"Artistic Pornography"

[Salmonoid]

My main point is that a (Fine Art) photographer shouldn't have to think it's necessary to create work with a pre-conceived, dogmatic agenda in his head. Otherwise what you get is called propaganda (religious or political). If expression is real, it has to flow -or pour out naturally, and the best expression comes from unbridled thinking, that's all.

I am in complete agreement with this.

Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, I'm free at last ... even to create porn art.

My point would be: Although you are free to do all things, not all things are edifying to others.

Now to add some scripture and get religious on you, but it expresses the essence of the Christian walk in the freedom that we have.

1Cor. 10:23 ¶ “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.

This was my intention in my post, and my main point. Pornography hurts children, I prefer to help them. We need to consider the consequences of our freedom.

 

[JBrunner]

*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).

Now I certainly hope that no one here would argue with any of they truths. Rev. Timothy Gordish

Father of an adopted child who was the product of fornication

an adopted child who was the "product" of fornication, well golly, ... does she have to wear a big "F" on her sweater? How is a child a "product"?

Hmmm.... universal facts....don't argue with truths

Homosexual sex does not produce life, if life is superior, then heterosexual coupling is superior.

superior....... I see....well....


Dogmatic, rigid conclusions (so called truths) are often the result of indoctrination into systematic belief systems.
Control mechanisms exist within the structure to create an "in" group, and an "out" group.
Usually, the criterea are advanced by an "alpha male" (the leader) who interpretes and defines the structure of the belief system. The leader does not author the criterea, but is mandated as the conduit to a divine source.
Persons who belong to the "out" group are anyone who does not subscribe to the belief system. Rational discussion on certain subjects is not often possible by members of the "out" group, with those who have been indoctrinated into the "in" group, because it is not possible to have a rational discussion with someone who holds an irrational position as a result of a belief system.
Flawed concepts like "universal truth" are used to preclude examination of established dogma within the group, promoting harmony and obedience within the unit, while effort is made to focus attention and energy toward the percieved "failings" of the "out" group, (who are further subdivided by the "in" group, with a variety of labels) thereby reinforcing the dogma, and helping to alleviate that terrible, pervasive fear that someone, somewhere, is having fun.

Thats just, like....my opinion... I'm fresh out of universal truths.

BTW, I'm the one on the right.

 

[Gim]

Does artistic (?) porn cause more damage to children than war, poverty, hunger, hate, politics or religion. Statistics anyone??
Jim

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

My main point is that a (Fine Art) photographer shouldn't have to think it's necessary to create work with a pre-conceived, dogmatic agenda in his head. Otherwise what you get is called propaganda (religious or political). If expression is real, it has to flow -or pour out naturally, and the best expression comes from unbridled thinking, that's all.

I am in complete agreement with this.

Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, I'm free at last ... even to create porn art.

My point would be: Although you are free to do all things, not all things are edifying to others.

Now to add some scripture and get religious on you, but it expresses the essence of the Christian walk in the freedom that we have.

1Cor. 10:23 ¶ “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.

This was my intention in my post, and my main point. Pornography hurts children, I prefer to help them. We need to consider the consequences of our freedom.

OK. You want your flame? You've got it:

What is your trip with this "edifying" mantra? Apparently you think that nothing can be considered Art or artistic unless it has some magic stamp of approval with the letters e-d-i-f-y-i-n-g. Dude-man-Rev, take an art class. As for the rest (scriptures,etc.), please save it for your congregation. What moves me is photography.

Secondly, don't you even dare to try to mix the issues of "Artistic Pornography" and "pornography hurts children". You know darn well that one issue doesn't necessarily have to do with the other. In the latter issue, no one on this thread or forum would disagree with you, but if you're trying to suggest that a photographer who creates such work is "bad" and is automatically hurting children ... and that you are "good" because you don't create the same knid of work ... I'm afraid that many of us on the forum will land squarely upon you with both feet. With all the incidents in the news over the last several years about preists and reverends having their way with kids and adolescents, I certainly won't be lectured-to by you about how my photography might "hurt children".

You said: "Pornography hurts children, I prefer to help them. We need to consider the consequences of our freedom". Please. We need to consider the consequenses of our BS.
Ever think about how many kids DIE in Africa every day òr are left orphans because their parents have died of AIDS, and the Catholic church STILL maintains that it's a sin to use a damned rubber?
.

. http://www.avert.org/photo_search.p...ica.htm&anchor=2&gallery_id=0&page_type=photo
.
.
Talk about immoral. Go sit down and come back when you've repented.

.

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

BTW, I'm the one on the right.

Hey, JB, nice pic. Where you born in December, by chance? In a barn?

 

[Flotsam]

Does artistic (?) porn cause more damage to children than war, poverty, hunger, hate, politics or religion. Statistics anyone??
Jim

According to UNICEF:

An estimated 20 million children have been forced to flee their homes because of conflict and human rights violations and are living as refugees in neighbouring countries or are internally displaced within their own national borders.
More than 2 million children have died as a direct result of armed conflict over the last decade.
More than three times that number, at least 6 million children, have been permanently disabled or seriously injured.
More than 1 million have been orphaned or separated from their families.
Between 8,000 and 10,000 children are killed or maimed by landmines every year.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Hey, JB, nice pic. Where you born in December, by chance? In a barn?

and you know that the December 25 thing was really not his actual birth day, but just a way to usurp a Roman holiday to make the new religion more palatable to the locals?

 

[mark]

Well, the idea of artistic porn was not offensive but the direction this thread has turned surely is. Maybe this should disappear to the soapbox where other hate mongering threads are banished too.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

MHV,

I think you are not communicating with me, but jumping into your own conclusions without reading what I said.

Let's see...

I did not denigrate homosexual couples or their adopted children's rearing. You jumped to this conclusion yourself. See my reply concerning what I think about homosexual vs. heterosexual couples with children.

Yes, I recall it, it said:

Healthy and lifelong heterosexual relationships are the most complete and healthy relationship for raising children who become healthy adults. Our society wishes to deny this so that we can excuse our adidiction to sexual pleasure at the expense of the healthy reproduction of our species.

I think I made a fair interpretation of your words.

I did not say that women are not arroused by pornographic material, only that men are to a greater proportion. Just check out the local magazine rack for this one.

Nope, you're mistaking market for facts. Women are less likely to consume pornography the way it exists now, but they are not less potentially aroused by the visual display of sexually explicit acts.

I said that sexual arousal brings on sexual acts. Read it again.

Why don't you read again my answer: "That sexual predators watch pornography, and that it has a deletrious effect on their condition is a fact. That pornography causes their condition is at best a hypothesis, not a logically following conclusion."

You say sex entails violence because violent people like sex. I say that by this evidence you cannot conclude that violent people like sex, because there are many, many people you consume pornography and who do not perform sexual aggressions. Have you also noticed that of all the sexual aggressors caught recently, all of them drank pepsi or coke regularly? My, then, soft drinks surely must cause rape.

Thanks for responding, you don't seem to agree with what I am saying. Why is it so necessary to prove my points wrong if they are so unreasonable? By the way, what exactly are you trying to say that is contrary to my points?

a) Because there is no point in not responding to what I disagree with, especially when it is presented in such a dishonest manner.
b) Because it is fradulent logic like yours, laced with the emotionally manipulative potential of a child abuse story that is so detrimental to the societal support for things like gay rights, women's free choice concerning abortion, or contraception.
c) Despite what you claim, I do not agree with you. Don't play stupid.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

And now for more on-topic talk:

YAY FOR ARTISTIC PORN!!! Love and picture, screw and photograph! Long live Roy Stuart, long live all the BSDM scene, long live all the exotic things we could see in the links posted by previous posters, long live John Cameron Mitchell, long live every bloody celebration of the act of fornicating!

 

[JBrunner]

Would we all basically agree that the definition of porn is subjective? Ask ten persons, and get ten different answers. Ask ten people what is art, same thing, ten different answers. So the big question we have been facing, before the little detour through morality 101 was "what are we talking about?"

I think we will have a difficult time defining the terms separately, let alone together. Who sets the definition? What of my art and craft? I wouldn't create something I considered porn. So who decides if it is or not? Me? The reverend? Larry Flynnt? Is it art? Who says so? Me? The reverend? John Szarkowski?

It's a stimulating conversation, but artistic porn is perhaps unattainable, except by individual perception, because the definition is unattainable.

 

[bjorke]

The fact that armed conflict harms more children than pornography is a canard, guys. More people are killed by cigarettes than machineguns in the US, but that doesn't mean that one should encourage machinegun ownership because of that.

So let's set aside the tangents like Rome's unfortunate opposition to safe African sex or the tragedy of large-scale harm to children and many others by wars or forced starvation -- these crimes have little if anything to do with the assertions made about pornography's broadly alleged harm to children. Which has so far not been supported by any sort of evidence. Indeed, less-tolerant cultures have been shown, statistically, to be less positive environments for children, with higher murder rates and rates of teen pregnancy (to cite two examples) than more-tolerant ones.

I don't think that statistics are the only way to answer questions about 'evidence' but they are usually a solid method. What's not been heard among these posts so far is any sort of objective citatation for such assertions at all.

Similarly, the idea of heterosexual coupling as being superior to heterosexual coupling due to its connection to 'life' -- one could easily make a contrarian argument based on overpopulation leading to death etc.

...who said you were a flawed copy of a 'more perfect' boogieman? Is this a jab at Jesus Christ?

The fallen or failed-copy view of humanity is a common one that spans many religious myths and is hardly unique to Christianity, so... no, not specifically. Rather, I contend that 'nobility,' either used to describe people or actions, is a questionable notion because it implies a teleological purpose to our existience and actions, and that such teleology can be used to rate those actions as greater or lesser -- rather than simply a functional method that bases its ethical choices upon the best-available objective evidence about the possible benefits or harmful effects of those actions.

Nobody was talking religion here...

Actually, you did, and directly asserted religious authority by attempting to validate your statements by using your 'rev' title -- there's no such thing as 'just' a title, which I why I don't bother signing my posts with 'Doctor' or 'Mister' etc unless there were some specific agenda to be served by such a citation.

 

[Dinesh]

Similarly, the idea of heterosexual coupling as being superior to heterosexual coupling due to its connection to 'life' -- one could easily make a contrarian argument based on overpopulation leading to death etc.The fallen or failed-copy view of humanity is a common one that spans many religious myths and is hardly unique to Christianity, so... no, not specifically. Rather, I contend that 'nobility,' either used to describe people or actions, is a questionable notion because it implies a teleological purpose to our existience and actions, and that such teleology can be used to rate those actions as greater or lesser -- rather than simply a functional method that bases its ethical choices upon the best-available objective evidence about the possible benefits or harmful effects of those actions.

My cat's name is Mittens

 

[catem]

I suppose this subject was bound to open a can of worms (no pun intended- oh well, all right it is intended).

"What is 'porn'?" and

"What is 'art' ?

As various people have said, unanswerable, indefinable, except to answer the first post, yes, surely there is such a thing as 'artistic porn' which is not to define it or put any value-judgement on it (i.e. that it is, because of this, automatically and necessarily taken to some sort of 'higher place', although it may be).

Surely this forum is not the place for conversion, to any particular moral belief system. Some arguments (either way) are just not worth starting here, let alone pursuing.

So where does that lead us? Can we get back to the purpose of the thread apart from the worms? (I'm genuinely interested in what the purpose is/was, but for now I've lost it completely).

Maybe the only conclusion is Aggie's - we have to learn, as people sure, but here as photographers, to respect other peoples' moral systems, and find a way of being able to pursue our own, as freely as possible, without causing offence to others. That's the conondrum, I feel.

Cate

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

JOCK STURGES

The fact that armed conflict harms more children than pornography is a canard, guys. . . let's set aside the tangents like Rome's unfortunate opposition to safe African sex . . .

Hello Bjoke. A "canard"—unless I'm mistaken— is a false story, so I'm going to assume you mean a given. One reason I brought up the Vatican's opposition to safe-sex in Africa in my response to Rev, was not only to expose the hypocrisy of his position, but also because I honestly think he wasn't aware it. Or, to use his favorite word, I was just trying to edify him. Otherwise, I agree with your point.

By the way, I see that you're in Northern California, my old stomping grounds. I used to work at Newell Color Lab (way before the Jock Sturges polemic). . .speaking of which...

To be clear, I'm quite admirative of the work of Jock Sturges and I do not consider it to be pornographic (the U.S. courts agree with me). However, being that many people still see "pornography" in his images —and being as we're on the sub-topic of children— perhaps he belongs in this discussion.

Any opinions?

.

 

[Aggie]

I
Maybe the only conclusion is Aggie's - we have to learn, as people sure, but here as photographers, to respect other peoples' moral systems, and find a way of being able to pursue our own, as freely as possible, without causing offence to others. That's the conondrum, I feel.

Cate

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!

 

[Peter De Smidt]

Hello Bjoke. A "canard"—unless I'm mistaken— is a false story, so I'm going to assume you mean a given.
.

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.

 

[Peter De Smidt]

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!

It's true that we should treat others with compassion and forbearance, and we shouldn't assume that our own culture and beliefs are inherently any better than any other group. Nonetheless, there's nothing inherently wrong about making moral judgments about different cultural practices. If you don't think so, you can't say the Nazis were morally wrong. That itself would be a moral mistake. Furthermore, it's not wrong to say things that someone might find offensive. Slavery was despicable, and it doesn't matter if some slave owners are offended by my saying that. That said, when talking about about sensitive issues, it's only proper to speak carefully and politely. Always be charitable when interpreting others, and if what they say isn't clear, don't jump to the most outrageous interpretation. Instead, ask them to clarify. And so on.

 

[Salmonoid]

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. The fact that I am raising a child who is suffering from the effects of sexual abuse should lend credence that I am not a hypocrite. I care, and that care leads to real action not just sactimonious preaching. My opponents seem pretty sanctimonious to me, but I assume they likewise practice what they preach.

The fact that there is a direct link between pornography and sexual assault in children and adults is well documented. Please go to this web site for a listing of studies concerning this topic. www.ktk.ru/~cm/stat2.htm http://www.ktk.ru/~cm/stat2.htm

 

[Aggie]

It's true that we should treat others with compassion and forbearance, and we shouldn't assume that our own culture and beliefs are inherently any better than any other group. Nonetheless, there's nothing inherently wrong about making moral judgments about different cultural practices. If you don't think so, you can't say the Nazis were morally wrong. That itself would be a moral mistake. Furthermore, it's not wrong to say things that someone might find offensive. Slavery was despicable, and it doesn't matter if some slave owners are offended by my saying that. That said, when talking about about sensitive issues, it's only proper to speak carefully and politely. Always be charitable when interpreting others, and if what they say isn't clear, don't jump to the most outrageous interpretation. Instead, ask them to clarify. And so on.

Yes you can throw politics into this debate, but the question of this thread was Pornography art. To that end I am narrowing my view down to that concept only. almost a year ago there was a big bru ha ha here on apug about a young woman who took and also posted nudes of herself. Nothing wrong with the nudes, she did some interesting things with them. The problem came to light when it was noted where she had taken the pictures. She had done so on the Navajo Reservation. Now that is where the problem really came from. It is illegal and I must emphasize that, ILLEGAL! on the Navajo reservation to take nude photography. It is part of their culture to not do such things. It is their religious beliefs. It is also a written law. She also did not get permission from the Navajo tribe to take those pictures, which she was supposed to do. She claimed some shaman had allwoed her to do it, and had done a prayer ceremony about it. It came to light that that was all bogus as well. She got mad, and yeah I was a bull dog about it when the lies started and I made the phone calls to confirm what she had done. Point is, it is a stated taboo also written into law. No matter how artistic it was, it was disrespectful of the peoples who lived there. Do we in our art or search for art disrespect the culture, and religious beliefs of others just to take a picture? On the other hand yes there are many horrible things happening in the world. Things you cited are not of a pornagraphic nature in the sense of what this thread is about. You are siting political incidents. That is fodder for a different thread. If not this thread should then get dumped into the soapbox on its political merits.

That is not me saying it should be locked or deleted. I have had too many people on apug think because I said soapbox that somehow that morphed into me demanding and having the power to delete the thread.

 

[Peter De Smidt]

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.

That's just wrong. Others here have formal training in Ethics. But when talking about right or wrong, how much training one has is irrelevant. All that matters is the reasons one gives for one's position.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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. The fact that I am raising a child who is suffering from the effects of sexual abuse should lend credence that I am not a hypocrite. I care, and that care leads to real action not just sactimonious preaching. My opponents seem pretty sanctimonious to me, but I assume they likewise practice what they preach.

The fact that there is a direct link between pornography and sexual assault in children and adults is well documented. Please go to this web site for a listing of studies concerning this topic. www.ktk.ru/~cm/stat2.htm http://www.ktk.ru/~cm/stat2.htm

have you actually read what those studies say? They're not talking about casual pornography consumption - they're talking about people who are addicted. Also, look WHERE you're getting your statistics from. a RUSSIAN website- perhaps this individual has an axe to grind with their perception of life in America, which they want to portray as a decadent and debauched nation?

I do find it rather bothersome that you are repeatedly trumpeting your adoption of this girl who has been so traumatized as some kind of credential. If you must keep telling total strangers about how she is the "product" of "fornication", I wonder what kind of message you send to her, for you must talk about it with her more than you do with us! Poor child is being traumatized all over again for something that was completely beyond her control.

I too am an adopted child, and I don't know why my birth parents gave me up for adoption. Frankly, I think I'm better off for it. Could be that my birth mom was too young; could be that she was raped; could be that dad ran off with the cocktail waitress when she was seven months along and she didn't want a constant reminder of the selfish bastard; could be any number of things. I really don't care why- I'm just glad I ended up in a loving home with two devoted parents. If my parents know, they're not saying; and they certainly never rubbed it in my face that they "saved" me from some other horrible life.

If you really care, your actions should speak for themselves, and not need promotion to fulfill your need for external recognition. No saint was ever self-anointed or self-nominated to the sainthood.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

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. The fact that I am raising a child who is suffering from the effects of sexual abuse should lend credence that I am not a hypocrite. I care, and that care leads to real action not just sactimonious preaching. My opponents seem pretty sanctimonious to me, but I assume they likewise practice what they preach.

The fact that there is a direct link between pornography and sexual assault in children and adults is well documented. Please go to this web site for a listing of studies concerning this topic. www.ktk.ru/~cm/stat2.htm http://www.ktk.ru/~cm/stat2.htm

Well I will put on my academic hat (which should lend credence to my opinions, I suppose) and point to you that of all the sources your site list, none argue to the effect that pornography has a deletrious effect on normal people except Zillmann, Dolf (1982), and that study has had its fair share of criticism over the last 24 years (yes I can furnish references).

24 years is damn long in academia, and nobody respectable can ignore the large followup of an article in its assessment. All the other studies argue for the cumulative effect of it on people who commit sex crimes. Which is a whole different argument. So the "direct link" you are positing must be qualified.

 

[Ed Sukach]

... Pornography hurts children, I prefer to help them. We need to consider the consequences of our freedom.

I have been searching for credible evidence that pornography hurts ANYONE - including children. If you know of any (please, no "everybody knows", or thunderous pronouncements from various pulpits) - I'd really like to know about it.

The best information I've seen so far comes from the United Nation's World Health Organization, where they reported on the consequences of removing criminal penalties - "legalization"? - of so-called pornography in the Scandinavian Countries in the - when was it? - '60's or '70's. Surprisingly, to some, every effect was positive - sex crimes of every sort - and violent crime in general, decreased significantly in frequency.

Be that as it may, I'll propose another question: "Which cause more harm, sexual freedom or sexual repression and denial?"

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"?

 

[Salmonoid]

"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"?"

I have argued no where for banning anything in any of my points. You are making this assumtion yourself. I would rather the artists understand that there actions have real consequences. In other words, art matters. An ethical artist takes this into consideration.