"Artistic Pornography"

[TheFlyingCamera]

So then are you saying that artists who photograph or paint sexual imagery are unethical?

 

[Markok765]

Nude women are only art if there's an urn in it... or a plinth. Both is best o'course. It's a secret sign, see, that they put in to say that it's Art and okay to look at.'

 

[Salmonoid]

"All the other studies argue for the cumulative effect of it on people who commit sex crimes. Which is a whole different argument."

No this is exactly my point. A direct quote from my original post. "It is a well established fact that all sexaul preditors are users of pornography first." There is a link between sexual preditors and pornography use. There is a link between pornography production and pornography use/addiction. (I am sure you will argue this point as well, but why?) From these studies it would also logical to deduce that there are responders on topic who are also sexual preditors. Statistically this is very probable. I think many of you doth protest too much.

Just because something is illegal it doesn't mean that is is immoral or wrong. And just because something is legal doesn't mean that it is moral or good. I do not think we need to discuss the legality of our action, and I do not need to make any argument for the banning of pornography if I can convince the producers of pornography to make more constructive use of their time. We only need fully understand our place in the picture (pun intended).

 

[blansky]

In a forum on ethics, the title Rev. should lend credence to my opinions seeing as I have actually been formally trained in the subject of ethics.

No, you have been formally trained in dogma which has been proven time and time again can never really coexist with ethics. Dogma always wants to triumph. This in turn lends less credence to your opinions because they are not in fact yours.

What was being conducted here was an intellectual discussion on art, what constitutes it, and how we can be drawn to something that may well be art but is attractive to our human hunger/craving to sexual stimuli. I have no doubt you have intelligence, and a valid point of view. Unfortunately when you started spouting religions dogma and ill thought out examples, and then stamping it with a token religious title claiming some higher authority for your responses, your opinions no longer have much to offer.

What works in a church may not have much merit in an intellectual discussion.


Michael

 

[Roger Hicks]

In a forum on ethics, the title Rev. should lend credence to my opinions...

Dear Rev,

Hardly. Either your arguments stand, or they do not. If they do not, it is irrelevant that the Pope himself endorses them. If they do, it does not matter whether Hitler would have approved. The quality of your arguments is entirely independent of the title bestowed upon you by any sect.

Consider also that ethics are to a large extent an environmental subject. The number of ethical standards that are universally agreed at all times among all people is small, even unto vanishing point.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Salmonoid]

Michael it is apparent to me that you are unable to distinguish the difference between religious doctrine and logical thought. You seem to assume that the two are mutually exclusive. If my examples offended you, then please ignore them. The MDiv degree includes ethics courses that include sections on all different theories of ethics from a secular point of view. If it didn't, then we would not have any way to communicate with those who do not ascribe to our faith concerning the subject of ethics. It does not help either, if you out of hand assume that your own disagreement to my points is not based on your own religiously held dogma. Sorry you feel this way about my title.

BTW, does religion have nothing to do with art? My first year studies in art history at MCAD would argue against such a bigotted response. Sorry, for citing my education once again. I guess I wasted a lot of money and time on that.

 

[catem]

That's all I have ever meant. Is to respect others who do not believe as we do. It's not just one religion, or one culture. each culture and religion will have differeing ideas. In a forum like this, there are many more reading who do not post that have ideas about it on both sides of the question. It's subjective depending on what you like. Is it so hard to respect others? Then again there is pushing the envelop in art. Can we respectfully push that envelop? Would not art be in doing the pushing while respecting others? Yeah I know puns intended too!

I agree with what you're saying. I believe in transgressive art/photography and questioning/breaking taboos - some of the most exciting art of the twentieth century has been transgressive in various ways (not necessarily sexual, but including this of course).

However, those taboos I'm interested in seeing stretched are those that I MYSELF THINK are repressive, or misconceived, and wouldn't be the same that others choose. My personal view of 'porn' - talking just in 'artistic' terms here - is that it is not transgressive and forward-looking, but often extremely predictable and time-worn (even if it's dressed up). Others will disagree

Some taboos are there for a good purpose, and are necessary for a healthy society. We'd all agree about some central taboos - like killing someone if you didn't like them - but would obviously disagree on many 'peripheral' taboos. I certainly wouldn't wish to break any taboos of the Navajo Indians or any other culture. You have to work within your OWN culture, and work with or against the limits there, as you see fit, or as it interests you.

Are you responsible for how your work is received in the outside world? Yes, but it should not be a limiting factor, otherwise art would never test any boundaries.

It's less straightforward in a forum such as this one, where like it or not we are a diverse community of different cultures brought together by a common interest in photography...And it's also strikes me that galleries and books and very different places to see and discuss work than forums. I'm not saying it can't work in forums - but it's definitely trickier.

Cate

 

[Salmonoid]

"So then are you saying that artists who photograph or paint sexual imagery are unethical?"

No. But those who knowing produce images that lead to the harming of others are.

 

[bjorke]

No, he clearly meant that the argument that pornography is ok because more kids are harmed by other things is fallacious. He's absolutely right. Btw., that conclusion doesn't imply that pornography, whatever it is, is either good or bad.

Yes, tho ChrisNisp is right, I mis-used the figure of speech. I meant a red-herringish decoy, maybe all the recent hoohah about escorts and sexual preference left me feeling a bit ducky.

Bringing it back....

Chris, did you mean this Dahmane book (caution: link contains naughty bits)? Assuming so, I'll first admit that Dahamane's list of fetishes don't exactly correspond to my own, so maybe this explains my feeling that this book is rather passionless and clinical. Or maybe it's just that his printing is over-wrought and it interferes with the Real Message of the work.

By titling the work "Porn Art" are we to take it that Dahmane truly intends to challenge the notions of either definition? Does he feel that flashy printing automatically elevates any material to 'art'? Or is it merely a cheap ploy to get his product to be sold by two different sets of book distributors at the same time?

The meaning of 'art' in a modern context is of course even more contestable than 'porn' (albeit with fewer legal ramifications associated with the definition). A lot of modern art makers and viewers (myself included) often view art as an important means to connect and ponder over issues that a couple of centuries ago were largely within the domain of religious philosophy: mystery, connection with the hidden portions of our minds and the apparent ongoing structure and destructuring of the universe around us, etc. Photography, with its immense capacity for surprise and chance and its detailed specificity, is imo the best of all mediums for these sorts of explorations -- assuming one doesn't get sidetracked by issues of mediacy (mistaking pictures and expressions for the things they represent, and then finding oneself unable to look at a picture withough confusing it for something else). ymmv

I have pretty definite feelings about a strong distinction between what makes good 'art' and what's merely good craftsmanship, which is ultimately pretty ideologically neutral and can be applied to most any subject.

(A.L. shot as printed in Spanish Vogue)​

--

Thanks rev for your link, the citations there are rather partial -- they have names of authors and (20 or 30 year old) dates but such citations only make sense against a list of associated references -- but there are none! So we're left with a set of disconnected and uncredited assertions. In fact the conclusions cited are just blankly stated without revealing any of the associated numbers or evidence*. As science goes, this is pretty poor. You may draw one set of conclusions from them, but the conclusion I draw is that this dog don't hunt.

Some of that site's other links are fascinating and illuminating.

* (Except as self-citation -- for example, trying to find a substantial reference to "Goldstein, Kant and Harman (1973)" -- which on the surface seems like an important bit of info to support the "porn inherently harms kids" argument -- found a lot of references TO THE REFERENCE, usually with 100% exact cut-n-paste identical citations, but *zero* to the actual research, to its title or source. For all we know those three researchers could have been the heads of prestigious and trustworthy institutions, or three guys playing chess in Washington Square Park. But who can tell?)

 

[blansky]

Michael it is apparent to me that you are unable to distinguish the difference between religious doctrine and logical thought. You seem to assume that the two are mutually exclusive. If my examples offended you, then please ignore them. The MDiv degree includes ethics courses that include sections on all different theories of ethics from a secular point of view. If it didn't, then we would not have any way to communicate with those who do not ascribe to our faith concerning the subject of ethics. It does not help either, if you out of hand assume that your own disagreement to my points is not based on your own religiously held dogma. Sorry you feel this way about my title.

BTW, does religion have nothing to do with art? My first year studies in art history at MCAD would argue against such a bigotted response. Sorry, for citing my education once again. I guess I wasted a lot of money and time on that.

Logical thought doesn't have foregone conclusions. Religion does. The fact that you study secular ethics so you can smoke and mirror it into convincing people that religious dogma is in fact ethics doesn't carry much weight.

I don't have dogma, just thoughts which can change with convincing "thoughts" suggested by other people.

Because religions historically had the money to pay artists to promote doctrine hardly takes that into the realm of what art is about. In my opinion religious art is to art as what infomercials are to information.

As for whether you wasted your money or not, hell, I've wasted a bunch myself over the years.

Carry on.


Michael

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

"All the other studies argue for the cumulative effect of it on people who commit sex crimes. Which is a whole different argument."

No this is exactly my point. A direct quote from my original post. "It is a well established fact that all sexaul preditors are users of pornography first." There is a link between sexual preditors and pornography use. There is a link between pornography production and pornography use/addiction. (I am sure you will argue this point as well, but why?) From these studies it would also logical to deduce that there are responders on topic who are also sexual preditors. Statistically this is very probable. I think many of you doth protest too much.

You're making a chicken/egg argument here. You assume that pornography by itself has the power to corrupt and seduce someone who otherwise would never be a sexual predator into being a sexual predator. You're also assuming that use alwas leads to addiction.

There are certain personality types who are prone to addiction, and who are prone to other pathological behaviors. If you'd like to take an example of someone who would NOT have had access to what we today would describe as commercial pornography, how about Jack the Ripper? One of the most notorious violent sexual predators of all time, yet unless he truly was Crown Prince Albert, or the Queen's Physician, it is highly unlikely that he consumed pornography to any specific degree. We of course cannot know for certain, since even his actual identity is indeterminate, and criminology in Victorian England was rather different than it is now.

While you may be accurate in your statistical assumption that of the 17,000 people who post on APUG, there are some sexual predators, it takes a set and a half of elephant testicles to level an accusation at anyone here who is engaging you in debate on this topic of being a sexual predator. The people least likely to be perpetrators are the ones most willing to discuss this issue with you; most sexual predators do NOT seek attention for their viewpoints as they know that society would at best ostracize them for it, and prosecute them at worst.

Oh, and by the way, you're using the Hitlerian oratorical method too- repeat an unsubstantiated fact (or blatant falsehood) enough, with enough vigor, and eventually people will believe it is the truth.

 

[Peter De Smidt]

Nude women are only art if there's an urn in it... or a plinth. Both is best o'course. It's a secret sign, see, that they put in to say that it's Art and okay to look at.'

Terry Pratchett strikes again.

 

[bjorke]

...it would also logical to deduce that there are responders on topic who are also sexual preditors. Statistically this is very probable.

Wow.

I mean: wow.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

"All the other studies argue for the cumulative effect of it on people who commit sex crimes. Which is a whole different argument."

No this is exactly my point. A direct quote from my original post. "It is a well established fact that all sexaul preditors are users of pornography first." There is a link between sexual preditors and pornography use. There is a link between pornography production and pornography use/addiction. (I am sure you will argue this point as well, but why?) From these studies it would also logical to deduce that there are responders on topic who are also sexual preditors. Statistically this is very probable. I think many of you doth protest too much.

You characterized the relationship between porn and sexual violence as such:

6. Pornography is addictive to many males, and will lead to the foresaking of spouse and family for self gratification. It is a well established fact that all sexaul preditors are users of pornography first. Sexual arousal leads to sexual acts, most of which are destructive of healthy marriage, and nurturing of children.

Here is the logical structure of your argument:

P1 Pornography creates arousal (assumption)
P2 Sexual arousal is addictive (assumption)
P3 Addiction leads to the foresaking of spouse and family for self gratification (assumption)
P4 Pornography leads to the destruction of family life (by P1, P2 and P3, transitively)
P5 Sexual predators consume pornography which feeds in their acts (assumption)
C By P4 and P5, pornography was responsible for turning "normal" people into sexual predators.

The problem is first that P2 needs a particular quantifier, and you set it up with a universal quantifier. In other words, not everybody will be addicted to pornography. Second, the conclusion C does not follow, because the burden of evidence is upon the causes for sexual deviancy. Your evidence has not shown any significant proof that the cause of sexual deviancy is pornography as your claims propose. It has only shown that where there already is evidence of sexual deviancy, that pornography is detrimental to this condition.

When you say "There is a link between sexual preditors and pornography use. " I agree with you, but not in an unqualified way. The nature of this link is not one of causation of deviancy, and that is the only thing that I'm arguing over and over. If you agree with me that pornography is an adjuvant to, but not a cause of, sexual deviancy, then I have nothing else to bicker about, and we can shake hands in understanding.

 

[blansky]

I think the good reverend has pretty much shown his colors.


I thank God every day I was adopted into a family of loving sane people.

Michael

 

[Bromo33333]

"So then are you saying that artists who photograph or paint sexual imagery are unethical?"

No. But those who knowing produce images that lead to the harming of others are.

The way I see it, there are 2 main arguments here:

1. The Libertarian Argument: The participants are not harmed in any way - and consent to being participants - not coerced in anyway. Viewing of the result is optional and avoidable. Since no direct harm is done in the production of this, and the results are not required viewing, there is nothing at all wrong.

2. The Paternalistic Argument: The results, even with full consent of participants, and with viewing being optional and avoidable, still will harm. Either by cheapening sexuality (exploitation of women, men, etc.), causing people to behave dangerously or badly (the porn causes sex crimes argument), or warp those that view it sometimes, excessively or at all. The result is both the fault of the producer, those that patronize, and those the commit crimes. Therefore is should be banned, restricted or regulated in some manner to protect society, and people from themselves.

I see these 2 groups going back and forth here. I do not think the bridge will be crossed here in APUG, but there is some sort of compromise reached in most countries. Some are more permissive (Amsterdam), some more restrictive (China, Saudi Arabia), some in the middle.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Oh, and by the way, you're using the Hitlerian oratorical method too- repeat an unsubstantiated fact (or blatant falsehood) enough, with enough vigor, and eventually people will believe it is the truth.

I think it's also called the Chewbacca Defense...

 

[Peter De Smidt]

Even if sexual imagery, or anything else for that matter, contributes to the harming of someone, it doesn't follow that it is immoral, or that it shouldn't be done. Driving cars leads to thousands of deaths each year, but driving one isn't therefore immoral. Here's another example, having children is an enabling cause of child abuse, since if we didn't have children, there wouldn't be any such abuse... Instead of condemning a practice by pointing out that it is an enabling cause for harmful behviour, what should be looked at is the totality of benefits and harm, which isn't a simple thing to do.

To sum things up: Some people think that pornography is inherently bad. Others don't. Some people think that it can be Art. Others disagree.

 

[Peter De Smidt]

I think it's also called the Chewbacca Defense...

Nice one! "Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury..."

 

[mark]

Let me see if I got this right, Salmanoid voiced his opinions, like everyone else here, and was flamed for it. He was apparently flamed because he based his views on his religious beliefs. He was flamed because many of you seem to have an issue with his religious beliefs.

Now, I know it is Monday, and the baby was up late last night, and I am tired so I may have missed something here. Since porn is a subjective area anyway, aren't there going to be several definitions of what it is, and basically no one is right (thus making no one wrong). or are we saying, that someone with religious convictions cannot be allowed to voice their opinions and say why they feel that way?

Seriously I am confused, as to why you jumped the poor guy's post and treated him is such a rude manner.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Mark, the problem is not that he had an opinion. The problem was just that he is trying to present them as fact. I don't see any reason to debates opinion; I find it important to debate the truth of facts.

 

[Aggie]

Mark, the problem is not that he had an opinion. The problem was just that he is trying to present them as fact. I don't see any reason to debates opinion; I find it important to debate the truth of facts.

Then both sides show the concrete studies that support each claim. I'm with Mark on this one. I don't agree with either side that have posted.

 

[blansky]

I don't see any reason to debates opinion; I find it important to debate the truth of facts.

I'm not sure what "facts" are.

As for debate, it is an exchange of opinions for the purpose of an exchange of ideas or concensus.

Since we all come from differing backgrounds, debate enables a healthy exchange of ideas. At one time differing ideas led to wars and deaths.

However when someone starts spouting rhetoric because the bible told him so or because Jesus came to him in a dream or it's church policy, all he has to do is back up his arguments like we all do.

Michael

 

[bruce terry]

Salmonoid "A direct quote from my original post. "It is a well established fact that all sexaul preditors are users of pornography first." There is a link between sexual preditors and pornography use. There is a link between pornography production and pornography use/addiction. (I am sure you will argue this point as well, but why?)"

Why should we. It's a no-brainer that all sexual predators more than enjoy hard-core porn of their deplorable choice. But you can't reverse that and assume that those who look at casual or artistic porn are in training to become sexual predators. If you DO insist on such a stand: All persons of the 'cloth' who are sexual predators read the Bible with great intensity - so the Bible and, maybe, the myopic confines of RELIGION did it.

Salmonoid "From these studies it would also logical to deduce that there are responders on topic who are also sexual preditors. Statistically this is very probable. I think many of you doth protest too much."

Cute, Your Holiness, but a wild-ass-guess that must include you and your fellow Annointed in with us depraved Stone-Throwers.

Now can we get back to what was a really interesting discussion about Art, for God's Sake?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I'm not sure what "facts" are.

Then let's just call them "claims to truth" for the sake of clarity...