Porn vs. Art

If it is clearly true that porn is not art, why is it so hard to provide a definition which clearly seperates the two?
 
brodski said:
If it is clearly true that porn is not art, why is it so hard to provide a definition which clearly seperates the two?
Click to expand...
How many definitions (of anything) would you say are ... well ... absolutely definitive?! Just because something is "hard" to do doesn't make it impossible, does it?!
 
Southwind17 said:
How many definitions (of anything) would you say are ... well ... absolutely definitive?! Just because something is "hard" to do doesn't make it impossible, does it?!
Click to expand...

It is the case, as you claim, that something is clearly one thing or the other (or neither but never both), then drawing that line should be easy. Yet no one seems to be able to do so. In a robust manner.
 
*sigh* You really want to go down this road again?

Fine....here we go again.

This section from the article:
The laws adopt commonwealth provisions where the court looks at the artistic merit of the material when deciding whether it is child pornography, rather than relying on the defence of artistic purpose.

Mr Hatzistergos said the new laws would not apply to material that is classified.

"If (art) is classified under commonwealth legislation, then it is exempt from the reach of these particular provisions," he told reporters in Sydney on Tuesday.
Click to expand...

Sounds almost exactly like when here in America, the US Government had to decide what is porn and what is "obscene". The answer was pretty much the same: we'll decided that.

Perhaps, and this is just me throwing this out here, something for discussion, the difference between artistic child nudity and child porn is this: the way it was photographed.

For example there's a clear difference between photographing a child:

with approval from the child
with the parents there
with the explanation of the shoot to both the child and the parents
with the child and the parents keeping the right to not have the shot done
with a release form explaining what the shoot contains
with concern to the child's physical and psychological well being
with the intent that the photographs clearly placed on display for the public to see.

and

just shooting the child without anyone knowing
without caring what the child's concerns are
without any cares to the child's physical and psychological well-being
keeping the photographs secret or within a secret circle of people
no legal papers
without any consent from parents or the child

Now I realize that this isn't fool proof but it's a much better start. What I've outlined above, I feel, is a much clearer and less "it's my opinion" way of determining whether it's art or illegal rather than looking at a picture and just making a judgment.
 
Last edited:
brodski said:
It is the case, as you claim, that something is clearly one thing or the other (or neither but never both), then drawing that line should be easy. Yet no one seems to be able to do so. In a robust manner.
Click to expand...
I'm claiming that porn is not art per se. Are you claiming that porn (i.e. all porn) IS art per se? If so, by what absolutely unequivocal definition of "art"?
 
Personally I think the claim made in the original post is total bunk. However I am willing to be persuaded.

All Southwind17 has to do is post his definition of art, and his definition of pornography.

If we all accept those definitions, and it turns out that by those definitions it is impossible for something to be both art and pornography, Southwind17 was right all along.

If he can't post such definitions, or we disagree with those definitions, then the conclusion that porn cannot be art has not been sufficiently supported. In that scenario the claim that anyone who thinks otherwise is misguided and self-indulgent would be revealed as ad hominem well-poisoning.
 
Southwind17 said:
I'm claiming that porn is not art per se. Are you claiming that porn (i.e. all porn) IS art per se? If so, by what absolutely unequivocal definition of "art"?
Click to expand...

There's already been a topic called "What is art" on this forum. (I can't seem to find it though. I have to admit, I have a hard time with the JREF forum search feature...).

Art is subjective. There's things I've seen museums that I don't see as art, and there are things that people doodle that's amazing.

....oh, by the way, I think you still have me on ignore.....
 
May I suggest that a picture of a pretty woman is neither porn nor art. It's a picture.
It's the attitude of the viewer that makes it one or the other.

But being aroused by a picture of a pretty girl is a pretty predictable, normal male human reaction. (Even a reasonably common female one).

Being aroused by a picture of a ten year old is not.

Which is why I say morals must be rooted in biological reality. If we pretend otherwise, then being aroused by a photograph of anything is either "right" or "wrong" and photography itself becomes part of the problem.

The problem is that people can't make up their minds.
 
JFrankA said:
Perhaps, and this is just me throwing this out here, something for discussion, the difference between artistic child nudity and child porn is this: the way it was photographed.

For example there's a clear difference between photographing a child:

with approval from the child
with the parents there
with the explanation of the shoot to both the child and the parents
with the child and the parents keeping the right to not have the shot done
with a release form explaining what the shoot contains
with concern to the child's physical and psychological well being
with the intent that the photographs clearly placed on display for the public to see.

and

just shooting the child without anyone knowing
without caring what the child's concerns are
without any cares to the child's physical and psychological well-being
keeping the photographs secret or within a secret circle of people
no legal papers
without any consent from parents or the child
Click to expand...
So you concur, then, that porn is not art (or artistic child nudity, to use your narrower term) per se, given your suggested, almost bipolar, criteria for differentiating the two?
 
On the concept of Art, well I remember a story about an artist who sent a sculpture into a museum for display. They decided to display just the peg that was there to balance it and support it on instead of the actual sculpture.
 
Southwind17 said:
I'm claiming that porn is not art per se. Are you claiming that porn (i.e. all porn) IS art per se? If so, by what absolutely unequivocal definition of "art"?
Click to expand...

I think it is a mistake to think of art as a catogry of objects, art is a cultural activity in a cultural context- anything can be art if it is presented as such. The same object can either be art or not art depending on context.
 
It's easy to present a clear definition of the two. Art exists to provide visual aesthetic enjoyment while pornography exists for visual sexual enjoyment.

However, as these two things aren't mutually exclusive, you're bound to get some overlap. How can you separate art from porn when you also have pornographic art?

To put it another way, if you're trying to separate round things from red things, what do you do when you find something that's both round and red? No matter how clearly defined these properties are, the fact that they aren't mutually exclusive means that it's impossible to separate the two in all cases.
 
brodski said:
It is the case, as you claim, that something is clearly one thing or the other (or neither but never both), then drawing that line should be easy. Yet no one seems to be able to do so. In a robust manner.
Click to expand...
I claimed nothing of the sort. Porn can contain artistic elements, for sure, but it's not art per se. Perhaps if I claim that porn is not an "artform" per se that might help clarify my position.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Personally I think the claim made in the original post is total bunk. However I am willing to be persuaded.

All Southwind17 has to do is post his definition of art, and his definition of pornography.

If we all accept those definitions, and it turns out that by those definitions it is impossible for something to be both art and pornography, Southwind17 was right all along.

If he can't post such definitions, or we disagree with those definitions, then the conclusion that porn cannot be art has not been sufficiently supported. In that scenario the claim that anyone who thinks otherwise is misguided and self-indulgent would be revealed as ad hominem well-poisoning.
Click to expand...
So much speculation, eh, with a pre-empted conclusion clearly drawn. Somehow I don't think you are willing to be persuaded (notwithstanding that you misunderstand my claim).
 
Southwind17 said:
I claimed nothing of the sort. Porn can contain artistic elements, for sure, but it's not art per se. Perhaps if I claim that porn is not an "artform" per se that might help clarify my position.
Click to expand...

That does not clarify your position, unfortunately.

I suggested earlier that you post your definition of art, and your definition of pornography. Since we do not yet know how you define "art" or "artform", it is no clarification at all to talk about "art per se" or something being an "artform per se".
 
Southwind17 said:
So you concur, then, that porn is not art (or artistic child nudity, to use your narrower term) per se, given your suggested, almost bipolar, criteria for differentiating the two?
Click to expand...


Twisting my words again, are we?

First off, porn is shot exactly the same way as I had described in the first list. The second list is abuse, whether it involves an adult or a child.

Second, I was trying to draw the line between legitimately photographing a nude child and abusing a child.

If you want a civil discussion, please stop playing games and twisting meanings. This is part of the unrest I felt at the last time we but heads.
 
Soapy Sam said:
May I suggest that a picture of a pretty woman is neither porn nor art. It's a picture.
It's the attitude of the viewer that makes it one or the other.

But being aroused by a picture of a pretty girl is a pretty predictable, normal male human reaction. (Even a reasonably common female one).

Being aroused by a picture of a ten year old is not.

Which is why I say morals must be rooted in biological reality. If we pretend otherwise, then being aroused by a photograph of anything is either "right" or "wrong" and photography itself becomes part of the problem.

The problem is that people can't make up their minds.
Click to expand...

This for the win.
 
Southwind17 said:
I claimed nothing of the sort. Porn can contain artistic elements, for sure, but it's not art per se. Perhaps if I claim that porn is not an "artform" per se that might help clarify my position.
Click to expand...

Of course porn isn't an artform, it is a catagory which some people put some sexually explicit materials in and not others. No subject matter is an artform.

But individual art objects may be both pornograpic and art- your statment that porn isn't an artform is pretty useless.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
That does not clarify your position, unfortunately.

I suggested earlier that you post your definition of art, and your definition of pornography. Since we do not yet know how you define "art" or "artform", it is no clarification at all to talk about "art per se" or something being an "artform per se".
Click to expand...

From the last time we had this discussion, it seems to me that SW's definition of art is anything that made it into a museum.


ETA: I will thank you, though, SW, for taking me off ignore. :)
 
Soapy Sam said:
May I suggest that a picture of a pretty woman is neither porn nor art. It's a picture.
It's the attitude of the viewer that makes it one or the other.

But being aroused by a picture of a pretty girl is a pretty predictable, normal male human reaction. (Even a reasonably common female one).

Being aroused by a picture of a ten year old is not.

Which is why I say morals must be rooted in biological reality. If we pretend otherwise, then being aroused by a photograph of anything is either "right" or "wrong" and photography itself becomes part of the problem.

The problem is that people can't make up their minds.
Click to expand...

But it sexual arousal the purpose of all nude photography?
 
Soapy Sam said:
May I suggest that a picture of a pretty woman is neither porn nor art. It's a picture.
It's the attitude of the viewer that makes it one or the other.
Click to expand...
You may suggest, but any objective consideration and comparison of such view will surely lead to disagreement. Otherwise anything and everything could be "art", and anything and everything could be "porn". Indeed, anything and everything could be anything and everything. Where's the sense in that?

Soapy Sam said:
But being aroused by a picture of a pretty girl is a pretty predictable, normal male human reaction. (Even a reasonably common female one).
Being aroused by a picture of a ten year old is not.
Which is why I say morals must be rooted in biological reality. If we pretend otherwise, then being aroused by a photograph of anything is either "right" or "wrong" and photography itself becomes part of the problem.
The problem is that people can't make up their minds.
Click to expand...
Interesting point, but if the "biological reality" argument holds surely we could all take moral comfort in responding to every emotion, impulse or stimulus by committing any act (crime) in pursuit of raw survival instincts.
 
ponderingturtle said:
On the concept of Art, well I remember a story about an artist who sent a sculpture into a museum for display. They decided to display just the peg that was there to balance it and support it on instead of the actual sculpture.
Click to expand...
People do silly things. Go figure.
 
Southwind17 said:
You may suggest, but any objective consideration and comparison of such view will surely lead to disagreement. Otherwise anything and everything could be "art", and anything and everything could be "porn". Indeed, anything and everything could be anything and everything. Where's the sense in that?
Click to expand...

Now you are getting it. There is no sense to it. Art is an individual emotional response.

Interesting point, but if the "biological reality" argument holds surely we could all take moral comfort in responding to every emotion, impulse or stimulus by committing any act (crime) in pursuit of raw survival instincts.
Click to expand...

Now you are just slippery sloping.....
 
JFrankA said:
No. Not by a long shot.

Here let me fix it for you:
Click to expand...

That was kind of my point. A work of art might arouse some people, disgust others and make others think it makes interesting cultural statements and observations.

That is the point, you can't really be sure what the intention of the artist was, and can debate if their intent is even relevant.
 
ponderingturtle said:
That was kind of my point. A work of art might arouse some people, disgust others and make others think it makes interesting cultural statements and observations.

That is the point, you can't really be sure what the intention of the artist was, and can debate if their intent is even relevant.
Click to expand...

Sorry, PT. I misunderstood.

See? I just proved your point! :)
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
That does not clarify your position, unfortunately.

I suggested earlier that you post your definition of art, and your definition of pornography. Since we do not yet know how you define "art" or "artform", it is no clarification at all to talk about "art per se" or something being an "artform per se".
Click to expand...
It seems you are alluding to art (and possibly porn) being so loosely conceived that a workable definition (in the context of differentiating between art and porn) is impossible. As I wrote, I don't think you are capable of persuasion, are you? Clearly, no such workable definition is going to fit with yours, by definition!
 
JFrankA said:
First off, porn is shot exactly the same way as I had described in the first list. The second list is abuse, whether it involves an adult or a child.
Second, I was trying to draw the line between legitimately photographing a nude child and abusing a child.
Click to expand...
So what, exactly, then, does this have to do with the thread topic (art vs. porn)? It seems that you'd prefer to discuss the nature and morality of porn.
 
Southwind17 said:
Interesting point, but if the "biological reality" argument holds surely we could all take moral comfort in responding to every emotion, impulse or stimulus by committing any act (crime) in pursuit of raw survival instincts.
Click to expand...

Not really. But like in all things ideal fantasy has to give way to objective reality.
 
Southwind17 said:
So what, exactly, then, does this have to do with the thread topic (art vs. porn)? It seems that you'd prefer to discuss the nature and morality of porn.
Click to expand...

Wait. Don't you think all art (nude, non-nude, child, adult, etc) is produced the same way as the first list I gave?

with approval from the child
with the parents there
with the explanation of the shoot to both the child and the parents
with the child and the parents keeping the right to not have the shot done
with a release form explaining what the shoot contains
with concern to the child's physical and psychological well being
with the intent that the photographs clearly placed on display for the public to see.
Click to expand...

...I should add to that list: the person who is the subject of the production is either getting paid or voluntarily not getting paid.
 
ponderingturtle said:
But it sexual arousal the purpose of all nude photography?
Click to expand...
Presumably not. It's a common result though.

Southwind17 said:
You may suggest, but any objective consideration and comparison of such view will surely lead to disagreement. Otherwise anything and everything could be "art", and anything and everything could be "porn". Indeed, anything and everything could be anything and everything. Where's the sense in that?
Click to expand...
I said it's a picture and how you view it is up to you.
Which part(s) do you disagree with?

Interesting point, but if the "biological reality" argument holds surely we could all take moral comfort in responding to every emotion, impulse or stimulus by committing any act (crime) in pursuit of raw survival instincts.
Click to expand...
No. You could take moral satisfaction from controlling them.

"Based on" is not equivalent to "is equivalent to". Were it not for the fact that perfectly normal biological drives have consequences for others, we would not require laws. We wouldn't be human , either.
 
JFrankA said:
From the last time we had this discussion, it seems to me that SW's definition of art is anything that made it into a museum.
Click to expand...
Not quite. I questioned why "main-stream" porn wasn't found in museums if it's art. More-than-subtle difference.
 
Southwind17 said:
Not quite. I questioned why "main-stream" porn wasn't found in museums if it's art. More-than-subtle difference.
Click to expand...

Okay. I misquoted you. That's fair. :)

But do we have to go through that again?
 
Last edited:
Southwind17 said:
It seems you are alluding to art (and possibly porn) being so loosely conceived that a workable definition (in the context of differentiating between art and porn) is impossible.
Click to expand...

Many people think that this is indeed impossible.

You should post your own definitions of art and pornography. Possibly by doing so you will prove those people wrong.

As I wrote, I don't think you are capable of persuasion, are you? Clearly, no such workable definition is going to fit with yours, by definition!
Click to expand...

This is neither here nor there. If the sole thing holding you back from posting your definitions of art and pornography is that you are concerned that I, personally, will not be persuaded then I suggest that you should post your definitions anyway for the sake of everyone else in the thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom