timohicks

Kevin, is this your way of saying that the purpose of pornography is clinical in that it enables the individual to release repressed feelings, urges or impulses caused by extreme self-control and, thus, significantly reduces the effects of morbidity?

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)

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.

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).

>>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

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.

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

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.

François Boucher's "Louise O Murphy" 1752

Manet?s "The Luncheon on the Grass" 1863

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

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

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).

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

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 . . .

Very funny Thomas, where we be without your humor;

 

Tim

Well, Tim B., I guess I was picking on A. T. a little but porn like any addiction raises its ugly face in the form of excessive perverted appetites. Notwithstanding, as if anyone noticed, my original argument is against porn as fine art; for example the published photographs of Robert Mapplethorpe that caused an uproar with clergy, government and public officials; The National Endowment for the Arts lost funding and had to lay off a number of its staff administrators; and along with The National Endowment for the Humanities under went stringent scrutiny due to the overt obscenity and perverted sex acts depicted in the photographic art of Robert Mapplethorpe (and I not talking about his floral photography). Objections to the sadomasochistic homoerotic acts prompted officials at the Corcoran Gallery to cancel the show two weeks before the scheduled opening (I could go on with the ramifications of this historic exhibition but it is not necessary, just go to Google and type in the words Robert Mapplethorpe).

 

As ambiguous and ephemeral the word art continues to be, there exists clear cultural boundaries protesting what art is not, thanks albeit negatively somewhat to Robert Mapplethorpe. Public and government funding of the arts has returned but private galleries are free to feature shocking erotic and disturbingly offensive imagery. I know--no look, no see--but the boundaries continue to be pushed starting with the medium (dial-up, broadband etc.) the makes this forum is possible.

Well, I guess I should have expected a morality versus anti-morality platform and that is OK but such positions are introverted, perverted, private, personal and at best, subjective --contributing little to the understanding; in fact, you already know the issues that restrict pornographic materials and their sale on legal grounds; and you have knowledge of extreme perversions from kitty porn to bestiality (and more that I would not even think about let alone write here) all couched under freedom of speech and sorry A. T., it all started with a smile at a pair of boobs.

 

Understand this, to avoid circuitous arguments and useless bantering back and forth which you have the right to do and have begun to show here, you may try seeing the issues outside of your own closet perversions assuming you like porn; my statement does not enlist morality or the lack there of for a ground. Now, if we look at the origins of pornography as phenomena, we can then ask the question, which came first, art or pornography? Careful, the answer may not be as simple as it appears. ( and Kevin, your points are well received; I will attempt to address the issues you broached later. Today, however, is put my front porch back together day so that I may again enter my front door day.)

 

Take care everyone,

 

Tim

Actually A. T., my comments are quite appropriate if you understand Kant as an objective resource and fine art (which includes photography) as a subjective cultural manifestation embellished with all the trappings and confused baggage.

Actually A. T., my comments are quite appropriate if you understand Kant as an objective resource and fine art (which includes photography) as a subjective cultural manifestation embellished with all the trappings and confused baggage

This all started as a response to Kevin Ferrell,

 

KEVIN FARRELL, SEPTEMBER 20, 2006; 02:30 P.M. (DISAPPROVE)

Well, you might regard me as a villain for commenting that I found you

resurrection picture to be kitsch a la velvet Elvis. Nonetheless I posted a

question in the Philo of Photo forum that might interest you. Not enough

Christians viewpoints in the forums.

 

MY RESPONSE: Actually, I did not; I felt at the time that you were still

wrapped up with the comment I made among only a few others that spoke to one

of manifold issues centered on free speech and pornography versus fine art and

creativity --predisposed by cultural morality. I will attempt to follow one of

my favorite quotes from seventeenth century philosopher, Emanuel Kant, who

wrote, --That which the imagination can play in a purposive and unstudied

manner will always be new to us.

 

Trust me when I tell you the whole world is caught up with authorial intent as

if a writer or painter or as with this site, a photographer can know the effect

(s) and/or metaphoric implications of an image before professional or popular

consensus leads to its designation as in Susanne Langers significant object.

This type of cause and effect is not conventional or commonplace in the sense

of --If I stepped on a bug, my intention was to smashed it, but a purposeless

process spawned in a vacuum with only the artists negative energy and

ambivalence in contention with his imagination and inspiration.

 

For the artist, the urge to create fulfills a need not an intent. What

constitutes creativity in the process of developing ideas should not be

confused with the resulting performance or product; one does not necessarily

lead to the other. Moreover there is a humongous gap here, I believe

responsible for nudging pornography towards acceptance as an art form although

it would be difficult to trudge through the muck and mire commensurate with

the position I hold without writing a treatise. I would like to, however,

make a brief argument against porn independent of the typical cultural and

moral decay platforms; whether I do here, I leave for the experts to determine.

 

The key to understanding Kants statement above is the word purposive (purpose

without purpose, intent without purpose, or intent without intent etc. --

tautologous, I know). The process, which is purposive, is a most potent

component of the creative act yet creativity alone does not necessarily yield

a significant object; an additional component is required; e. g., a consensus

from contemporary and historic culture. 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). Because

they have First Amendment Rights, pornographers need no justification for the

means they enlist to an end for their product: seduction to the level of

preoccupation with a self-fulfilled gratification that merely excites the

loins. It is nothing short of phenomenal that something so grossly lacking in

originality and quality yields billions of dollars annually for the porn

industry.

 

 

What we under estimate is the addictive power of this self-deprecating

thrill. Watching, being entertained by or even reading pornographic short

stories affirms a cultural addiction animated vicariously by self-induced

fantasy. But the attraction has absolutely nothing to do with the imagination

nor should sexual stimulation or gratification be construed as having

aesthetic value in any form or kind. The mud, however, thickens when one

tries to justify how this position is not challenged by acting such as Halle

Barrys nude sex scene in MONSTERS BALL for which she received an Oscar or more

closer to home--nude photography--fine art or smut. (I am listening).

 

Purposive is also commensurate with integrity; i. e., a referent to the

challenge each artist must face whenever a performance or creative act

commences. In conclusion, the aim of fine art has been to inspire world

culture to value and develop a visual intimacy with vicissitudes of images

augmenting aesthetic appreciation with our universe paradigmatically serving

to refine our cultural aesthetic and facilitate our discernment of beauty and

ugliness as contributory evidence to this fact. The intent of pornography is

seduction not fine art; the two are incongruent and incompatible--fine art is

purposive while pornography is purposeful; it is a difference between the

unintentional discovery of an outcome and predicting it. Ironically,

however, it is not pornographers who so often deem such images art but

unfortunately a confused public --Sex would not sell if people did not buy it

(oops!, soap box again, sorry, actually I am not)

 

Your comments are welcomed;

 

Tim

 

(I will be glad when the straighten out the HTML formating on this site)

 

 

 

Yes, I just found out about your idea Ben; I just hope folk will respond with professional advice (impulse and emotive responses can be refreshingly nice too but courtesy with comments and recommendations is always appreciated); So, anyway count me in.

Please disregard the above; could not get html to recognize editing tags; I will email Photo.net to remove it; first time responding to forum---Thanks

 

 

I found this Feedback Forum question by following a comment by, Phong Kim, on one of my photos, Before the Evening Storm:

 

 

PHONG KIM , JULY 21, 2005; 08:51 A.M.

Nice colors! Beautiful reflection on water surface! Well done! The only thing I can nitpick about is that it's a square frame.

 

Well, the framing is not square but I admit, it is close. All components of the composition started off in a horizontal format which places limits on vertical accentuation and scale. This brings me to the problem you have broached except my concern is not just rules (yuck!) but the media used for presentation; e. g., the web browser, web site, and monitor size and settings. Because of these very essential variables, it is practically impossible to meet individual needs of photo.net members in this regard. I sit in front of two computer monitors: a 17-inch CRT ViewSonic connected to a Mac and a 19-inch LG Flatron LCD connected to a PC. The tallest photo that I have uploaded, Moon Birds, is 12-inches high unframed about and 15-inches framed. I can view the piece on my 19-inch with no problem; the screen resolution is set at 1280 X 960 Pixels. My 17-inch monitor requires adjusting from 1024 X 768 to 1152 X 864 Pixels. Notwithstanding, I am still adjusting my images in an effort to better understand the photo.net site. More recently, I have limited my photos before framing to around nine or ten inches in height. I have notice, however, ( and this is likely due to the horizontal orientation of monitors ), that I can upload proportionally greater dimensions in landscape format. In fact, I uploaded, The Poker Players, which measures 22-inches horizontally, now this is too large even for my Flatron. My files are primarily designed for printing media. It appears that I will have to maintain separate files for printing and uploading.

 

Finally, in response to Kims following statement on the forum:

 

Phong Kim, jul 18, 2005; 08:58 a.m.

I concur! It's sure nice to limit the height and anything over would go in to the "larger" view.

 

 

Limiting the size of many of my photos does not always result in an automatic smaller to larger mode modification. Many of my photos stay in the smaller mode. I have noticed this with hundreds of other photos as well. This is likely an idiosyncrasy of the site given whatever site-personification you use. Sorry guys, I guess there is just no yellow brick road

See File