A BRIEF ARGUMENT AGAINST PORN AS FINE ART

Timothy,

 

Boucher, David, and Bouguereau were great draughtsmen, and Bourguereau might have been the superior technician of the three.

 

Boucher's "Louise O Murphy" represents the frivolous stylings of the monarchy. It is, with the slightest change of viewpoint, soft porn. David brought gravitas, intellect and drama back to painting (that is one reason why I disagree with the notion that things have been going "downhill" ever since 1824 as expressed above), and also, I think, the male nude. Bouguereau inherited David's technique, defined by him (and Ingres) in contradistinction with that of the monarchy -- an expression of republican fervor to do away with the ancien regime and its works, which means 'Boucher'.

 

For all his skills, Bouguereau produced cheesecake. I find irony in that. Not much but enough.

 

--

 

Don E<div></div>

Fellatio Interruptus

 

 

--

 

Don E<div></div>

I hope I haven't offended anyone. I am backing out of this conversation for now.

-----

 

Tim, I couldn't make sense of your last response to me. By that I mean, I just fail to see how most of what you said was relevant to the objection I had raised to your project or why you were even writing what you did.

 

I do not believe that EK is writing about creative thought processes in the passage you quote. He is speaking specifically of aesthetic objects--the character of our experience of them. I know that purposive and unstudied are hardly sufficient concepts for elucidating the workings of the minds of creative human beings. They are in themselves inadequate to the task. Clarity? It doesn't look good. I'm sure you know what you mean.

 

My interest in these things is currently most informed by the recent work of Antonio Damasio:

 

[Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain

 

The Feeling of What Happens : Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness.

 

Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow and the Feeling Brain]

 

Give them a look if you are interested in such things. Damasio is a gifted writer and a brilliant human being. Go on, treat yourself.

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

 

Thomas? It really comes down to what we are each willing to settle for. It looks like you have some scotch you like. Things could be worse, eh?

"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"

 

As a simple pornographer, I would see the purpose of religion as 1. to lower the common

denominator, 2. to weaken the spirit, 3. to stop the thought process, 4. and to cut off your

manhood.

 

sorry, i couldn't resist. and no, i'm not a pornographer, just wanted to show that the shoe

fits both feet.

"It really comes down to what we are each willing to settle for."

 

For this we're in agreement.

 

"...and a decision as to who's oxen you're going shovel for."

 

Art, disappointingly (like this point or not), really is that pedestrian.

I love the Google ads coming up at the bottom of this thread. I guess these folks have artistic issues they need to deal with. LOL Too much:)

Couldn't resist adding this quote:<P>

"An intellectual is a person who has discovered something

more interesting than sex." - Aldous Huxley

<P>

Also couldn't resist the discussion of the evolution to Bouguereau and the comment that he painted "cheesecake." Without wanting to extend a thread already quite long, I wish mention had been made of Delacroix, one of my favorites, along with Daumier and few others who resisted the tyranny of the French Academy (Yes, I know Delacroix was admitted to the Academy late in life). I rather like Bouguereau and some of the academic painters (and pre-Raphaelites) whose sometimes silly historical and mythological paintings border on the trite, and cheesecake (when they do nudes). They were technically quite skilled without necessarily being innovative like Delacroix and Daumier, but that does not necessarily diminish their work as art. As for the cheesecake factor, I would pose the question whether someone cannot produce both art and pornography, even in the same medium, as I suggested above for Mapplethorpe. The Ukiyo-e artists, whom I esteem, often produced explicit sex woodcuts, which, interestingly, have been largely censored by art historians (not art? or just prudery?). Beardsley, if I am not mistaken, also did some explicit works. Most are unaware that a considerable amount of the pre-Columbian Peruvian pottery depicted sexual acts; and I was informed by collector specializing in these that he had yet to find a piece depicting the "normal" heterosexual act. Was that pornography? (rather boggles the mind, n'est-ce pas?).<P>

Tim's "intentional fallacy" may solve this while confounding it at the same time, assuming I read this correctly. Thus when an 'artist' decides to produce a work for the purpose of sexual arousal, perhaps even mere titillation, he or she is creating pornography. Unfortunately this suggests that intention is not irrelevant because it would be the test of pornography, albeit subjective and difficult to establish, as with some of Bouguereau's nudes (And think Ingres' La Source, one of my favorite nudes, surely one of Bouguereau's influences). Having said all this, I am still of the opinion that subjective intention is irrelevant when it comes to fine art. I dislike art that must be explained to me (I'm very much with Tom Wolfe on this one..."Painted Word" and "From Bauhaus to Our House")<P>Already said much more than intended.

<P>Actually, I would like to see the query changed to whether photos of flowers are fine art.

Ransford Pyle, While pornography and art are useful terms describing two different ideas, the

mistake comes in trying to establish them as mutually exclusive. Much great art is

pornography, as much pornography is great art. The desire to separate the two would seem

to be born of a desire to marginalize what the person attempting to do this finds offensive. In

any event, the attempts at proving pornography is not art recede into obscurity and pedantry.

Who could follow such arcane arguments?

"Much great art is pornography, as much pornography is great art."

 

Me thinks, if I'm understanding your above, you're confusing great artists who make pornography and trying to tie the two together as in; This great artist made this pornographic painting so therefore it concludes that the pornograpic painting must be great art.; when in fact it just happens to be another pornographic painting which just so happens to be made by a great artist. Who makes it, irrespective of their stature, doesn't detract away from it's original intent, giving someone something to do on those long, lonely nights:O

 

Sometimes folks have trouble keeping it real:)

Great artists make great art, Thomas.

"Great artists make great art, Thomas."

 

Which I'm in agreement with but all a great artist can do is make great porn. Their stature doesn't change water into wine. To try to blend the two is to deny the differences and to not make note of the purpose of porn is to deny reality.

 

If a great artist wants to make great porn, hey, that's their business and I'm good:)

Pointless to argue with you, Thomas. You obviously have your mind made up.

"Pointless to argue with you, Thomas. You obviously have your mind made up."

 

I have nothing to do with it. Porn's porn and Art's art and the two don't meet. A great artist is capable of making great porn. Where's the argument?

 

I'll throw out my take that it's you who's made up their mind that Porn can be Art and that a great artist is "capable" of making great Art that just so happens to be Porn (no guarantees here folks). Do I have that correct? If I do, then I'm not the one with the made up mind.

 

If you want Porn and Art to be synonomous, that's fine with me and I'm good but that doesn't mean I agree. Understanding, does not mean agreement and disagreement doesn't mean conflict, unless you're an old American football commercial. If you want to have surf and turf for dinner, cool. I'll keep my fish in the kitchen thank-you:D But that doesn't make my choice wrong or your choice right nor does it put either of us at odds at the dinner table. Would you like a beer or a cocktail to go with that surf and turf dinner..... or would you like wine, coffee, tea, soda,.... water..... what would you like and that's how we'll have it served. Same thing with Art and Porn.

If I were the curator of a museum, this is how my world would be and if you're the curator, I'll be coming into your museum. Seems fair to me:)

 

And when the little old lady comes up to me and asks where's the porn?... I'll tell her down the street, inside the corner liquor store, back of the store, on the sheet covered shelves.

Tom, the questions you raised with my former and recent statements are compounded by the absence of specifically what it is that you either disagree with, see differently, don?t understand or follow. Your objections lack specificity.

 

>>I do not believe that EK is writing about creative thought processes in the passage you quote. He is speaking specifically of aesthetic objects--the character of our experience of them.<<

 

The nature of creativity in general and the act of creating are not mutual exclusive but neither are they always related. Contrary to your belief, the character of the aesthetic experience is not necessarily a direct correlation to an objective/subjective (objectified) experience-- if I understand your position. Character, however, is an inadequate denominator for explaining the aesthetic experience. One may in reflection characterize an experience but the enumerable qualities caught up in forming the experience far out number mere reflection. So much of the amalgam of sensations, varied perceptions, feelings and emotions are ineffable and defy characterization. You are certainly entitled to your beliefs but Kant could never be so narrow.

 

>>I know that purposive and unstudied are hardly sufficient concepts for elucidating the workings of the minds of creative human beings. They are in themselves inadequate to the task.<<

 

Purposive and unstudied will never be sufficient explanations of creative thought but they are important in removing the confusion that exist regarding meaning in works of art (see the intentional fallacy stated above). In fact, they are indispensable predispositions to creative acts for the artist who is both maker and spectator as well as the viewer.

 

The clarity that I present is empirical; the clarity that you seek is dialogical. Perhaps our positions are mutually exclusive; perhaps not.

Come on, Thomas, you want to marginalize pornography. Why? Because it depicts lust

without the veneer of romantic love. Pornography breaks our illusions. It depicts people as

creatures of naked self-interest. It is art with no message of redemption, loyalty, faith or

love. Characters in pornographic fiction are incapable of keeping promises or of

respecting laws and rules. People are depicted giving in to their appetites. The message of

pornography subverts ideas of altruism and heroic sacrifice. Pornography shows good

intentions falling away before desire. And pornography presents all of this subversion in a

form with which no one can argue, fiction. Pornography shows the human being in an

amoral light. And despite your claims not to take art seriously, you nonetheless take

seriously the idea that art should affirm the values that pornography subverts.

Pornography attacks cultural values by showing people giving in to nature's tyranny over

us, rather than nobly standing up to nature. Is that not the real reason you do not want to

call pornography art? You think art should affirm certain values, do you not?

"Come on, Thomas, you want to marginalize pornography."

 

Nope, pornography marginalizes itself. I'm just keeping it real.

 

If you want to make porn... cool. If you want your mother to be a porn star and you'll be proud of this point, that's your business. If you want your sister, girlfriend or wife to be part of the industry, I'm good.

"Why? Because it depicts lust without the veneer of romantic love. Pornography breaks our illusions."

 

The pornography industry of today is AIDS and a variety of incurable sexually transmitted diseases, suicide, snuff flicks, drug addiction, sex slavery and child abuse all rolled into one. It's some romantic world that's I find offensive because of some misguided sex morals. If some dude want's to have poke a snake, I could care.

 

"The message of pornography subverts ideas of altruism and heroic sacrifice. Pornography shows good intentions falling away before desire. And pornography presents all of this subversion in a form with which no one can argue, fiction."

 

How can a rational person write so romantically as if this is some sort of victimless, zero sum behavior when it's common knowledge that women are in captivity, being killed in snuff flicks all the while children are enslaved and forced to have sex with this beast you wax so poetically about?

 

I'd like you to justify the truth as that would be most kind of you. And I thought folks here were against the victimization of women.

"It's some romantic world that's I find offensive because of some misguided sex morals."

 

Suppose to be, "It's "not" some romantic world "that" I find offensive because of some misguided sex morals."

 

I do try to edit this stuff before posting. My apologies.

Kevin and Thomas: Your last few responses frame the two sides. Naturally, I side with Thomas against Kevin. Some comments...

<P>"Ransford Pyle, While pornography and art are useful terms describing two different ideas, the mistake comes in trying to establish them as mutually exclusive. Much great art is pornography, as much pornography is great art." (Kevin)<P>

While I think they are nearly exclusive for the reasons I gave earlier, I believe that ignoring their different intentions is like denying taste is relevant to art. It takes centuries to determine what is great art and who is a great artist. Please, an example of pornography that is great art, and not simply because it is a nude by a great artist. And I mean graphic art, not cinema or literature.

Well, scroll up to Don E's posting from the Sistine Chapel ceiling. First image you will come

across on your way up.

A little context; Adam and Eve wore no cloths, per scripture. So to show them clothed as the serpent presented Eve with the apple (forbidden fruit) which made them self-aware of their nakedness, would be laughable.

 

Hardly seems pornagraphic (purpose of arrousal) when the image cited is put back into context of scripture.

Kevin, thanks for being a good sport---you have been attacked many times. I have followed your responses on this forum closely and your disposition more than anyone responding here appears overwhelmingly predisposed to pornographic images even where the history of the image denotes something else altogether; I know, we could say the same about people diametrically against porn, however, I assert the essential difference between you and your opposition is that those who are opposed to pornography do not exhibit compulsive behavior even given their distain for pornographic images-- dogmatic maybe. Certainly we have all seen nude males or nude females but everything nude or naked should not be construed as pornographic (which may be fodder for a follow up to this forum---got to run)

So, what you are saying, Thomas, is that if it is a biblical story, it cannot be pornographic.

<I>It takes centuries to determine what is great art and who is a great artist. </I><P>No it

doesn't. Genius is usually identified nearly immediately and almost instinctually. Like porn,

you know it when you see --if you know what you are looking at. Porn is fairly easy to

identify once you know about sexuality and how your culture or subculture deals with

sexuality. Recognizing artistic "genius" takes more specailized training. <P>Yes this means

making or appreciating art requires an elitist sensibility -- and making, recognizing and

consuming pornography a more mundane proposition) but would you know why the Mona

Lisa is considered a masterpiece if you didn't have some expert(s) telling you that it was?