"Artistic Pornography"

[Peter De Smidt]

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. <snip>

One person's "common decency" is another person's... oh never mind. The students in question were university students taking such classes as Contemporary Moral Issues. I hope that it's ok to talk about moral issues with them?

 

[jd callow]

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.

The purely commercial does not exclude it from being art, nor do I agree with your definition of what is pornographic. I'm pretty sure being a 'whore' does not preclude you from being an artist or your work from being art. I am really sure that 'expression(s) of our humanity' are not always beautiful to observe.

 

[Peter De Smidt]

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.
Michael

To be fair, though, Christianity got this idea from Plato via Augustine. Plato's idea, as expressed for example in the Phaedo, was not so much that sex is bad, but that anything having to do with the body or corporeal nature in general is bad. It's bad, he thought, because all such things are impermanent; and the purpose of life is to rise about the corporeal and contemplate the eternal and unchanging Forms. The problem, according to Plato, is that when one tries to contemplate the eternal, the body is a constant distraction. For example, someone might be minding his own business contemplating the Form of circularity, but then a beautiful girl walks by. ... So much for circularity.

All of this is especially funny because Augustine was quite the Lothario.

 

[arigram]

The purely commercial does not exclude it from being art, nor do I agree with your definition of what is pornographic. I'm pretty sure being a 'whore' does not preclude you from being an artist or your work from being art. I am really sure that 'expression(s) of our humanity' are not always beautiful to observe.

I won't disagree with you, but I need to clarify that any artist that makes money is not necesseraly a "whore" or his artwork pornography, but most often when the only and I mean the only goal of production is money, what you have is not of any artistic value. This comes from my observation, its not a theory or a rule. After all I stayed that is my own personal viewpoint and part of it is the literal interpretation of the two greek words.
Considering the last line, I don't mind things that aren't beautiful. Eroticism can be crude, violent and disturbing as it is in reallity. I don't restrict art only to pleasant and happy themes, I can take a bit of ugliness.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

All of this is especially funny because Augustine was quite the Lothario.

"Lord, grant me celibacy... but not yet." So saith the great sage Augustine.

 

[haris]

*Warning* Do not read if you are easily upset.

This is a very important subject for visual artists let me start by acknowledging some obvious and universal facts (things that are ignored by much of those contributing to this thread)...

...Stop being an animal, and be human...

Rev. Timothy Gordish

Well, dear Lucy is 4.000.000 years old. Todays humans, as we know us, are less than 50.000 years old. So, we as animals are much older than we as humans. How on the Earth one think that 3.950.000 years which are in our genes are easy to erase/forget/ignore...

 

[Peter De Smidt]

Why do men like looking at attractive women or pictures of attractive women? The choices seem to be either A) God is responsible, or B) mother nature is responsible. If A), why would God make us the way we are but nontheless hold that it's naughty for us to lust after women? That's just plain mean, and being plain mean is incompatible with an entity's being omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent. Hence that's not something that God would do. So if God exists, and granted that men are randy, it follows that God wouldn't think that our lusting after attractive women is naughty. If God wouldn't think it's naughty, it would be a bit presumptuous for someone else to think so. If B), then we are the way we are because horny/randy people were more likely to reproduce, and so those traits were selected for over millions of years. Morever, if B), then God doesn't exist (because otherwise he/she would be responsible), and so religious arguments against lusty images/behavior are moot. But if there aren't any justifiable religious premises such that lusty behavior is inherently immoral, then there would have to be some other basis for these claims, or they would be unsupported. The only other basis for morality in this cause would be harm or benefit. So is there more overall harm or benefit in men lusting after women, which in turn leads to them lusting after pictures of women? I suggest that if this wouldn't be the case, humanity wouldn't survive very long, which would be a shame. Thus, since either God or Mother Nature is responsible for men lusting after attractive woman (and pictures of attractive women), and these exhaust the available options; and since it follows from both options that men's lusting after women is ok, then it follows that men's lusting after women is ok. Since it follows that if something is ok that whatever it entails is also ok, then it follows that men's lusting after pictures of attractive women is ok. If men's lusting after pictures of attractive women is ok, then it would be odd if making such pictures was not ok.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Peter - I think I would enjoy taking one of your classes!

 

[DBP]

Peter,

Are you deliberately slighting polytheists, deists, and others? Also, it is by no means clear that accepting scientific evidence requires suspension of belief in some form of deity, only that it requires a less interventionist view of that or those deities.

Bruce

 

[Peter De Smidt]

Peter,

Are you deliberately slighting polytheists, deists, and others? Also, it is by no means clear that accepting scientific evidence requires suspension of belief in some form of deity, only that it requires a less interventionist view of that or those deities.

Bruce

To start with the second point, I never said that, say, a belief in God and a belief in evolution are incompatible. In fact if there is a God, evolution is the way he/she got things done, as it were. But in that case God would be ultimately responsible for what happens. As such, this case wouldn't differ from my A) position offered in my example.

To move to the first point, science could ultimately provide answers to any question but the following: Why is there something rather than nothing? Two answers come to mind. First, there just is, and there's no reason. The second is that something has necessary existence. It exists because it has to exist. The only reasonable candidate for the later is an omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent God. Polytheism posits more than one God, but if none of them are omni-competent (which combines the three omni's outlined earlier), then it fails to have the necessary explanatory power, and if one of the gods is omni-competent, then all of the other gods are explanatorily superfluous, and need to be cut out with Occam's Razor.

Deism is the view that God created the universe and then left. Since God is non-physical, God can't leave, since place is a physical property, and God doesn't have any of those, if he or she exists. A deist might reply that God simply isn't paying attention, but that would violate his/her omniscience. There doesn't seem to be another option. Hence, neither is a rationally tenable position.

I'm not sure what you have in mind by "other", and so I can't comment directly.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

To start with the second point, I never said that, say, a belief in God and a belief in evolution are incompatible. In fact if there is a God, evolution is the way he/she got things done, as it were. But in that case God would be ultimately responsible for what happens. As such, this case wouldn't differ from my A) position offered in my example.

To move to the first point, science could ultimately provide answers to any question but the following: Why is there something rather than nothing? Two answers come to mind. First, there just is, and there's no reason. The second is that something has necessary existence. It exists because it has to exist. The only reasonable candidate for the later is an omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent God. Polytheism posits more than one God, but if none of them are omni-competent (which combines the three omni's outlined earlier), then it fails to have the necessary explanatory power, and if one of the gods is omni-competent, then all of the other gods are explanatorily superfluous, and need to be cut out with Occam's Razor.

Deism is the view that God created the universe and then left. Since God is non-physical, God can't leave, since place is a physical property, and God doesn't have any of those, if he or she exists. A deist might reply that God simply isn't paying attention, but that would violate his/her omniscience. There doesn't seem to be another option. Hence, neither is a rationally tenable position.

I'm not sure what you have in mind by "other", and so I can't comment directly.

For other... (s)he is taking a really long nap, and not that (s)he isn't paying attention, but has the universe on TiVo, to catch up when (s)he wakes up.

I guess you could call that philosophy DVDeist.

 

[Claire Senft]

Interesting thoughts Mr De Smidt.
Would you also hold that a competent God would not make a human being that is by nature greedy? If a God did create mankind that is by nature greedy then does it follow that God is not all benevolent..and just plain mean?

Could one hold that God created mankind..and other animals that have a built in urge to reproduce because it is too important to leave such a necessary trait to chance..in others words God wanted a continuing world?

Could a God have created mankind that is essentially greedy because such a greed is required to keep mankind active and progressive?

Has God created mankind with the tendency to do wrong so that mankind must struggle to against his nature? Has mankind been created knowing within his being the difference between right and wrong?

 

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi Claire,

Let's see. Not sure. Not sure. Yes. Probably. Don't think so. (That's the 'soul building' reply to the argument from evil. The problem is that there's way too much evil.) Yes, assuming there is a God.

 

[Claire Senft]

You made short work out of that Peter.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

A deist might reply that God simply isn't paying attention, but that would violate his/her omniscience. There doesn't seem to be another option. Hence, neither is a rationally tenable position.

Perhaps the deist God simply got bored and is purposely ignoring us. Or even disgusted with what we've done with our "Free Will" and has turned his metaphorical back on us and is playing with those nice beings over in one the the adjacent star systems where things are going along quite nicely. (I suspect you'll point out that you can't have free will if God is omniscient...)

 

[Kirk Keyes]

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

Not really. I'm kind of serious about that believe.

 

[bjorke]

WRT to all this deist-ness:

Now I know that sometimes people have hot buttons that prevent any further listening. I expect I have them too, BUT:

Richard Dawkins was on C-SPAN a few days ago and the video is interesting particularly because he was lecturing at a university right next to Jerry Falwell's "Liberty University" in Lynchburg, Virginia. And so the faithful lined themselves up ready to challenge or otherwise trip-up Dawkins's various assertions during the long Q&A session. They asked the lion's share of questions, by my count. They tried, and imo (and that of the applauding audience) failed...

One of the questions raised was the one Kirk mentioned about the apparent collision between 'Free Will' and the twin pincers of God's Omniscience versus a deterministic, tinkertoy universe (both of which seem to restrict any 'real' 'free will'). (In fact the requirement that the universe be 100% deterministic is in itself telelogical and probably therefore false -- why should the universe be required to be deterministic if god-free? Those are unaligned issues. There are plenty of random elements to existence, from the quantum level on up -- so 'free will' seems trivially explained as our sense and explanation for our ability to respond to randomness in a structured way without actually defying entropy)

Another key issue, and entirely germane to this discussion, is: what constitutes ethical behavior, why would be people be moral without the threat of a deity's punishing hand? Across the world, among many religions and cultures, why are people, overall,... nice?

 

[blansky]

Another key issue, and entirely germane to this discussion, is: what constitutes ethical behavior, why would be people be moral without the threat of a deity's punishing hand? Across the world, among many religions and cultures, why are people, overall,... nice?

Because of self interest, self defense, and self preservation. Also partly because of the human (humane) composite makeup of need for acceptance, love and friendship.

In my opinion, religions are "nice", only because the human (humane) element overrides the religion and reigns in the impulses to destroy those they dislike.


Michael

 

[bjorke]

Shhhhh Michael, you weren't supposed to give away the answer

(On a related note, why is it that few people (Taliban notwithstanding) bother to scrupulously follow the Bible's counsel to stone witches and adulterers etc? Could it be because people feel that they have some more "humane" inclination? Are they positioning themselves and their choices as more moral than the God who ordered them to kill? (Or to keep it tenuously connected to the thread, perhaps ordered them to marry a 12-year-old as their second or fourth wife?)

(And lest people feel I'm picking merely on ol' Yahweh, who at this point should be old enough to take care of himself, there are plenty of similar conflicted-ethics problems in most other supernatural belief systems)

Here's an On-Topic Bit:

Is "Artistic Pornography" the same as "Pornographic Art"? (Are they both simply absurdities?)

 

[blansky]

Is "Artistic Pornography" the same as "Pornographic Art"? (Are they both simply absurdities?)

The former has a naked woman sitting eating chicken, the latter the woman is sitting with the chicken eating her.

Sorry about that. It's just what came to mind.

Michael

 

[Claire Senft]

Mike, Getting eaten by a chicken is just another type of pecker.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Mike, Getting eaten by a chicken is just another type of pecker.

But what if it were only a chicken with the intent to eat? Would it be then a peckerwould?

 

[Claire Senft]

Is this a test?

 

[arigram]

And what if they were from KFC? Could you call them chicken? Would that make the photograph socio-political with a touch of surrealism? What if the woman was eating the chicken that was eating a worm? Or what if the Giant Chicken devouring the woman had a fight with Godzilla in another photograph of the series?

 

[Claire Senft]

Well Mr. Keyes, perhaps you can make a list of religions that are worthy of ridicule. Perhaps a second list of religions worthy of respect should be posted.

Can you imagine how nice APUG will be when we start being more offensive and hurtful?

Just the thought of it is enough to promote analog photography.