ransford

<p>I'm glad Pnina spoke of the role of the photographer than the role of photography. I like to think human beings have roles. Frankly I just like to take pictures and play with them. It's just an extension of the joy I have looking at the world. My only message is "Hey, isn't this interesting to look at?" Fortunately, I have no intention of influencing anyone. I do enjoy people saying nice things about an image, and I love to see the images others are making. I do not call myself a photographer.</p>

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.

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.

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.

Since yesterday (Sep 23) I have been unable to add photos to my

portfolio. I've tried several different workarounds and I always get

the standard "This page cannot be displayed" whenever I an "add

photo" button. Everything else on the site seems to work fine, I

even uploaded an image in response to a critique, although I had to

try it twice. I've changed nothing that I know of in the last month.

Can you help me?

Ransford Pyle

I love these rating-system forums, or should I say 'fora,' Harry. Having taught at university for decades, I know how subjective grading is. Naturally, it is most subjective in the visual arts and music (I taught law and anthropology). Also sample size is too small to be reliable, at least for individual pictures; perhaps outliers should be thrown out (best and worst ratings), but you can do this on your own. When I get a poor rating, which is fairly often, I hate the rating system, but when I think about it and see a 6/7, I say to myself, "somebody liked it." Sometimes, after a poor average rating, I look at the photo and say to myself, "It's not really very good." If you try to do anything original or provocative, some will not like it. This is a lesson of life, not just photography. <p>

As for criticizing English usage... I think that is way out of line. Those of us who are native English speakers should be honored that people all over the world are doing their best to express themselves in our language on this site.

<p>

The rating system is not broken, don't fix it. When we live in an otherwise perfect world, we can expect perfection here. Meanwhile, it serves as a great provocation for forums.

I'm new to PNet and it took me awhile to realize how useless the ratings system is. I get relatively few ratings so that the sample is statistically unreliable, anyway. But maybe it's best to leave the ratings system alone. A jury would be biased and slight some people. How would you like place 500 out of 500, believing the system a good one. I am inclined only to consider the people who go to the trouble to comment. Admittedly, these people are generous and I feel good about it. Hopefully, in time, I will get constructive criticism. So far I have had no problem with negative comments, usually following an underlying approval. I agree with .].Z about giving a sunset a 7 for originality, although I saw one recently that deserved it. But where are .].Z's photos?

Let's have breakfast on the deck<div></div>

Seems to be two aspects to this thread. One is James? original question and the other addresses Timothy?s ratings issues. Although I signed up for PN a couple of years ago, I have just started to participate in the last month and become active in the last ten days (this is my first forum post). I was surprised by the number of nudes I saw, but, of course, unaware that they were on the increase. While many of the nudes are excellent, I would hate to see this become a site for nudes. Maybe I?m an old prude but some photographers seem to me to use this to strip every pretty girl they know. Maybe that?s because on some sites I feel like a voyeur (I don?t linger, BTW, I?m on the site for photography).

<p>But the issue of nudes was linked to ratings, and I am very grateful for that part of the thread. We are all trying to be good artists, and for most of us that means sharing and communicating our feelings and ideas, opening up to others. I?ve felt my ratings were poor, but then I?m not really experienced and I?m clearly an amateur. The few comments have been all supportive and the named raters were more than generous. I did feel some folks took an unexpected dislike for my photos, but then I?m a digital, Photoshop guy who doesn?t fit in with ?real? photographers. Thanks for pointing out the politics of the ratings game.

<p>We should just not take anonymous ratings too seriously, otherwise we will not be open to the well-meaning constructive criticisms. I?ve received critical comments on three pictures and they were right on ? I?ve fixed two of the pictures, working on the third. Ah, the beauty of Photoshop.