"Artistic Pornography"

[Markok765]

Im too young to know this

 

[dmr]

Have you tried Hari Krishna?

What is that?

LOL! it was my lame attempt at humor.

Comes from a running gag in "The Muppet Movie" ...

"Uh, excuse me, I'm lost."

"Have you tried Hari Krishna?"

I don't know why I posted that, but it came to mind when I read the "lost" comments.

Oh well ...

 

[Markok765]

You are really bored, arrnt you........

 

[kb244]

Here's an example of an image that in its day was considered borderline pornographic (the Catholic Cardinal who commissioned it kept it hidden behind a velvet curtain in his Roman Palazzo). Today it is considered part of the Canon of western art, much like Michelangelo's David. Yet you can't call it porn, because it has so many other points of reference beyond the sexual suggestion. There are the referents to classical mythology (Cupid, with his wings and bow), the contemporary symbols of musical instruments with their allusion to performance and education as well as seduction...and the masterful, even revolutionary, understanding of light and shadow, and how to capture them on canvas.

Is he planning on putting that violin bow up his....

 

[Bromo33333]

Just to make it clear, the respondents stated specifically that the statue was pornographic. They were not asked questions about a criteria, and the statue met that criteria. They directly stated that "Michelangelo's David is pornographic" Yes, simply amazing, but Utah is a little behind the midwest. In illustration, most recently an Auguste Rodin exhibit was allowed, but the work was draped. I find that attitude far more revolting than pornography.

So .... there was a cloth covered statue - and you couldn't see the statue ...?

Was there a "R. Mutt" signature on the cloth somewhere ... ?

 

[Bromo33333]

There are also people are into the whole costume part of the game and these can also be seen in other examples of life like civil war re enactors or Renaissance Faire devotees.

The funny thought comes to mind: "You know, BDSM is a whole lot like RenFaire ... " LOL!

 

[Markok765]

Is he planning on putting that violin bow up his....

EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWEWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

 

[Bromo33333]

[...]The definition of pornography need not be rigid, [...]

HEYNOW!

 

[kb244]

[...]The definition of pornography need not be rigid, [...]

HEYNOW!

You know they got viagra for that...

 

[Markok765]

Isnt that like 10$ for a pill?

 

[DrPablo]

HEYNOW!

Very nice... :rolleyes:

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

For those who didn't thumb their dictionaries recently, pornography comes from the greek that means pictures (graph-) of prostitutes (porn-?).

Is porn/eroticism defined along the lines of content (actual vs. non-actual sexual acts) or attitude (what arouses you is porn, what arouses me is eroticism because I'm better than thou)?

I wish the divide would be a neutral one, like let's just call porn what depicts sexual acts and eroticism what depicts desires, but we've already loaded a lot of attitudes in these words. The careful theoricist would then have to come up with new terms that circumscribe more carefully the categories she wish to delineate for the purpose of her discussion, and that's an attitude I generally subscribe to.

Ordinary language is a blunt knife when it comes to these matters. So if one wants to "define" porn, I would commend him to the current usage of the term. As to whether it identifies a clear concept, my answer is no.

 

[Pastiche]

Ordinary language is a blunt knife when it comes to these matters. So if one wants to "define" porn, I would commend him to the current usage of the term. As to whether it identifies a clear concept, my answer is no.

You know... I think this is a GOOD way to start many discussions..
Setting out definitions helps keep everyone's thougths on the same frequency.
Mismatched lingo just leads to garbled junk... generaly.

 

[MattKing]

Definition is a tool, not a solution.

If you can arrive at a definition that informs and explains and serves as a shorthand for useful meaning, it is great and useful.

If it only leads to further disagreement, it's not so helpful.

I'm not sure that "pornography" is something you can define, either inductively, or deductively, because in essence it is just an affront to values that we either hold, or think we should hold.

Abuse and mistreatment are things that we are more likely to agree on. Objectification and diminution of personal integrity are others that we can probably get somewhat close to agreeing on.

If you value keeping genitalia or female breasts private, or at least something that is only shared intimately, with those who you know, love and respect, than full nudity is an affront. If you consider genitalia or female breasts to be nothing more than an attractive part of the human anatomy, to be shared, or not, as circumstances dictate, then you will not consider full nudity an affront.

If you consider sexual activity as something that is best shared only in private, you will consider the public display of sexual activity an affront. If you are comfortable with the public display of sexual activity, and consider that to be appropriate, then you will not consider the public display of sexual activity an affront.

It is the imposition of others' values on these issues that causes problems. Further, it is the attempt by others, to impose their values on those who don't share them, that really causes problems.

IMHO we should welcome the arguments of those whose values we, at first instance, don't share. We may be convinced, if not in general, at least in the specific instance.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone says they are upset and offended by something that bothers them, I don't have any problem in respecting their desire not to be exposed to that something, and I'm happy to hear their arguments why I should be offended as well.

Don't get me wrong, I have preferences. Like a lot of males, I am much more comfortable with female nudity, than male nudity. I just think it important to both protect my sensibilities, while at the same time not attempting to impose my choices on others.

$0.02 worth, as usual.

Matt

 

[catem]

Don't get me wrong, I have preferences. Like a lot of males, I am much more comfortable with female nudity, than male nudity. I just think it important to both protect my sensibilities, while at the same time not attempting to impose my choices on others.
Matt

Interesting you say that. Funnily enough I am more comfortable with male nudity than female nudity. Unforunately the gender balance of what is practiced and what is seen is w-a-y off.

In my earlier post I mentioned that nude (or semi-clothed) 'work' (including exploitative pornography) can cover what is best and what is worst in 'humanity' but I ommitted to say that much of what I see as 'serious' (including 'erotic') or 'aspiring serious' photographic nude art I think is neither enlightening/uplifting, nor offensive, nor challenging and boundary-breaking, but just plain boring. I include some of the greats in that, and don't include Mapplethorpe.

This won't be popular here, but I'm coming to the conclusion that I'm not interested in photographic 'nude' work but prefer the subtleties of drawing, painting and sculpture. (There are, of course, important exeptions, I include Mapplethorpe for one).

My favourite photographic nude is Willy Ronis' 'Le Nu Provenal'. A lot of stuff I see is just trying to be clever, and in my view it rarely works.

Cate

 

[livemoa]

So .... there was a cloth covered statue - and you couldn't see the statue ...?

Was there a "R. Mutt" signature on the cloth somewhere ... ?

or Christo?

 

[Roger Hicks]

... The definition of pornography need not be rigid...

A lack of rigidity limits your options, though.

(Sorry, couldn't resist it).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Bromo33333]

or Christo?

Good one! Well done.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Colonoscopy is where a camera should never be shoved!

Oh, I don't know... We have an instance where one CRC (Creep With Camera - and it was a d***** camera, at that) caused an awful lot of suffering to an emerging model by publishing really explicit, crass images of her - taken in a "flurry" of activity - and hiding behind the signed Model Release. I think that it might be a very appropriate final destination for that camera.

BTW Ed, why is it when someone wants to think of puritanical or fundamentalists Utah is brought up...

I did not intend to characterize Utah as being especially Putitanical. It just happened to be where the legal action took place.
As far as "Puritanism", I'll call and raise you a *bunch* betting that Ipswich, Mass. FAR exceeds Utah or any place else, for that trait.

The strange part about all this is that the Puritans were actually NOT VERY PURE. I've been part of a group researching the history of this place - and we've been startled by a lot of the "Old Records". In the mid-1600's, there is a Court record of a woman suing her husband for "Denying Her Conjugal Rights"; there is testimony from another, during an Adultery trial, that, "I leaned out of my window, and told them to stop, but they wouldn't listen."

I can only theorize that Nathaniel Hawthorne took great artistic license when he wrote "The Scarlet Letter", and that attitudes like that have shaped the brittle "morality" that we have here today.

] If Utah was against nudity, why are there so many large families?

Kind of proves my point, doesn't it?

There is one nude photo at BYU. It was taken on a survivaL class outing near Lake Powell back in the spring of 74. It is of a girl with very long blond hair sitting naked in a rain pool on top of a plateau. She is turned away from the camera, but the back shot is a classic Lady Godiva type image. Well you know what, I didn't see that damn photographer after I had hiked for hours to find a seculuded spot to take a bath. I have the distinction of being the only nude shown at BYU. There now take that for being stuffy and puritan like.

I would NEVER take you for being "stuffy" OR "Puritanical", Aggie.

I'll bet that was one truly beautiful photograph!!!

 

[Claire Senft]

I am conflicted by Aggies statement about where a camera should never be put. One reason for this is it conflicts with the advice I have given a couple of digital photographers..a second reason is who is Aggie to tell someone that a camera and axle grease should never be used for recreation?

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

the term "pornography", is subjective, and really doesn't mean anything specific. Something that has artistic value and relevance, can't be pornographic, by my way of thinking. It could be sexually graphic, obviously not approprate for children, or those with immature concepts regarding the human body(see above) But not porn. Thats my subjective opinion.

Well said, and agreed.

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

Erotic art captures the intimacy of certain human experiences. Porn (the way I define the term) does not. I think the hang-up is in defining what porn is, and I would say that if it has true artistic merit, it is not porn.

. . . a damned good defintion, worthy of of memorizing, IMHO

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

I've found that lots of folks equate nudity with pornography.
juan

Ha! Juan I have an even better one: I've found that some people even equate bell pepper photos with pornography!

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

Bondage is definately porn. ...

Hey Drew, what about this .. here you have bondage and piercing!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...erugino_049.jpg/200px-Pietro_Perugino_049.jpg

(no wars, please ... mildly given as tongue-in-cheek!)

.

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

Without having read thru this thread, I'm gona say that porn is penitration either by self or other.

"Penetration by self"? Wow. I think I once told my boss to do that, right before I quit.

.