don_e Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Michelangelo's intention should be pretty damn obvious. It is true that the fresco does not show The Act that would make it pornographic by our standards, and the "context" is a chapel. Biblical, especially Old Testament, material can be full of sex and violence. Michelangelo transgresses the normative depiction of Adam and Eve, usually standing on either side of The Tree, naked...the presence of a piece of fruit and a snake. One does not normally see Eve lounging between Adams loins. Bosch captures The Two before sexuality, much like Botticelli captured Venus before sexuality in the Birth of Venus (compare to the sexy Bourgereau rendering). Michelangelo does not attempt this level of spiritual insight -- or any afaict. -- Don E<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Paintings on the subject of Lot and his daughters often have a smirking or leering daughter looking out at the spectator, somewhat reminiscent of Manet's Olympia. Here it is Lot who leers at his daughter Aqualungishly 8-) -- Don E<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 "So, what you are saying, Thomas, is that if it is a biblical story, it cannot be pornographic." It seems that you want to make it into what you want to make it into. Wishing you well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 "Paintings on the subject of Lot and his daughters..." Do you even know the story behind Lot, his daughters and the why? If a painter takes something out of context, they can turn it into anything of their choosing, even if it intentionally lacks accurate context. Siiiigh! Punching out and going back through the looking glass to the land of the sane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Yes, Thomas I know the story of and the story "behind" Lot and his daughters. The subject is fine art and the presence or not of porn in it. The changes to the story is, in fact, the porn in the paintings. QED, so siiiigh to you, too. -- Don E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
levitysnapsphotography Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Sorry guys, I'm from Australia so I'm a bit slow on the uptake.... Pornography by definition is- an attempt to sexually excite through art(pictures, words, music, sculpture etc.). If I am correct in my statement then just because someone has taken a nude photo it doesn't make it pornographic. We have to look at the artists intent rather than his or her end result. What is erotic to me isn't always erotic to you. To dumb this down even more....(just in case I want to re-read this later and understand it) If I take a photo for a foot fetishist in attempt to turn them on...the photo of a foot is porn. If I take a photo of a foot for a shoe commercial, it is not porn. Ultimately I think this argument is insane. These pics on this site are to inspire not to objectify. If a photo makes you feel warm and fuzzy...look at it. If it makes you moisten in your nether regions then you decide what you want to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 "The changes to the story is, in fact, the porn in the paintings." You seem, to me, to be confusing "the grotesque" with "pornography" as we seem to be in agreement that it's not "fine art." :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 For me Fine Art is a category. You seem to take the 'fine' as a value judgement. All the images in this discussion are examples of Fine Art. Altdorfer's Lot and His Daughters is intended to excite prurient thoughts. By that definition it is pornography. The leering Lots, and his daughters' knowing smirks directed at the spectator (in other renditions), underscore the intent, and are not things that exist in the Genesis story (and a peculiar story it is). It is not unknown for pornography to be grotesque. -- Don E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 "For me Fine Art is a category. You seem to take the 'fine' as a value judgement. All the images in this discussion are examples of Fine Art." I sure don't. Fine art actually carries a definition. From Dictionary.com; Fine Art: a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically, painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolor, graphics, and architecture. Fine art has a nobler purpose then you might agree upon. Grotesque: 1. odd or unnatural in shape, appearance, or character; fantastically ugly or absurd; bizarre. And the painting you linked to failed as to the definition of "Fine Art" and definitely qualifies as "Grotesque." As it failed to be Pornography: obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit. because it wasn't Obscene 1. offensive to morality or decency; indecent; depraved: obscene language. because it depicted an act within scripture. :) Language is used to communicate and we can't go around defining words to our liking and reasonably be expected to understand what each other is trying to communicate. The usage of language can be artful but definitions are not artful characters we can take license with. You may find this hard to believe but it is possible for folks to disagree and still be on the same side of an issue. Me thinks you're trying to find an ulterior motive, but the problem I see you as having and don't know it, there isn't any hidden agenda in my position for you to draw out hiding. Porn is porn, fine art is fine art and grotesque is exactly that, grotesque. I had nothing to do with the creation of these terms as I just use language for the purpose it was intended to be used; communication. If you can reasonable show that I've got the definitions/usage messed up, by definition, I'm happy to adjust accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Just for purposes of clarity, both obscene and morality are subjective terms as what's offensive to one, is not necessarily offensive to another. Morality carries the same subjectivity. Morality: The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. What the dictionary fails to define; by who's standards of "right or good." So in essence, morality is a personal judgement. The decision to kill or not to kill a baby harp seal for it's fur, is a moral decision. Who ever's the ruling moral power, shall decide the baby seal's fate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 "Altdorfer's Lot and His Daughters is intended to excite prurient thoughts." You'll have to forgive the simplicity of my response..... "No way!" :) "It is not unknown for pornography to be grotesque." Now you seem to be confusing grotesque with disgust. :) Disgust: 1. to cause loathing or nausea in. 2. to offend the good taste, moral sense, etc., of; cause extreme dislike or revulsion in: Your vulgar remarks disgust me. Please forgive all the definitions. It seems that you're trying to change language to suit yourself and you're taking what I write out of context so I'm just trying to add claity as to the meaning of the words I do choose to use. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Thomas, Awfully informative that you disagree with me. I don't know why. You don't say. Interesting affect. -- Don E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavel_olavich Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 Someone once asked Woody Allen if pornography was dirty. His reply: Only if it's done right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_kerr Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Someone once said; "The difference between Fine Art Nude Photography and Pornography is the lighting." ; ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now