disturbingly offensive imagery. I know--no look, no see--but the boundaries continue to be pushed starting with the medium (dial-up, broadband etc.) the makes this forum is possible.

Very funny Thomas, where we be without your humor;

 

Tim

I take it you don't like homersexuals, Timothy Hicks?

 

So your argument, minus the clever words you read in some book, boils down to this:

 

1. Porn cannot be fine art.

2. Image X is porn therefore it's not fine art.

 

Flawless!!!! You should be a judge.

 

But getting back to another clever thing you said - you mentioned the addictive power of pornography.

 

To put it bluntly, prove it, don't expect others to agree with assumptions you read in Watchtower. And I agree that some people are addicted to pornogaphy. But that's because it's logical to say that some people are addicted to [anything under the sun]. but because there are insane people out there who read Ecclesiastes over and over night after night, I do not claim that the Bible is dangerous and addictive.

 

So, Timothy Hicks, kitty porn man, back up your assumptions.

<i>but porn like any addiction raises its ugly face in the form of excessive perverted appetites.</i><p>

 

It is not an addiction. Let's get it straight. Addiction entails physical consequences of withdrawl of the object/substance.

<p>

What of the compulsion to object to so-called porno in a most vociferous manner? You know, fewer words would suffice. Embellishing an argument with so many words when few are adequate might indicate obfuscation, insincerity.<p>

If one couples religion with sex, then how does that reflect upon either? It is just humankinds way of making more humans. Advertising is just humankinds way of perpetuating an economy to support humans. Food is similarly essential. So is shelter. So, is advertising, food, shelter coupled with religion?<p>

Note again the ten commandments. They seem dominated by claims of the author's authority, then move on to property rights.<p>

The best argument against pornography I can think of -- meaning photographed porn -- is that it is rarely if ever funny. Why is that? Drawn porn can be funny, and text porn is perhaps the essence of funny. But not photos.

 

"Ladies and gentlemen, a little recitation entitled 'she was only a gravediggers daughter but she loved lying under the sod'" -- Look Back in Anger.

 

 

--

 

Don E

Timothy Hicks

 

"As ambiguous and ephemeral the word art continues to be, there exists clear cultural boundaries protesting what art is not, thanks albeit negatively somewhat to Robert Mapplethorpe."

 

A bit of artistic history below.

 

To understand this acceptance of "porn as art" and the great divide that has developed, one has to go back to about 1824 (Moderns Vs Romaticism)(Delacroix/Ingles) in artistic political history and the overt split which developed. Secular Humanists (Progressives) rejected religion (Judeo/Christian ideals), and the supernatural emphasizing a person's capacity for self-realization (egocentricity) through reason, all being based upon pre-Christ's, classical ideals; the Ancients.

 

This split was heightened or Canonized in the 1920's by the leadership of Andre Breton, founder of Surrealism. From this time point, the Secular Progressives (Humanists) have literally taken over the power structures of "the institutions" of higher learning (90%) and morally it's been downhill ever since as they push any Judeo/Christian moral value judgements as far out of their purvey as possible. "Don't fence me in." (History is a terrible thing to waste.)

 

It's a battle of moral cultures, which has turned into a "game" of;

 

"There is no right or wrong as there's only what works for you and me and if you don't like it, then it's you who has issues, not me and you need to get over it."

 

No Canon, no values, no moral judgement. Only through laws passed by flawed thinking, administered to by Progressive judges, will there be a Canon of moral judgement. One only needs to look as far as the debate over teachers having sex with students and the sexual content of primetime television programming to see how far down the slippery public slope of immorality (acceptability) this battle for the hearts and minds of society at large has gone. Seems pretty self-serving and easy to understand:)

 

That being said, since rewards are received in Heaven, it don't matter what Progressives (Secularists) think, say or do in their institutions of intolerance. If one wants a degree, get one, if not, don't and the same applies to art. If some "wack job" wants to pile crap in a bottle (hopefully with a cork) and call it art, cool; same for porn. And if some curator wants to hold this bottle of crap up (or porn) as a "fine" example of what free thinking thought is capable of producing then more power to the decadency of the community that supports this mentally desperate cry for help. And if some even crazier person wants to hand either the museum or the "artist" a million bucks for this mind freeing effort, cool as nobody cares if "you or I" go into the museum cause all's lost, so it don't matter:)

 

Hope the above is found insightful.

 

Peace out brother, see you in Heaven:)