A BRIEF ARGUMENT AGAINST PORN AS FINE ART

Thomas, here's what you wrote. Ironically, it's something you didn't address in your flash rebuttles.

 

>>And aetheists didn't come up with these can't we get along rules as they're a product of Judeo/Christian principals.<<

 

What you've written is a distortion; much of what gets subsumed under 'Judea/Christian whatever' is actually neo platonism. AND although the debate rages (did they or did they not really believe in gods or was it just an early folk psychology), they knew nothing of "The triple scoop" and of course, Jesus came later. I'm thinking that makes them athiests in your book regardless of the quality of their belief.

 

I believe the other citations address Tim, the person who originated this thread. Sorry for including your idea with his.

Tom Keys: "Arguments have premises, supporting premises and conclusions."

 

Thomas Gardner: >>Only if you're taking a test. This is a forum of like minded individuals, here for entertainment purposes, not a philosophy course:) <<

 

I was using the meaning that Tim had used in opening this thread. Argument in this sense does indeed have the essentials mentioned. They needn't be listed in logical order, we rarely talk that way, but we do imply our premises when they aren't made explicit. If not, we simply don't have an argument in this sense. This understanding of argument is found across all diciplines, in fact it lies at the source of any academic discipline. Even the Bible contains argument in this sense.

 

 

>>I posted names, years and movements, I'd say that's more than most.<<

 

Yes, I read that. Pretty funny stuff. Now had that reflected anything more than the debth of your scratching or your obliviousness to better (read: more rigerous) explanations, I'd have jumped right on it.

 

By the way, this is the philosophy of photography forum. You're welcome.

>>"And although the imagination can play with the pornographic image, such play is irrefutably carnal, lascivious, and a direct assault even on the flesh."<<

 

This was a citation supporting my contention that the author was attempting to present an argument without supporting (giving sound reasons for) it. It's called assertion and as a way of arguing it is known as a logical fallacy (not that there's anything wrong with that).

 

:-)

 

The idea here is to present ideas and to discuss them. That you didn't write this is a matter of record, but then so is your non response to it.

 

:-)

"Morally its been downhill ever since."

 

"Downhill from what? Just when and where was this moral culture and society we have declined from? What are you comparing us to, to our disadvantage?"

 

You wrote my question was rhetorical and you couldn't answer it. Yet, you do have the answer and you wrote it right before the word "Morally..."

 

You wrote: "To understand this acceptance of "porn as art" and the great divide that has developed, one has to go back to about 1824..."

 

And: "This split was heightened or Canonized in the 1920's by the leadership of Andre Breton, founder of Surrealism. From this time point..."

 

And I responded: "Iow, a few dozen people. I'm reminded of Sam Moskowitz's "The Immortal Storm", the history of sf fandom in its first decade. All the power struggles, stories, manifestos, feuds, publications...sometimes it is difficult to keep in mind it was about some teens in the Bronx."

 

And from Delacroix to Breton, it was just about some artists in Paris.

 

"Downhill from what? Just when and where was this moral culture and society we have declined from? What are you comparing us to, to our disadvantage?"

 

There were any number of reasons for artists to assume the occupation of offending the bourgeois. I mentioned a major reason in the original response.

 

You are claiming, it seems, that these artists overthrew western civilization. A lot of critics rather blame Marx and Freud, which is not true either, but for a moment, at least, it may seem plausible.

 

What corresponds to your timeframe is the establishment of capitalism and republicanism on the European continent.

 

Prior to that, the west was dominated by absolute monarchies and economies run by state monopolies. So were the arts. And this is the era you compare to ours to our disadvantage, morally, culturally and socially.

 

Besides Opus Dei and whatever feudal relics might still be around, who could agree with this?

 

--

 

Don E

"What you've written is a distortion;..."

 

No distortion, but you're welcome to reflect upon what I wrote in any manner you wish. Calling something a distortion is an easy way to blow it off.

"You are claiming, it seems, that these artists overthrew western civilization."

 

Not overthrew (bloodless coup maybe) but had a huge, altering influence and this coup holds sway this very day and influence continues to get stronger.

 

My references are to art, so my context is art, not Western civilization but you'd be surprised how much influence these people have had over Western civilization and how much their influence affects what's happening day-to-day. One needs look no further then the local university to see the "overwhelming" influence and this influence is felt daily through out Europe.

 

People have so little understanding but it's okay as that's why I say it's not important to make anybody see as in the end, we all die and that's the ball we're supposed to have our eyes on. Fifty years from now, few who grace this forum, should it survive fifty more years (and I'm not suggeting it won't) will still be with us, it's called perspective.

 

If it helps, I'm not going try to convince you of anything as I was trying to share with another poster to help him understand. I posted what I had to say, cited names, dates and movements. Take some time to Google what I wrote so as to better understand the brevity of what I shared. Open your eyes, don't open your eyes, it's your free choice. It's really so easy.

 

Franz Marc, we miss you.

 

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/M/marc.html

 

His life was cut short, he had so little time, yet the impact of his efforts, unbeknownst to those today who without their knowledge are influenced by his cut short efforts.

 

Allow me to suggest reading on Breton and how he impacted the art world as well as academia who affects directly, the whole of the world. The Berlin, Paris, NYC, Mexico City connection was incredible in how it sucessfully influenced (shaped) not only art philosophy but the entire Western political system in the process.

 

It truly is amazing. When you take time to learn about "the politics" of art from the Renaissance to contemporary times I suspect that you'll be equally amazed. It's all in the politics.

 

There's a culture war going on in the US and there has been a war going on back to Breton and to a lessor degree, back to the turn of the century and started, quite unintentionally by the Dadaists. The question isn't if this war is going on and the question isn't a case of right or wrong, good or bad but without knowing it, it does require one choosing sides and the deciding which group one wishes to align themselves with.

 

Some know and understand and others don't have a clue but everybody is a participant and mostly in ignorance, has already chosen sides.

 

Tain't no thang.

 

Hope the above helps.

Finally Kevin, I can get back to you; thanks for your patience.

 

There is little evidence that Titian intended his paintings---allegorical, religious themes or otherwise---for sensual arousal. If one can not appreciate painterly craft, composition or the thematic nature of a time honored painters work purely for its contribution to painting as craft, then the question of maturation comes into play. Prerequisite to appreciating contributions by such painters as Titian, Da Vinci, and Diego Velằuez, it would help if viewers had a mature understanding of fifteenth century painting as craft first, and thematically perhaps second and so on (at the risk of sounding prescriptive). Suffice it to say, if you are in fact aroused by a Titian nude, you are not contemplating the paintings composition, theme and mode of expression.

 

The division that you speak of is not necessarily between the aesthetic and the sensual but one that seeks to expose the difference between the SENSUOUS and the sensual; sensual may be defined as follows:

 

1. [adj] sexually exciting or gratifying; "sensual excesses"; "a sultry look"; "a sultry dance"

2. [adj] of the appetites and passions of the body; "animal instincts"; "carnal knowledge"; "fleshly desire"; "a sensual delight in eating"; "music is the only sensual pleasure without vice."

 

Cultural or public toleration of sensual/sexual themes is nothing new. Evidence of explicit or graphic images existed in ancient cultures all over the world (most notably Pompeii and Herculaneum where excavations revealed erotic art and frescos with pornographic inscriptions, even household items with sexual themes. It is possible that the sexual mores of the ancient cultures in some ways exceeded todays liberal views and tolerance for erotic imagery).

Chinese Pillow Books are explicitly illustrated guides carefully copied from original scrolls written and illustrated for the erotic education of Chinese nobles thousands of years ago. But the notion of the sensual carries much baggage and should in no way be construed to be connected with aesthetic contemplation, imagination and appreciation or artistic genius.

 

If I understand you Kevin, it appears you are attempting to argue the merits of arousal on aesthetic grounds; you sight Marquis de Sade

(a person so sadistic the term sadism was coined after him) and Ms. Sylvie Lueders who I commented wastes her photographic talents on cheap thrills; Sylvie presents a interesting perspective even in her erotic fantasies; just think of what she could do with varied contemplative themes about life and its manifold meanings.

 

While it is clear that you have developed a grand fondness for porn, porn themes, explicit writings, and erotic imagery, I am baffled that you fail to see that one of the principle roles of pornography is sexual arousal.

 

Try this on for size: if I take away all of your pornographic movies, magazines, erotic novels and so on, what would you do with your life?

 

Or this, can you look at a Titian nude without lusting? (Sorry if I appear to be making an example here but you so vividly make my argument.)

 

The intent of the artist has very, very little to do with your predisposition (sensual appetites and the like). It is your right to delight in the procurement of a taste for pornographic imagery but beware that the manifest baggage you carry with you to the Metropolitan, Modern and Guggenheim museums will cloud the existence of the merely sensuous nude---the sensuous joy of all things fair . . .

TOM

 

I love your landscapes; clean, clear, natural; unambiguous, almost spiritual even, refreshing, contemplative.

 

Now for the charge of committing a logical fallacy: a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument. Is my argument flawed? I doubt it could be more comprehensive though (too much writing); have I been bad and committed a logical fallacy--- bad yes, fallacy no.

 

That the imagination can play with pornographic images is a reference not only to Kants statement but to the possibility that while porn may in fact engage the imagination, it is purposeful engagement---intended explicitly for sexual arousal only (and I stated this); where as, a comedy or drama engages the imagination in a contrived, contemplative manner; i. e. with the intent of holding the viewers attention to the extent the viewer loses contact with reality at momentary intervals or even becomes totally immersed in the unreality of the entertainment.

 

There are no plots, subplots or themes in pornography; erotic fantasies try but everyone knows the objective irony is an affair.

 

It is interesting that you mentioned the logical fallacy because my argument exposes the notion of an the intentional fallacy (from a philosophical essay by W.K. Wimsette and Monroe C Beardsley)---The Intentional Fallacy" (1946 rev. 1954): The design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art (quoted). Although I did not mentioned the intentional fallacy, it is essential to understanding the value of authorial intention as the difference (or gap) between art and pornography; a difference relevant only to art and not pornography.

 

So thanks Tom for arresting me.

 

Tim

"Allow me to suggest reading on Breton and how he impacted the art world as well as academia who affects directly, the whole of the world."

...

 

"Some know and understand and others don't have a clue but everybody is a participant and mostly in ignorance, has already chosen sides."

 

-- Thomas

 

Well, shut my mouth and call me Andre! That's the finest summation of the ideology of goffy art students I have ever come across.

 

Have to admit I never once in my life thought the art biz was the protagonist in world events.

 

Well, I guess I don't have a clue, as you say. I know I'm not one of the Elect. Gno Gnosis for me.

 

--

 

Don E

<i>Have to admit I never once in my life thought the art biz was the protagonist in world events.</i><P>

What rock have you been living under? Everyone knows that the Post-Modernist Art Junta recently took over third spot in influence of world events from the Men in Black, and it lags behind only the Knights Templar and the Jewish Banking Conspiracy.

As the paraphrased saying goes:

 

Laugh if you will but the facts are there for everybody to ignore:)

How can one insert porn into the category of fine art when the definition of fine art isn't even defined?

 

Is industrial design art? How about Raymond Loewy?

Is architecture art? How about Frank Lloyd Wright?

Is landscaping art? How about Frederick Law Olmsted?

 

Personally, I view porn as being created for consumption whereas art is created for aesthetics and, therefore, porn is just extreme pop-culture; consume it and forget about it. It's value is right up there with Britney Spears's music, Reality TV, and anything else designed to get you into buy-use-discard-buy cycle.

Just to clarify any misconception that some might be developing; my "observations," as to the impact of art and acedemia on the general moral development of Western society at large, are just "

factual" observations, not condemnations as in real terms, when the telly and computer are turned off at night, none of it impacts my sleep. The only time it impacts my life, if you can call it that, is when I, out of habit, turn the telly or computer back on in the morning.

 

It's quite interesting when you think of it..... turn the telly on, impact, turn the telly off, no impact. Education, impact, no education, bliss. Hang out with the Mullahs and the Preachers, (influence) impact, stay away from nut cases of moral authority..... hmmmmmm:)

 

The point of my above:

 

If some dude wants to pretend (ignore facts that are in their face) as to what porn is about then that's their story and they're welcome to it. But if one, out of habit or otherwise, voluntarily turns the telly of porn on in the morning, they're also welcome to ignore the truths behind porn (denial) but one shouldn't get ticked (egocentric) if others don't see things in the same light and aren't willing to let their offspring fall into that same said egocentric driven trap.

 

There's more to the porn industry than just some "dood" taking naked pics of some hot babe voluntarily flashing the camera. Do you want your son or daughter doing porn for general display and consumption?

 

"Yes and here's my daughter doing so-and-so, I'm so proud of her." "Here's my daughter, ten years later after what the porn industry did to her." The stories are many. No judgement, no condemnation, just a question; Do you want your children (is this how you saw your children as they were growing up) making "art" in this manner?

What does wanting or not wanting of your children have to do with categorizing porn and/or art?

 

The fear of an industry is not a logical argument for its placement in the art world.

 

Is the point being made that it isn't fine art becuase it lacks morals (as defined by Judeo/Christian ideals)? Or because it's a bad industry?

"What does wanting or not wanting of your children have to do with categorizing porn and/or art?"

 

Is that ment to be "categorizing porn as art" cause we're not trying to categorize art as art is the overarching aegis of the question, is porn art?

 

And as to your question, my question doesn't have anything to do with it other than it's just an extension question as the OP's question has to do with art and my question begs the question of the legitimacy of an industry being called art and connecting the behavior to the moral debate that reasonably and expectedly has issued.

 

Maybe someone who's associated with the industry, who might feel more comfortable with the question, will be willing to weigh in on the matter of children being raised to be a part of the "art creating" porn industry.

In order for a society to continue on, the individuals who constitute is must have sex and reproduce; they are reproducing themselves and reproducing the society. It isn't necessary (usually) for every individual to have sex and reproduce, but a 'critical mass' of reproduction must occur. The core of a society's mores* is to optimize the process, while suppressing counter trends.

 

Individuals have an absolute need for society, without which they cannot survive. This is especially true for the first 15 years of life. However, humans have subjectivity or consciousness, and create private world-stages made out of language and mental images in which they can imagine being free from the mores of the society and their real circumstances. Much ingenuity is employed to work out this urge to 'free will' within the necessity to conform to the society.

 

Societies will define 'immorality' as that which is counter to its reproduction in the terms and by the means available to it. This is why sex outside of marriage, birth control, abortion, homosexuality, and masturbation (pornography) are often and usually considered immoral. This is why radical thinkers and revolutionaries who attempt to break the bond between society and its individuals are marginalized one way or another. It is also why, if they succeed in breaking a society, create one in the same image -- because, otherwise, the society cannot secure its survival.

 

By this measure the morality of a particular society can be determined by its birthrate and native population growth. Sometimes the population exceeds the capacity of the society to control and employ it. Radicalization may occur then making what was once 'immoral' 'moral' for a time, or at least a turning away from strict enforcement and punishment of the norms.

 

It seems to me pornography can be used to avoid reproduction but also to encourage it. Flooding the media with sexuality could be 'intended' to optimize reproduction; it could also be 'intended' to encourage any sexuality but reproduction. I don't think there is any way to determine which it might be except to look at birthrates and native population growth patterns. I think it is just Mother Nature's Streetsweeper approach to species adaptation.

 

* 1 : the fixed morally binding customs of a particular group

2 : moral attitudes

3 : HABITS, MANNERS

 

--

 

Don E

Kirk made an interesting statement that I'd like to revisit because while accurate I think it a bit incomplete.

 

Kirk stated...Religion is not the basis of morality; morality is the basis of religion. Therefore, morals can exist without religion which follows that one does not need religion to have morals and further, one cannot use the argument that any morals that exist today are a result of religion. Morality is a relative term defined by communities.

 

Though not stated, this is often part of the argument for why we don't need religion at all and would be better off without it. I agree that religion does not define our morals but that does not lead to the conclusion that we don't need religion. If communities define morals how does that definition get conveyed back to the individual members of the community. Historically it has been through religions and more recently augmented by written laws. Those who seek to stamp out religions do so either because 1) they believe laws are sufficient to define our communities' morals or 2) trust each individual to develop their own set of morals or 3) believe that religion has caused so many problems that we couldn't be any worse off so what the heck or 4) really haven't thought through the consequences of a world without any religion or 5) some combination of some or all of these. Unfortunately, I'd guess that most believe #1. I say "unfortunately" because the way they operate today laws tend to treat things as black or white while morals operate in a world of shades of gray. So laws are insufficient as the sole means of capturing the essence of a community?s morals. For example, outlawing racial prejudice will not by itself eliminate racial prejudice. So, for all their problems, until alternatives are identified I'm not quite ready to rid the world of all religions. And I'm an agnostic that hasn't visited a church in 35 years.

 

And regarding Kirk's last statement that morality is a "relative" term defined by communities; that is actually an interesting and hotly contested subject in the scientific community. (If you don't believe in evolution then nothing that follows will matter to you.) Man evolved as a member of a small hunter-gather tribe. For whatever reason we find it relatively easy to accept that our physical characteristics were defined in that process but our mental processes/feelings were left untouched, a blank slate, different from all other animals. To me that's just not realistic. We just aren't that pliable that everything becomes relativistic. So, yes, communities define morals but only within the constraints imposed on us by our evolutionary history. We are not wandering aimlessly in a relativistic world. In other words, I do believe that we have an instinctual sense of right and wrong, i.e., a moral compass. And like any large population distribution, that compass will be stronger in some, weaker in others, and point in a variety of different directions. (One of our bigger problems is that the compass was put in place to help us survive in a world that no longer exists.) So the moral changes over history discussed in this thread then just represent the actions and reactions that keep us centered over our nature. We are neither heading up nor down the moral hill but simply wobbling on our axis. The discussion in this thread is excellent because it shows the opposing views are well in play that keep pulling us back to the middle. I would hate to think what would happen if one side or the other of this discussion was actually vanquished but I trust our human nature enough to believe that can't happen for anything but relatively brief times before the proverbial pendulum swings the other way.

 

And the relevance to this thread? Porn will always exist regardless of how you want to define it. The line between acceptable and unacceptable will always exist even though that line may vary from individual to individual and time to time. Our public systems where we all come together to interact and exchange ideas needs to accomodate those different lines and PN does a poor job of it right now. That is something we could all work to fix rather than debating pornography vs censorship in a place we come primarily to sharpen our photographic skills.

"However, humans have subjectivity or consciousness, and create private world-stages made out of language and mental images in which they can imagine being free from the mores of the society and their real circumstances. Much ingenuity is employed to work out this urge to 'free will' within the necessity to conform to the society."

 

 

Art -- not the aesthetic judgement as to whether something is good or bad art, or "Art" and "not Art" capitalized -- the creative impulse originates in the stresses between the 'addictive' allures of 'free will' and absolute need for society for one's survival with all its 'morality' and restrictions that say "Your free will is imaginary and not important in the big scheme of things".

 

Art is the reproduction of those private world-stages of our subjectivity manifested in the social world with due regard (or not) of the mores of the society. This is true for pornography. It is art.

 

Art that merely affirms the mores of the society is commonly referred to as kitsch, propaganda, genre, banal. This is true as well of art that merely transgresses those mores, and much or most pornography can be so critiqued. There is no tension, no imagination, no evocation of our personal subjectivity. It is tedious. We are not perplexed. We are not challenged. We are not nailed to the contradiction between our 'free will' and our inevitable ties to our society's mores.

 

Compare Titian's Venus of Urbino (linked to above) to Botticelli's Birth of Venus

 

http://www.worth1000.com/web/media/102116/birth%20of%20venus.jpg

 

Both are art. Only one, imo, is great art.

 

--

 

Don E

Don E....I find your comments to be very insightful and thought provoking. I have to admit that when it comes to art and philosophy I'm all too often left with the feeling of "I don't get it." Maybe I'm fooling myself but I'm no longer in the "prime" of my life and I have yet to be seriously conflicted by the tension between the urge for "free will" and the ties to our societies mores. Perhaps that's why I knew long ago that I would never have the makings of an artist, great or otherwise. And yet I persist in taking pictures because it makes me happy.

"We are not perplexed. We are not challenged. We are not nailed to the contradiction between our 'free will' and our inevitable ties to our society's mores."

 

Sounds a bit Postmodern to me:)

 

Disclosure: yes, unintentionally, there's a few mines in my below but rest assure, they're not of my making:)

 

The way I read your above, forgive me if I'm wrong, if you don't find life challenging, you're not in conflict with your environment and you're at peace (as much as one reasonably can be, short of a lobotomy or heroin therapy) with all that's around you, you don't have an artist's soul?

 

I came from a rebelious background, the 60's and fought tooth and nail the establishment. I'm older and wiser and understand the need for that which I rebelled. Up to today, I haven't joined any established organizations in which to commiserate, find seats of power to be centers of abuse for egocentric gain and find greed to be laughably disengenuous at best and abject poverty to be quite the norm. I suspect that one will even find themselves disenchanted with Nirvana should they ever arrive and ask to be sent back to the beginning just so as to have dynamics once again; the sign of an unsettled mind.

 

My soul runs far deeper then the reflections you see on the top of the water it seems that to some, since I no longer see need/value to challenge, I'm not an artist?

 

The mine that I write of, is the one called pushing back and it's the mine of challenging progressive humanists with the way I see things. Isn't that what you write of? Isn't challenging those who challenge you, part of the protest challenge of art? Or is challenging only a one way street -----> :O

 

I'm just trying to understand your above comment as to what it takes to create and what it takes to be considered when in fact, there's no definition (standards) to art.

 

P.S. My guess, you went with Titian's Venus of Urbino (lack of classicism) which, to me, is a precursor to "Olympia" by Manet.

Some Tidbits on Erotic Art History

 

Actually Thomas, Titians--Venus of Urbin--was painted long before Manets Olympia but I would not call it a precursor. In French Romantic painter, Eugene Delacroixs--Liberty Leading the People-- Liberty is depicted as a woman with exposed breast carrying a rifle. The French government bought the painting but deemed its glorification of liberty too inflammatory and removed it from public view. Spanish Romantic painter Francisco Goya was called before the Spanish Inquisition to explain the first of two portraits: The Naked Maja; the second painting was called, The Clothed Maja.

 

Eugene Delacroixs--The Death of Sardanapalus 1827--- a passionate, emotional painting exhibiting strong elements of eroticism, and sadism depicts a besieged Assyrian King Sardanapalus watching impassively as guards carry out his orders to kill his servants, concubines and animals. Edouard Manets--The Luncheon on the Grass--was rejected by the Paris Solon of 1863; the paintings juxtaposition of dressed men with a nude woman was considered scandalous. In 1752, at barely fifteen years of age, Louise O Murphy posed nude for a provocative portrait by French Rococo artist, Fran篩s Boucher. Her beauty is said to have caught the eye of a royal valet who then introduced her to the king, Louis XV, who took her as one of his mistresses (see attached painting samples).

Eugene Delacroix's "Liberty Leading the People," 1830

Eugene Delacroix's "The Death of Sardanapalus," 1827

Manet?s "The Luncheon on the Grass" 1863

François Boucher's "Louise O Murphy" 1752