A BRIEF ARGUMENT AGAINST PORN AS FINE ART

Thomas: "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 think life is challenging for anyone. We are mortal, after all.

 

Don't substitute 'conflict' for 'contradiction'. It doesn't seem quite right. We are introspective creatures -- we have language and visual imagination; and it is private as private can be. We also have an absolute need for society, which is public and accountable, limited and restricted. We desire both at once. The society is made up of individuals like ourselves, and so we know they introspect as well, have something altogether inaccessible to us, as we are to them. Yet we need each other absolutely for our survival.

 

What does not perplex etc is art that is "kitsch, propaganda, genre, banal". Art is art, whether it is great or good or bad art is a matter of opinion, and in my opinion great art recognizes "the contradiction between our 'free will' and our inevitable ties to our society's mores". I don't mean it is about that, although it might be, but the artist recognizes our common conditon and it informs his or her art, whatever it may be "about". This is to say that great art is more than a surface.

 

It is the Botticelli.

 

--

 

Don E

As you might imagine, the above paintings were needless to say provocative in their day but by todays standards no match for the ubiquitous display of scantily clad ladies with or without g-String beach attire reinforced by commercial propagandizing of everything from womens shoes to their erotic underwear. Sexual appetites appear commensurate with cultural tolerance for the display of the nude female and have obviously grown in acceptance through the pushing, petting, and prodding of compelling sales executives who cleverly combine style in clothing with sex appeal.

 

With the television portal to introduce new fashion ideas concomitant with that portion of the music industry aimed at a younger audience, there is little hope of slowing the industry to say little of altering the business ethics of designers; only contemporary culture can achieve this feat. While such provocative fashions may not be construed as precursors to pornography, the envelope is busting at the seams. I guess I hope we can maintain separation between the healthy commercialization of boy meets girl from that of--boy meets Girls Gone Wild, or worst--just as I have argued fine art distinguishes itself from erotic and pornographic materials.

After 28 years of study, I concluded on April 18, 1983 that ``God`` was a condition:<br><i><u>``The</u></i> condition upon which all other conditions depend,<br>..and without which, other conditions <i>could not be``</i>.<p> Having isolated and thus put "God" behind me, things like ``pornography`` lost all meaning, as did ``sin``, ``immoral``, ``Satan`` and the entire plethora of religious and religion based codices.<p>One day while fishing, I found ``The</i> condition upon which all other conditions depend,<br>..and without which, other conditions <i>could not be``</i>.<br> And I said: ...``whus up``?<br>And condition said: ``...ain`t no thang; don`t mean nothing``.<br>And me and condition laid back on the bank; chillin'.<p>I wrote this in 1983: ``I will <i>not</i> plead fealty to a ``God``, who, while holding fatal mortgage on my body, makes me fear the death of my soul``.<p>While this had been an informative thread, invoking this or that philosophical umbra, too many here and elsewhere in reality <I>fear the death of their soul(s)</I>, thus never get to understand why they think and feel as they do. <p>Society is the only real restraint I have, it?s morals and ethics mine by default, elsewise, I could easily enough turn back into the same killing machine I was ``back in the days``. <p>As for my colleagues in imaging, ``porn`` (not child porn) is just another 4-letter word you can and should ignore; ``condition`` says it`s cool.<p>The OP by Timothy notwithstanding, depicting sex, sexual organs, copulation-etc. is an integral part of the craft, no part of which should be excluded or abridged by any religion, person or government.<p>As for ``<i>porn as fine art</i>``: I have yet to find any I would hang on my wall.

Ed said...As for my colleagues in imaging, ``porn`` (not child porn) is just another 4-letter word you can and should ignore; ``condition`` says it`s cool.

 

This statement is pretty humorous because it actually reveals the nature of the problem. Porn is "cool" but "not child porn". Let's play a little game....how do you know right now that there won't be a time in your future when you find yourself surrounded by people that have determined by some revelation in their life that child porn has now become "cool". Would you then alter your definition of "coolness" or would you rebel? Would you take a stand or would take the relativistic approach of "going with the flow"?

"Titians--Venus of Urbin--was painted long before Manets Olympia but I would not call it a precursor..."

 

Yes, thank you for pointing that out. It's called "influence."

 

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/manet/olympia/olympia.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/manet/olympia/&h=749&w=1115&sz=131&tbnid=_de2tGD9ZQZNmM:&tbnh=101&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmanet%2Bolympia&start=1&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=1

Gary Meyer:<i><br>Ed said...As for my colleagues in imaging, ``porn`` (not child porn) is just another 4-letter word you can and should ignore; ``condition`` says it`s cool.</i><p><i>

This statement is pretty humorous because it actually reveals the nature of the problem. Porn is "cool" but "not child porn". Let's play a little game....how do you know right now that there won't be a time in your future when you find yourself surrounded by people that have determined by some revelation in their life that child porn has now become "cool".</i><p>Gary, I steer by my own moral compass more than others. Without seeming to pontificate, my ``sins`` are many: I ended the lives of 18 humans, maybe more, but 18 for sure. <br>I never kicked cats or pulled the wings off flies. But I do recall going into the ARMY at 17 and the ARMY teaching me <i>how</i> to kill: with bullets and bombs, grenade, garrote and booby trap.<br>That said, I cannot even begin to understand how a full grown man can see a child as a sex partner/object. My wife and me raised five girls. Thus, every ``girl`` looks like them in my mind. And since none of my girls were or became sex objects to me as a Father, I fail to be able to objectify children that way. Children, puppies, kittens are for protecting, not hurting in any circumstances. <p><I>Would you then alter your definition of "coolness" or would you rebel?</I><p> ?Uh-oh?? My ``Cool`` reference was in relation to <I>consenting adult</I> pornography, gay or straight, none other.<p><I>Would you take a stand or would take the relativistic approach of "going with the flow</I>?<P>Take a stand.<br> Children are to be loved, not to be ``made love to``.<p>The ``relativistic approach``: if by that you mean behavior or sexual practices that in the future could become or be thought as ``OK`` but today are thought of as aberrant or even abhorrent practices, I nonetheless acknowledge the possibility of child porn becoming ``acceptable`` in the US, as it is in parts of Asia.

fine art is porn for those with good taste and money. think about it: appreciating it is a

voyeuristic act, it thrills you to look at or listen to it, it excites the imagination, makes you

contemplate things you'll never fully understand , and makes you want to spend money in

irrational ways,

distracts you from the grind of every day life & chores, and sometimes tempts you to do

things common sense tells you not to.

 

:-)

In response to Timothy Hicks' forum on whether pornography is fine art:

 

I just discovered this thread today and found it quite entertaining. Interesting to me that the original query resulted in an apparently endless series of attacks and defenses of pornography and religion. I also want to note a surprising absence of female respondents on this thread (I have my own explanations for this).<P>

I just thought I would add a simple suggestion as to the original query. Perhaps "pornography is in the eye of the beholder." Content is very important in art. I am of the school that art in which the offensive aspect is primary, is probably not art, e.g., "Piss Christ." But subject can be unappealingly mundane; I never could fully appreciate the fine paintings of Paul Potter (Dutch 1625-54) because he always painted pastoral images of cows. I just don't like paintings of cows. So that is a subjective bias of mine. Getting back to pornography, I'm not against pornography per se on moral grounds, but I think pornography cannot be classified as art. I will make the semantic argument that the mere labeling of something as pornography distinguishes it from art. I'll resort to the Supreme Court which defined "obscene" as lacking any "redeeming social value," even though the Justices acknowledged they could not set concrete standards. What they really wanted to say, in my opinion, was that pornography has as its sole purpose sexual arousal. I would argue that art aims at the arousal of non-sexual feelings and emotions. In my view, then, pornography and art are mutually exclusive, admittedly on semantic grounds, but nevertheless the semantics reflect real differences. By the way, I'm open to the Freudian notion that art is a sublimation of sex, and in that regard I'm all for art as a civilizing and ennobling effect on human beings. (I don't recall the words civilizing and ennobling applied to pornography, although I'm sure some the respondents on this thread would rationalize it as such)<P>

Back to the "beholder" issue, we must acknowledge that what arouses me may not arouse you and vice versa. The Boucher nude does not arouse me but might arouse you. In its time, it might have been more titillating that it is today, but I doubt it, since the nude was at that time an accepted subject of art?as long as it was not pornographic. There is, of course a gray area and I think Robert Mapplethorpe's homoerotic photos fit in this category. I consider Mapplethorpe one of our finest photographers and his erotic photos are so good as to fall right on the borderline of art and pornography. They do not arouse me because I am a dedicated heterosexual. Do they offend me? Maybe? a little? but I'm inclined to cut this fellow some slack. In other words, I cannot make a definitive statement that they are pornography. I think some might consider them pornography and some art. For me that's OK. Unlike many in this thread, I'm a relativist (and I'm now calling myself a pantheist). I can live with ambiguity.

<P>

Let me close with a thought on sex versus art. I once had a good friend who had spent a couple of years as a phone sex girl. I once asked her if her customers talked after they had climaxed and she replied, "No, all I hear is 'click'." Well, that's how I view pornography, it is not something a man is interested in immediately after climax. (limited experience suggests to me that women may be different). That's my standard, maybe the Supreme Court could use that.

I think you better careful what you say here ELLIS VENER, or TOM KEYS might arrest you for committing a "logical fallacy."

Thomas, you are begining to look to me to be a man of bad faith (please note I say "look," I am fully aware that my "vision" is fallible).

 

Why do I make this charge?

 

Well, because . . .

 

I cited what you wrote. I then referred to it as a distortion. Not because I wish to think of it that way, but because 'distortion' describes accurately what you were doing in trying to pass it off as factual. I didn't stop there. I then said why. You haven't refuted the neo-platonism charge, so it shall stand as a corrective to yours.

 

Sorry, that's how things work with public records.

 

Also, regarding all your charges of influence, are you aware of the fact that saying one thing has influenced another, if it is to be supported, requires that you make an attempt to connect them . . . in some way other than to say "they are connected."

 

The scope of what you've written here indicates you have some major holes in this line of thought, and that, you don't mind falling in them.

 

You appear curious about how some things are connected so I want to recommend a very good primer on the history of Western thought: Richard Tarnass: The PASSION of the WESTERN MIND. Quite accessible and well-written. There are many such texts, but this one is quite good, honest -- much intellectual bang for your time investment buck.

Timothy, you said:

 

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

 

Well that only proves that you're a brilliant person with great insight into the visual aethetic.

 

>>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<<

 

It's much simpler, Tim. You assert your contention, you don't prove it, you don't even argue it. There is nothing in your paragraph that supports the claim that we can't view porn, we can't hold it imaginatively, without that play being carnal, etc. "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).<<

 

There is no support because it is not the kind of thing you can support. You haven't access to the imaginations of anyone but your own. We only come to "know" other imaginations tenuously through our own imaginative powers.

 

Also, your reading of Kant seems misplaced to me. Without returning to his text, it would seem his use of "purposive" (and unstudied) in your citation merely defines (for him) the charater of "novel" acts of the imagination as opposed to other types of "imaginative" acts. Dreaming, for instance, might be an example of imaginative processing but without the "purposive" component, on the other hand, reasoning employs our imaginative powers but without (in MOST cases) the "unstudied." Of course, this all assumes I know the context of the quote. I surely do not.

 

Anyway....that's it for now. Perhaps I misunderstood the role for you of the Kant quote, it seemed you thought it crucial to your "argument." If so, there's a gaping hole you may want to fill in.

 

Also, the context of the logical fallacy claim was discourse -- fallacies of discourse. I believe we are discoursing.

 

And finally, don't blame me personally for anything I've shared here, I was trained to be this way. :-)

 

Oh I almost forgot . . . an example:

 

A: Wow, look at that blue dress on that gal.

 

B: Oh yes, indeed! Obviously the designer was influenced by the beautiful blues of the impressionists.

 

A: Yeah? Well that ain't my impression.

 

B: No? Well, have you read Kant?

 

A: Well yeah, hasn't everyone?

 

B: Not like me.

 

A: Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

 

 

Tim, the only reason I'd arrest you is if I knew you were the 3/3 guy . . . or if I caught you playin' bluegrass music with an electric bass.

Just keep your hands off my camera. Go out and take some pictures, and stop this non-sense.

 

The truth is real simple. This is taking way too long to read this entire thread. You're all full of it.

 

Who cares?

The enemies of Louis XVI of France published pornographic pictures of his wife Marie-

Antoinette engaged in lewd acts with men other than her husband. Was this to arouse

people? No. It was to suggest that Louis was incapable of governing his wife, therefore

incapable of governing the country. Porn was an earthy way to get the point across. All

people could understand the metaphor between sex and politics. The pornography was

polical cartoon.

 

Bill Clinton was attacked in a similar way over Monica Lewinski. Sex gets people's attention,

but it is not always used to arouse.

"Thomas, you are beginning to look to me to be a man of bad faith (please note I say "look," I am fully aware that my "vision" is fallible)."

 

Why do I make this charge?

 

Well, because . . .

 

I cited what you wrote. I then referred to it as a distortion. Not because I wish to think of it that way, but because 'distortion' describes accurately what you were doing in trying to pass it off as factual."

 

I've supported in the past, I've supported in this thread but it does become a bit time consuming to support over and over and over and over and over...... the same stuff; realizing that it's a new and different person and it's okay that one should take me to task but it does get old. My apologies.

 

"I didn't stop there. I then said why. You haven't refuted the neo-platonism charge, so it shall stand as a corrective to yours."

 

You'll have to forgive but considering I missed your above, I'll have to pass on the charge. What the hell is "Platonism," anyway? Getting the dictionary out.... back in a moment:)

 

"Platonism"

 

"The philosophy or doctrines of Plato or his followers."

 

Okay? So what's this "neo" stuff all about?

 

"Neo-platonism"

 

A philosophical system developed at Alexandria in the third century A.D. by Plotinus and his successors. It is based on Platonism with elements of mysticism and some Judaic and Christian concepts and posits a single source from which all existence emanates and with which an individual soul can be mystically united.

 

Okay, I'm back. I'll respond with a sort of rhetorical question so as to save time: So you want me to believe that existence just popped into being.... all by itself and nothing had to do with everything and everything has to do with nothing? Isn't that a bigger stretch than positing someone created existence?

 

"Sorry, that's how things work with public records."

 

Sure, if you're in a court of law or filing with the clerk. As a suggestion, please lighten your load a bit:) Maybe some 12yr The Glenlivet (which I prefer over the 18yr) or maybe a cold Fat Tire?

 

"Also, regarding all your charges of influence, are you aware of the fact that saying one thing has influenced another, if it is to be supported, requires that you make an attempt to connect them . . . in some way other than to say "they are connected.""

 

Which I'm happy to do and have done over and over and over and....... Art is a well documented chain of events. Again, I was responding, in the simple, to help another understand so it's not important that you be made happy with what I had to write. In the past, I posted links to all which I claimed. Now your welcome to post all the links you wish to discredit anything I write. Come on. You're up on your art history, you know the politics behind what I wrote is 4.0.

 

"The scope of what you've written here indicates you have some major holes in this line of thought, and that, you don't mind falling in them."

 

There are no holes, traps, mines or otherwise other then it was a simple abbreviated timeline reflecting on what went down over the course of some hundred and seventy-five years.

 

"You appear curious about how some things are connected so I want to recommend a very good primer on the history of Western thought: Richard Tarnass: The PASSION of the WESTERN MIND. Quite accessible and well-written. There are many such texts, but this one is quite good, honest -- much intellectual bang for your time investment buck."

 

Thanks for the suggested reading but if it helps, I lack curiosity as I've satisfied my need to understand and am not interested in looking under the covers anymore as for me, no disrespect intended to your suggestion, the effort wouldn't satisfy any need.

 

I did my research to understand the disconnect between Cliche photographic art and Postmodern photographic art. I researched backwards through time and found, to my satisfaction, who "I" consider to be the first Postmodern photographic artist, Diane Arbus. From there I backed up through Stieglitz, Photographic Society, Link Ring, Photo-Secession.

 

http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/photo_se.htm

 

And continuing back I ended up with Delecroix and Ingres, the Moderns Vs the Romantics. Now we fast forward to the Dadaists and then to Surealism and Breton. From there, it became a full fledge intellectual conspiratorial war of ideologues and who's side are you on. One side didn't even know an intellectual power struggle had ensued:) The Berlin, Paris, NYC, Mexico City, Communist, Progressive Humanist connection if you will. It's laughable if you think about it. We're talking "cheap-shot" chili here folks and the fundamentalists got laid away and for the most part, they haven't a clue what happened and they're still flopping around with that caught in the headlight stare:)

 

Please forgive me for my "perceived" transgressions and if my ramblings seem self self-serving in that I had no idea any of this hooey was going on until I started looking under the bed sheets. My mistake. I wasn't looking for any of this. I hadn't any preconceived notions of what I was looking for. I had no ax to grind or ulterior motives as I just wanted to simply understand the disconnect between contemporary photographic art and past efforts which now was being refered to (photographically speaking) as Cliche, Calendar or Eye-candy photography. That'll teach me to go poking around as a huge can of worms opened up, right before my very eyes and I couldn't get the stupid lid to close:)

 

Not expecting you to agree with my above but I hope the above is a bit more elucidating.

 

P.S. My legs can no longer handle long drawn out explanations as, we'll just say, my leg circulation is less than ideal. Actually it's down right crappy but I like to delude myself by writing that it's not that bad so I can sit here longer than I should:)

"And finally, don't blame me personally for anything I've shared here, I was trained to be this way. :-)"

 

You're forgiven. I figure you to be a Scotch kinda guy, here's The Glenlivet, (neat or with ice) we're all ears:) LOL!

"Bill Clinton was attacked in a similar way over Monica Lewinski. Sex gets people's attention, but it is not always used to arouse.

 

Forgive me.

 

And Monica got Clinton's attention.... only because she brought cigars? :)

 

Fox News Channel has their cameras at short skirt level..... because they want to keep your attention on..... the news? But you'd have to be sick in the mind to get "aroused."

 

Sex gets peoples attention for a reason, it's genetic. And even if it's used just to get you to look at a car commercial or to watch the news, to say it's not to arouse, in a sense, to me, is plain disingenuous as in; sure it didn't "arouse" in the traditional sense of lets do the wild thing but if it didn't have "potential" to arouse, it wouldn't get you to look. A guy doesn't have to get a woody in order to be "aroused" mentally. A guy looks at some babe and "thinks" "nice" but that doesn't mean he's fully aroused and has to have sex with the next gal walking by.

 

My understanding, it's called "degrees of seperation."

THOMAS,

for centuries artists worked as apprentices and were taught and studied under strict guidance of master painters and teachers. These environs likely forged relationships that resulted in the early development of style but because of the nature of creative thinking and imagination, mentoring and the idea <<I want to grow up to be like my mentor>> may be short-lived or never occur at all. For example, when he was nine, French neo classical painter, Jacques-Louis Davids, (1748-1825) father was killed in a duel. His guardian took him from school and installed him in the atelier of the Rococo painter, Fran篩s Boucher. Across the street, was the studio of Joseph Marie Vien, one of the founders of the Classical school. It was here young Jacques found his way. Aside from the fact Vien became director of the French Academy and took David with him, he is today at best, a footnote in textbooks--recalled as being Davids art teacher. David, on the other hand, became the foundation upon which nineteenth century French art soared to incredible heights. Influence does not automatically follow from chronological placement on a time line nor could it ever be the common denominator in such assumptions.

Thomas,

 

The charge still stands, although this shouldn't bother you.

 

I can appreciate where you are or rather, where it seems you are based on your latest.

 

I do like a wine (learned to appreciate it) and beer (many excellent micor-brews in the Oregon Territory) sometimes (rarely) I do the hard stuff, but generally only Tangy (it reminds me of the smell of Eastern Oregon with all the juniper). Many folks use alcohol as a kind of . . . social grease. I don't. So I just don't drink often. Maybe during a jam or something.

 

I prefer the sober to the juiced, but I do get along well with drinkers (unless they're my ex-wife) as I have sympathy with people in pain (but not her, she's not a person). Kidding (sort of). It's the sober folks who only walk around in a stupor that I have issues with.

 

Your claim to have found the first postmodern artist is funny.

 

Thomas, let's be real. My claim of holes isn't so much for you but for anyone who happens by and might find your rhetoric compelling.

 

The weight of your argument is it's weakness. Just because you "get aroused" by loooking at porn doesn't mean it's genetic. What an honest intellect says who feels as you do is "I believe, since I don't seem capable of controlling my response to pornographic images, that my response is wired in."

 

What research seems to indicate about sex is that, all sorts of things can turn a person on, and all sorts of things can turn a person off, and all sorts of people can learn to be turned on by all sorts of things.

 

While this doesn't fit your grand, porno thesis, it does comprise it, and it does seem to fit with, or do justice to, human experience.

 

(tips cold Americano to Thomas's stiff one)

"David, on the other hand, became the foundation upon which nineteenth century French art soared to incredible heights. Influence does not automatically follow from chronological placement on a time line nor could it ever be the common denominator in such assumptions." Timothy

 

You know there is a political dimension to that period regarding subject, style and technique. There is a necessary chronology there.

 

As an aside: is it irony that 'David' abandons 'Boucher' to give us

Bouguereau?

 

--

 

Don E

Tom Keyes

 

"I prefer the sober to the juiced,..."

 

In the spirit of accuracy, one can have a cocktail or two without being "juiced." Me wonders when one goes as such in regard to a simple friendly social invitation. Shows a certain.... shall we say, societal fear.

 

"Your claim to have found the first postmodern artist is funny."

 

And I commented about finding what I consider to be the first Postmodern "photographic" artist as there's a clear cut difference. But irrespective, how you find my findings, even if taken out of context, are inconsequential.

 

"Just because you "get aroused" by loooking at porn doesn't mean it's genetic."

 

Sure it does as it's all genetic. You looking at porn, causes basal reactions that you have no control over. Tain't no thang. That's why we're put together and respond the way we do, evolution and genetics. Siiigh! It really isn't rocket science.

 

"What an honest intellect says who feels as you do is "I believe, since I don't seem capable of controlling my response to pornographic images, that my response is wired in."

 

Ahhhh, the argument breaks down as context is now thrown to the wayside of inconvenience:) I commented and you seem to have missed it, we're all hard wired to a degree but it doesn't mean we lack personal self-control.

 

Wishing you well also..... I think. (not quite sure of your last)

"Influence does not automatically follow from chronological placement on a time line nor could it ever be the common denominator in such assumptions."

 

Aaaaah, influence always happens after the fact and yes it can be a common assumption as we all have outside influences; unless cloistered. I posted a link to information as to my tie-in. Our influences and the impact they have on us is only as wide as our experiences as Mayan art is not even close to European and European isn't close to India's art of ancient times. In real terms, one can't be influenced by what hasn't yet happened?

 

I'm not quite understanding your above point. Maybe you can clarify or expand. Thanks!

>>"I prefer the sober to the juiced,..."

 

In the spirit of accuracy, one can have a cocktail or two without being "juiced." Me wonders when one goes as such in regard to a simple friendly social invitation. Shows a certain.... shall we say, societal fear.<<

 

Well, to be accurate then, and if what you say (just above) is true, then these folks who have a cocktail or two and aren't juiced are folks I would prefer. Is that difficult to parse?

 

Sure you ain't juiced? I notice you just added an 'e' to Keys. Double vision can be a sign of alcohol impairment.

 

And forgive me, I didn't read your offer of a (cyber) drink as anything but what someone who uses metaphors from the social drinking domain might say to a stranger.

 

Was I out of line by sharing the extent to which alcohol informs my life in social contexts?

 

You know, I don't consider philosophical talk to be what people in bars do over drinks. Really, I don't think it helps anything but to ease the momentary lonliness of the guy who appears to believe he has the answers.

 

And to think, I thought we were bonding. :-)

>>It's much simpler, Tim. You assert your contention, you don't prove it, you don't even argue it.<<

 

>>There is no support because it is not the kind of thing you can support. You haven't access to the imaginations of anyone but your own. We only come to "know" other imaginations tenuously through our own imaginative powers.<<

 

Dear TOM, there is a hitch in your giddy-up; I am certain that I said and most understood that pornography is not fine art. Did I prove it? Not as I would have liked to explore the position, but this forum in limited to photography and it would be a little fruitless to flip the dialogue to nineteenth and twentith century aesthetics (followers of Kant); one or maybe two quotes is enough do not you think?

Any way my contention is porn does not belong in the realm of the fine arts; notwithstanding that Robert Mapplethorpes historic exhibition was rejected, neither was it fine art on the grounds that the act of artistic creation is wittingly without purpose, purposive, undergoing, undulating, without guaranteed outcome, whimsical, without a correlation to an end and often confusedly so. Thanks to your Logical Fallacy, I was reminded of Wimsett and Beardsleys Intentional Fallacy which also holds that >>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<< which translates: even though porn evokes sexual arousal and can successfully replicate such results as intended, it fails as fine art because it, in fact, meets its intention. It is thoughtless and unimaginative resulting in the routine replication of the same disparaging acts; it is closed to interpretation. ART on the other hand is diametrically opposite; Art is life; porn is death--as fine art and as porn. I do not know what else to tell you except to read again my original statement.

 

>>Perhaps I misunderstood the role for you of the Kant quote, it seemed you thought it crucial to your "argument." If so, there's a gaping hole you may want to fill in.<<

 

I am not sure where that hole is Tom but suffice to say that this forum is not the place proper to enter more quotes from his Critique of Aesthetical Judgement. If you understand the nature of creative thought processes, purposive and unstudied should bring clarity. Kants statement represents the aesthetic experience for the artist and spectator as well as to the artist as spectator.

 

>>Also, the context of the logical fallacy claim was discourse -- fallacies of discourse. I believe we are discoursing.<<

 

The intentional fallacy features a prescriptive set of standards/rules other than the intention of the author/artist for judging a work of art. You know, to replace that cultural predisposition that the contemplative nature of the work of art has an implicit meaning; once discovered or unraveled, we know the intention of the artist or writer and so on (porn obviously instigates no such search for meaning). The fallacy, in the context of this dialogue, is that porn requires no such predisposition.

 

>>Well that only proves that you're a brilliant person with great insight into the visual aethetic. <<

 

Thanks

"Sure you ain't juiced? I notice you just added an 'e' to Keys. Double vision can be a sign of alcohol impairment."

 

Siiiigh! Yes, you have a dry sense of wit. Or it could be an old codger who missed a typo or doesn't wear his reading glasses when he should.

 

"And forgive me, I didn't read your offer of a (cyber) drink as anything but what someone who uses metaphors from the social drinking domain might say to a stranger."

 

Hate to break the news, but it's considered polite, to be polite:)

 

"Was I out of line by sharing the extent to which alcohol informs my life in social contexts?"

 

Not at all.

 

"You know, I don't consider philosophical talk to be what people in bars do over drinks."

 

Depends on who you hang with.

 

"Really, I don't think it helps anything but to ease the momentary lonliness of the guy who appears to believe he has the answers."

 

Hmmmmm! Siiiigh! Oh well. There's a difference between "believe" and "knowing." Does confidence bother you?

 

Keeping it real..... Come on, this ain't rocket science (although some like to pretend it is) as it's all common sense stuff based upon verifiable historical documents and a decision as to who's oxen you're going shovel for. One only needs a genuine interest in order to Google this stuff up on the web. As an example: Wanna make violin bows? Takes a quick few seconds to dig this stuff up with a dozen references these days.

 

Scholars (whice some here may rightfully be) take it to the next level quite literally (as I'm sure you know) but for the most part, at our level, we're all just a bunch of Bozo's having a good time online whiling away another sunrise as we await the loss of light so as to retire to the safety of the cave's bright protective glow.

 

"And to think, I thought we were bonding. :-)"

 

LOL Aren't we? :)

I do not follow your irony disposition DON, Adolphe-William Bouguereau (1825-1905) was a painters painter; his realistic genre painting with mythological themes were respected even by the Impressionists. Although it appears he worked from models as well as photographs, his representation of form through colour is stylistically excellent (See below).