"Artistic Pornography"

A
Thread starter Christopher Nisperos
Start date Nov 3, 2006

OP

OP

Christopher Nisperos

Member

Nov 6, 2006

#251

TheFlyingCamera said:
BTW - did you know that Bruce owns a Littman? Knowing this, does that push him over the line one direction or the other???

Dear Flying,

I'm not sure that Bruce Weber's use of Littman (and Rolleiflex TLR) would necessarily qualify his work as art instead of pornography (but in any case, for me, I see it as more homo-erotic than pornographic).

Anyway, if one had to judge by a photographer's equipment whether
the resulting work were pornographic or not, a lot of Playboy's earlier stuff photographed with an 8x10 Deardorff would be in a museum! As well,
Bob Miser's AMC images originally made with a Speed Graphic would be at the Getty (hey, there's an idea!).

Having said that, it's heartwarming to know that Weber among many other top professionals are still using film cameras (a term which, just ten years ago, would have been weird!).

Best,

Christopher
.

OP

OP

Christopher Nisperos

Member

Nov 6, 2006

#252

Roger Hicks said:
Cher Nisp,

Of course I'm right, dear boy. I make a habit of it, whenever possible. ...

I'm happy only with a couple of my nude shots, ever, . . .

Shouldn't it be, "I'm happy only with a couple of my nude shots, however, ..." , dear boy?

Now we're really into the realm of 'Is It Art'? A friend of mine used to paint what he called 'wallpaper' for a leading London furniture stores: as I recall, 3 paintings for a thousand quid, thirty years ago. What's that today? Five thousand ($9500)? Ten thousand (£19,000)? It funded his serious work.

Next question: has anyone seen Hamilton's serious work?

Cheers,

R.

Bien vu!

Le Nisp

.

Ole

Moderator

Moderator

Nov 6, 2006

#253

Ed Sukach said:
Interesting statistics: "43% of sexual predators were exposed to pornography." What do we compare that to ... there is no mention of the incidence of "exposure to pornography" among the general public, or among those who are NOT sexual predators... and without that comparison, coherent conclusions are difficult, at best.

Very interesting - that would imply that 57% of "sexual predators" (what does that mean, by the way? The phrase doesn't make sense in any consistent way) were not exposed to pornography. 57% would be considered a majority in most other types of study...

I've been reading through this thread with great interest and a little trepidation. This d*mn thing tends to lose the conncetion everytime I try to post, so I don't really put much effort into posting this week. But I'll keep on following this thread!

BrianShaw

Member

Nov 6, 2006

#254

Ed Sukach said:
BTW... It has been proven, conclusively, that 99% of ALL serial killers, rapists, sexual predators, child molesters ... ate MASHED POTATOES at one time or another in their lives. Do you think that banning mashed potatoes would be a "good thing"?

Oh dear, I ate mashed potatos last night... lots of them. what's going to become of me?

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

Subscriber

Nov 6, 2006

#255

BrianShaw said:
Oh dear, I ate mashed potatos last night... lots of them. what's going to become of me?

Maybe a very big poo, and a smelly one on top of that.

George Papantoniou

Member

Nov 7, 2006

#256

I ate lobster last night and kept running to the toilet since.

I think that 99% of all men were exposed to pornography (at least a few times in their lives). And 70% are periodically exposed during their whole life. Then this would mean that the sexual predators (the male ones) get LESS exposure to pornography than the guys who don't get around raping and harassing people.

Bromo33333

Member

Nov 7, 2006

#257

George Papantoniou said:
I ate lobster last night and kept running to the toilet since.

I think that 99% of all men were exposed to pornography (at least a few times in their lives). And 70% are periodically exposed during their whole life. Then this would mean that the sexual predators (the male ones) get LESS exposure to pornography than the guys who don't get around raping and harassing people.

On the net, without a good SPAM filter, you rapidly vector back to 99% from 70%. At least in exposure to V1.ag.RRAH.

WarEaglemtn

Member

Nov 20, 2006

#258

In the US pornograpy, unless it depicts minors, is legal. Obscenity is what is illegal. Many do not see a distinction and it causes problems. Show an image in one city or town and you are fine. Show it in another and you are arrested and charged with whatever they can come up with. In Provo, Utah you might be charged with crimes against 'community standards' for showing your photo while the local Marriott Hotel pushes in-room 'adult' movies.(and J.Willard Marriott who started them is a Mormon). But, you get caught because the local DA sees you are an easy target while Marriott corp has money and lawyers.

As long as it doesn't legally qualify as obscene, print or publish it. I dont' have to look if I don't want to.

Aggie

Member

Nov 20, 2006

#259

WarEaglemtn said:
In the US pornograpy, unless it depicts minors, is legal. Obscenity is what is illegal. Many do not see a distinction and it causes problems. Show an image in one city or town and you are fine. Show it in another and you are arrested and charged with whatever they can come up with. In Provo, Utah you might be charged with crimes against 'community standards' for showing your photo while the local Marriott Hotel pushes in-room 'adult' movies.(and J.Willard Marriott who started them is a Mormon). But, you get caught because the local DA sees you are an easy target while Marriott corp has money and lawyers.

As long as it doesn't legally qualify as obscene, print or publish it. I dont' have to look if I don't want to.

Yep and the example is again about Mormons. Why is there a need to under lie this whole thread with bashing Mormons? Other religions do the same thing. Especially in the South. Try Franklin Tennessee. You might be surprised what the Southern Baptists do there. I know it well having worked at the Barnes and Noble's at Coolsprings. Yet not one of you in this thread want to bash any other religion than Mormons. Yeah I will believe your crap when you speak from a view point of including all who do not like PORNography. I as a woman not as a mormon do not like it. Too many of those images say they are depicitng women artistically when it is only for one purpose they were taken. Now before you all get your g strings in a twist, I have nothing against nudes. In fact issue #2 of Emulsion has a nude on the cover. If I was against nudity I would not have it in my magazine, espeically not on the cover.

Now for another thought in this whole debate, what about people who think that the only real photography is of people? What about landscape photographers who think that taking people pictures is not artistic. You have individuals here that like different things, and abhor others. It is the same with nudity in all it's forms. Some will like it, and other abhor it. As a community we have varied ethnoticities from around the world. Many of those other ethnic groups do not like nudity in any form. Yet some of us here think we should push it in their faces to make them conform to a small group because we are better than they are? What you forget is it is a community of varied backgrounds, religions/or not, and cultural taboos. All that was ever asked is that the nudes not pop up in thunbnails on the home page, and that like the critique gallery, there be a seperate gallery for nudes in all their forms. It is not censorship it is being mindful of other peoples culture/taboos/relgion/likes-dislikes what ever it be. I'll still look at the nudes no matter if they are in a seperate gallery. Yeah shocking the mormon looks at nudes.

Peter De Smidt

Member

Nov 20, 2006

#260

So Aggie are you suggesting that any type of picture that might be offensive to a large enough cultural group be relegated to it's own gallery, such that these pictures won't pop up to a casual visitor of this site? That seems to be the principle underlying your last post. But then should your avatar be shown? It clearly is offensive to millions of Muslims.

mark

Member

Nov 20, 2006

#261

She was saying that people need to not bag on one religion. It shows bigotry.

Kirk Keyes

Member

Nov 20, 2006

#262

Peter De Smidt said:
But then should your avatar be shown? It clearly is offensive to millions of Muslims.

It probably also offends every citizen in your neighboring town of Colorado City, AZ.

(A fundamentalist Mormon town that still practices polygamy - for those that are not familiar with the reference.)

Kirk Keyes

Member

Nov 20, 2006

#263

mark said:
She was saying that people need to not bag on one religion.

There is not enough time in the day to "bag on" every religion. One therefor needs to be selective.

Claire Senft

Member

Nov 20, 2006

#264

I am going to suppose that the preceding post was meant is humor.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. I believe that it would be best not to offend others by making light of their belief or by ridiculing those beliefs. I believe that it is best not to look for offense where none may have been intended.

Peter De Smidt

Member

Nov 20, 2006

#265

mark said:
She was saying that people need to not bag on one religion. It shows bigotry.

That's one of the things that she said.

In any case, why does poking fun of a religion entail bigotry? Poking fun of something inherently involves saying something negative about the thing in question. We aren't allowed to do that? Or if we do, we have to do it about a lot of different groups so that one group doesn't feel singled out? So all comedy is immoral?

And that relates to our topic in the following way: being offended does not mean being harmed, at least in a sense that should be illegal, as per JS Mill's Harm principle. Furthermore, actions or images that don't involve inherently harming something shouldn't be illegal. In other words one person should not be able to legally limit the freedom of someone else simply because the first person doesn't like what the other person is doing.) If you're offended by something, don't look at it, or don't let your kids look at it. It's that simple.

All of the various definitions of porn rely on personal taste, and that's it. Unless a good argument can be made that a practice unacceptably harms someone, then there's no basis for illegality. (While harming something is a necessary condition for the limitation of someone's freedom, it isn't suffient for such limitition. Even if a practice does cause harm, it doesn't follow that it should be illegal, since otherwise driving cars would be illegal.) Obscenity or community standards are ridiculous as they are purely subjective, and hence they shouldn't be the basis for limiting someone's freedom, as it would entail the government picking favorites.

catem

Member

Nov 20, 2006

#266

As a side-line on this, there have been some very interesting programmes on the telly here just recently on the history of pornography. Pre-Victoria things were, of course, much freer and during the eighteenth century there was a particular 'flowering' of pornographic pamphlets. Pre-photography, of course, but very explicit cartoons, (specially on a largeish colour telly )

It's not at all certain their publication would be allowed today. At the time they were also seen as transgressive, but interestingly not because of the sexual content, but because of their ulterior purpose - which was in fact not sexual at all, but social unrest - the drawings were all of the nobility and upper classes and their purpose was to demean them and poke fun at them (preparing the way, eventually for bloody, or non-bloody revolution in Europe). Quite interesting that at this particular part of pornography's history there is a 'given' sense that graphic portrayal of - in this case - the sexual act or naughty bits in anticipation of same - is undeniably associated with the demeaning of those portrayed, and the amusement of those looking at them.
There's a classic story of Pepys pleasuring himself over one of them, and then immediately burning it as sinful/subversive. All recorded in his diaries

Cate

Peter De Smidt

Member

Nov 20, 2006

#267

Stargazer said:
Quite interesting that at this particular part of pornography's history there is a 'given' sense that graphic portrayal of - in this case - the sexual act or naughty bits in anticipation of same - is undeniably associated with the demeaning of those portrayed, and the amusement of those looking at them.

Cate

This is a good point. People against certain types of sexual behavior or imagery often claim that the behavior or image is demeaning. Aggie's recent claim that some pictures only have one purpose (Making money? Arousing men? Angering Aggie?) is of this sort. The problem is that people who make these claims have a tough time demonstrating the demeaning nature of the acts or images in question. For example, is oral sex inherently immoral or demeaning? If yes, then why? If no, then why would a picture of oral sex be demeaning or immoral? Just because someone doesn't like something, or someone is disgusted by something, or someone wouldn't personally engage in something, it doesn't follow that that thing is demeaning for others.

On a related example, when I asked my students if homosexuality was immoral, many of them would say "yes!" When asked why, the number one response was "because it's gross." Well, as far as arguments go, that's pretty pathetic, as being gross (to someone) isn't sufficient for something being immoral. Otherwise eating tapioca pudding would be immoral. I mean yuck!

People often claim, for example, that stripping is demeaning. But if you interview strippers, most don't think they are being demeaned. The same goes for models, actors and actresses, investment bankers... "I'm not being demeaned." "Oh yes you are!" "Really? How?"

catem

Member

Nov 20, 2006

#268

Peter, you have a right to make your point of course, but may I suggest that this discussion now be steered away from remarks relating to Aggie? It's beginning to make me uncomfortable.
Just a thought....
Cate

blansky

Member

Nov 20, 2006

#269

Most religions by their very nature are about social engineering and control of people. So naturally the more fundamentalist that they are they more they are the supressors or repressers of sexual expression, and well as "art."

So religion usually ends up in the arguments about art/porn/erotica because they are usually the crusaders against it. However many societies in the past revered the sex act and it's many variations partly because sexual expression led to more population, which was a good thing. Besides, it was fun.

Even today fundamentalist religious types love to spout things like Sodom and Gomorrah stories and myths like the reason Rome fell was because of sexual decadence. So, deeply ingrained in any Judeo/Christian society or its descendents is the notion that sex is bad, demeaning, and evil.

Keeping religion out of the debate is pretty difficult.

Michael

catem

Member

Nov 20, 2006

#270

blansky said:
So, deeply ingrained in any Judeo/Christian society or its descendents is the notion that sex is bad, demeaning, and evil.
Michael

That's true, or certainly post-puritanism. Though not consistently so. Life pre-Victoria was pretty licenscious, and we are still recovering from the hypocrisy of the Victorian age, where double standards and a split between public and private life was the norm. Also those working classes were always at it, weren't they, throughout the ages.....

The Kama Sutra is often quoted as an example of an alternative approach and culture/religion. But it's also often forgotten that only 20% of the Kama Sutra concerns sexual positions; the rest is about how to be a good citizen. Even the sexual bits are (touchingly) about how to please your partner, and the original title of the whole was "Vatsyayana's Aphorisms on Love". Hardly pornography, then.

I find it amazing that tradition has it that the author was a celibate scholar.

Cate

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2006

Aggie

Member

Nov 20, 2006

#271

Peter you have no idea what I can express sexually. I just know when it is common decency to do so. I choose not to do so on the internet where the world would read it. I hope your students are of legal age. All it takes is one parent to be upset about the subject matter a child underage is taught in school, even sex ed classes, to get you in serious trouble. I kept my kids of the school sex ed classes simply becasue I felt I could teach them better. I also did not agree with the curriculum they taught. Yeah I read it all before denying my kids be taught at the school. Now you are probably smiling thinking I have kids that are sexually repressed or worse know nothing. My kids are far from that. In fact one Dr. when my daughter was 10 asked her in my presence if she had been taught about sex at school. She said no. The Dr. started yelling at me for it. Then my dauighter chimed in and asked him what he would like to know about it. After about 10 minutes of explaining to him in embarrasing frankness he blushed and shut up. a 10 year old taught by her mother (me) embarrased a medical dr. with her frankness and knowledge.

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2006

bjorke

Member

Nov 20, 2006

#272

Now, I know that APUG is international, and that its administration is not required to follow any particular code other than that imposed by Sean et al.

However, I hope Americans realize that 'freedom of religion' is specifically worded in the constituion as freedom FROM religious authority:

A Bunch of Old-Skool Guys said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Meaning that 'offense to religion or religious groups' should bear no legal weight at all. In perfect post-David-Hume style, the framers here declare religion merely an opinion, and of no more substance than, say, flying spaghetti monsters. Note that in the very same sentence the framers of the constitution included protection of that annoying 'freedom of speech' idea -- weird, huh? You don't suppose that they thought that religious privelege might be abused by some people as an excuse to make others shut the heck up? And that it was such a common and important issue that the framers made it the very first part of the Bill of Rights?

Hmm, could be....

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2006

jd callow

Moderator

Moderator

Nov 20, 2006

#273

Excellent post kevin.

Can Pormography be art? Maybe, but probably not to those who think it is pornographic. Can the depiction of sexual acts be art? I think so. Can images of war, death, cruelty, and other such things be art? Yes, but probably not to those who are being warred(sp?) upon, killed, etc...

Just my 2c. In the US you (should) have the freedom to speak as well as the freedom to ignore.

haris

Nov 20, 2006

#274

dmr said:
Speaking very freely, much of what I would call pornography is incredibly crude and demeaning. It's obviously produced by men, for men, for the purpose of arousal, period. There is no intimate artistry in this type of production. I'm sure everybody knows exactly what type of material I am referring to. (It's obvious that the producers of some of what I have seen have no {f-bomb}ing clue, pun intended, as to what intimacy really is.)

Well, having cable I can wach every day on my TV porn. And I can say it is BORING. And very disgusting. It is produced by men, for men, but if producers made it to arouse, they missed the point... And I am a man. Or, maybe, female in man's body... lesbian...

Saying that, ARTE had few nights ago themathic evening about pornography (ARTE is French/German artistic satellite TV channel, and they have on evenings broadcastings about specifis themes. They broadcast from 20.00 (8PM) till about midnight different programmes (documentaries, feature movies, interviews, etc...) about that evening theme).

According to what I saw that night, pornography is here to stay, become mainstream (like digital ), and some parts of pornography, especially from 1970es or 80es (movies and magazines) could be seen almost as art.

One can agree or not, but when one see what happens on Cannes film festival (Hot d'Or award), I think it is not far from true...

So, what is pornography and can it be art? Well, everything is possibile in this valley of tears we named the Earth...

arigram

Member

Nov 20, 2006

#275

Considering that pornography means "the works of prostitution" and that eroticism is one of the expressions of love, for me is simple:
pornography is pure commercial, made just to make money. Erotic art is an expression of our humanity, if money is involved, its not a priority.
Its not really a matter of your personal beliefs or opinion on aesthetics, its a matter of the goal of the creator: if (s)he just wants to make money, (s)he is a whore.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Share:

Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email