Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[UniversalAlien]

Most of nature reproduces through sex. Is the depiction of nature art? And if the depiction of nature is considered art then why also would yon not consider the depiction of sex as an art?

When we use the word 'pornographic' we are by definition talking about sex being depicted in a way that someone defines as obscene. But what is obscene? Some years ago in the middle of the 20th Century if you depicted a man and women in bed together in a Hollywood movie it would be censored out. Today, and often, sex acts are depicted in main stream movies which may receive an 'R' rating but would still by no means be considered pornography unless the actual physical sex act was shown in clinical detail. Why? Is the clinical sex act obscene? To some all sex is obscene - to others nothing is obscene. Who gives anyone the right to define what is obscene?

If you want to say pornography is not art and then say horror movies, murder mystery movie, war movies and other forms of bloody human destruction are an art then I ask you what twisted sense of art values allows you to call the human sex act obscene and yet still consider the bloody destruction of the human body in horror or murder movies as an art

And now do you wonder why there are crazed people with guns engaging in mass murder. Maybe they should be watching pornography instead of the latest horror flick? And maybe the psychologist Sigmund Freud was right; maybe much of human behavior is suppressed sexuality Or do you like Clint Eastwood {famous for his depiction of a violent cop in the Dirty Harry movies} pointing a .347 magnum gun at someones head and saying 'make my day' before he blows the guys head off - is that art

[Belinda]

UniversalAlien wrote:

do you like Clint Eastwood {famous for his depiction of a violent cop in the Dirty Harry movies} pointing a .347 magnum gun at someones head and saying 'make my day' before he blows the guys head off - is that art

If the incident depicted by Clint Eastwood is part of a comment on some idea significantly more important than an isolated psychopathic act then, yes, it is good enough art. If the incident in the film is inserted for no more interesting reason than titillating viewers then I should call it pornographic.

If the conversation was about how explicit should pictures be before they are pornography, I would not place any limits, even for children.( I am open to evidence that some children are actually frightened by pictures of anatomies) Medical illustrations have already been mentioned, by Misty, I think.

The problem of legislation is about material suited to children. Kids are generally able to distinguish between the salacious and the medical contexts. Therefore medical explicitness of art materials is okay. I would , however restrict to adults so-called 'erotica' which is supposed to be artistic porn , because children are easily influenced by silly ideas.

A good artist will not make images of erotica without some relation to the purpose of the images, which will invariably be other than titillation. . Pornography is art for the simple reason that it is representtion of an event in another medium.

[UniversalAlien]

The problem of legislation is about material suited to children. Kids are generally able to distinguish between the salacious and the medical contexts. Therefore medical explicitness of art materials is okay. I would , however restrict to adults so-called 'erotica' which is supposed to be artistic porn , because children are easily influenced by silly ideas.

A good artist will not make images of erotica without some relation to the purpose of the images, which will invariably be other than titillation. . Pornography is art for the simple reason that it is representtion of an event in another medium.

But its OK for children to watch the latest JAMES BOND 007 movies where our super hero kills many {sometimes 100s} of 'bad guys' and like some type of immortal always rises unscathed with his magic gun still smoking. You see the paradigm? Keep childrens minds off of sex and encouraging them to be magic super-heroes with guns. Yes the movie industry is giving you art in any case with films of a sexual nature possibly exciting sexual impulse - but what type of impulse are the very popular 007 movies exciting - Get a gun and save the world! Isn't it sad that the head of the NRA {the gun owners advocate} Wayne LaPierre has to tell us children are being exposed to too much violence in the media?

And when you say "A good artist will not make images of erotica without some relation to the purpose of the images."I disagree. Why does sex need to have a purpose to be art? Some might actually consider sex and its depiction to be a very high art. With that view pornography means a poor example of sexual depiction that lacks artistic merit - But then you get into aesthetic opinions and personal value judgments. In my opinion the horror movie the EXORCIST was the most obscene travesty of a film - and yet it is considered a 'classic'.

And if you are going to advocate and show as entertainment art, violence, murder and mayhem, then don't be surprised when the next unbalanced individual goes berserk and starts killing - maybe he thinks in his twisted imagination that he is the new 007 super-hero saving the world. In the book 1984 by George Orwell they had the 'Anti-Sex League' which was part of the evil establishments controlling the worlds way to suppress human sexuality which hindered their agenda. Today in the state of Nevada famous for legalized prostitution the state is continuously running adds promoting 'Abstinence' as the right thing for teenagers - Don't want those kids to get addicted to sex - no teach them to fight, give them a gun and send them off to the next 'good war'

[Fleetfootphil]

I would rather that kids don't get addicted to anything. For myself, I like to pick my addictions in order to provide myself with a nice array. I could include watching porn, tv, Oreos, Twinkies, fishing, making porn, reading books, writing poetry, gunsmithing, eating cheeseburgers, stalking teenagers wearing hoodies, working, hosting parties, playing harmonica, washing diapers, quilting, talking, or anything else. What the world makes of what I (and others) do is the core issue regarding decisions on porn. Whether porn can be art seems as though there is no answer other than yes.

Ain't no good wars, past, present or future.

I am surprised at how slowly the conversation go here. I, who knows nothing about anything, can have the last word on any conversation stand for days. Bummer that.

[Apeman]

No porn cannot be art....that's all.

[Fleetfootphil]

Apeman: I think proper punctuation (or grammar that avoids the double negative) would help me get your point.

[Belinda]

(Nested quote removed.)


But its OK for children to watch the latest JAMES BOND 007 movies where our super hero kills many {sometimes 100s} of 'bad guys' and like some type of immortal always rises unscathed with his magic gun still smoking. You see the paradigm? Keep childrens minds off of sex and encouraging them to be magic super-heroes with guns. Yes the movie industry is giving you art in any case with films of a sexual nature possibly exciting sexual impulse - but what type of impulse are the very popular 007 movies exciting - Get a gun and save the world! Isn't it sad that the head of the NRA {the gun owners advocate} Wayne LaPierre has to tell us children are being exposed to too much violence in the media?

And when you say "A good artist will not make images of erotica without some relation to the purpose of the images."I disagree. Why does sex need to have a purpose to be art? Some might actually consider sex and its depiction to be a very high art. With that view pornography means a poor example of sexual depiction that lacks artistic merit - But then you get into aesthetic opinions and personal value judgments. In my opinion the horror movie the EXORCIST was the most obscene travesty of a film - and yet it is considered a 'classic'.

And if you are going to advocate and show as entertainment art, violence, murder and mayhem, then don't be surprised when the next unbalanced individual goes berserk and starts killing - maybe he thinks in his twisted imagination that he is the new 007 super-hero saving the world. In the book 1984 by George Orwell they had the 'Anti-Sex League' which was part of the evil establishments controlling the worlds way to suppress human sexuality which hindered their agenda. Today in the state of Nevada famous for legalized prostitution the state is continuously running adds promoting 'Abstinence' as the right thing for teenagers - Don't want those kids to get addicted to sex - no teach them to fight, give them a gun and send them off to the next 'good war'

UniversalAlien , I demand that you do not impute to me ideas that are not mine, especially bad ideas. I support the sensorship of all violence for the sake of entertainment, from the glorification of licence to kill to cock fights. Especially for impressionable children. Please withdraw your accusation.

Sex is not violence although some people confuse it with with violence. Sexual relationships are however too important to individuals and to society to be introduced to children via porn.

[Supine]

UA,

I'm not sure if whether or not James Bond movies are art has much to do with whether or not porn is art.

And bearing in mind there are more genres of films beyond horror, porn, or action movies.

There are romances, comedies, and mystery movies like the older (before Robert Downy Jr.) Sherlock Holmes films. There are other genres too that I'm sure I'm forgetting.

One of my favorite movies is a drama I believe. A Love Song for Bobby Long. That movie has little to nothing to do with blowing people up or gunning people down.

We don't need to create red herrings to attempt to justify porn's legality or artistry.

The United States is the largest producer of porn in the whole of planet earth anyways. So, it does not follow that pornographic production in every other nation of earth produces more frequencies of mass shooters in every other nation of earth whilst the U.S. is some beacon of holiness and peacefulness.

But for the record, Bollywood is the largest film industry in the world with Hollywood in second place. Many nations prefer Bollywood movies to Hollywood because they say the East Indian film industry produces more "family orientated" movies. They find the combination of the pornographic and the violent in U.S. cinematic culture to be evidence of U.S. decadence.

But that's all side tracking to far from the original question really.

-- Updated December 26th, 2012, 12:48 am to add the following --

Better sources would be found on some of the book shelves of your local library. Absent those this link is of just a slight help. And the Wikipedia article under the appeals to Africans gives a little indication too.

http://www.india-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=814046

Bollywood says NO to male nudity! 17 Dec 2007, 0000 hrs IST,AFSANA AHMED ,TNN

Daniel Craig, who had women all around the world gasping when he stepped out of the sea in Casino Royale wearing swimming trunks, is willing to set new standards for Ian Fleming's secret agent James Bond .


In his next Bond film, Craig has promised to go totally nude.

But the question BT asked their female costars in Bollywood was would there be as much interest in seeing Messrs Khans, Roshan, Abraham and Kapoor in the nude as there is in gawking at a Daniel Craig? This is what they replied, laughing in embarrassment!

Priyanaka Chopra

I think I would cringe on seeing anyone in the Hindi film industry naked on screen. When you watch a movie with your family it gets difficult not to react. I think sensuality is more appealing than a full monty. It's just too much in your face. And that is ugly.

There were more responses.

[Apeman]

Clarification. No. Porn cannot be art. There.

[Fleetfootphil]

I don't get what all of this personal rejection of porn, which is then attached to all sorts of god-awful other behaviors (such as decadent child rearing) has to do with the question of whether porn can be art. Who cares what Bollywood says? Who cares what James Bond does in movies? Why would anyone support the sensorship (sic) of all violence in entertainment?

Of course porn can be art, the same as anything else these days. Art ain't beauty or wholesomeness any more.

-- Updated December 27th, 2012, 11:32 pm to add the following --

Let's get technical for a moment. I don't think photography is art but I do think some photographs are art. Can anyone out there explain how I could maintain such a distinction? Then, can you apply it to the porn question? Please.

[Belinda]

Of course porn can be art, the same as anything else these days. Art ain't beauty or wholesomeness any more.

I have said this throughout the discussion.

Isn't photography a medium for art, similarly clay is one medium for sculpting?

[Fleetfootphil]

Is there really a medium for art now? I doubt that any more than I think there is a specific medium for garbage or for comedic relief. Everything is in flux and nothing is sacred. I don't like it but I have only one choice other than to live with it.

[Lou what reality]

It is a shame, many good points have been gone over by some wise contributors And yet seem to be over looked. I suggest we look at this again, it's been a while. A logical conclusion was never drawn. Everyone is just a little older and a little more experienced, so why not?


My personal views on this subject are or almost completely congruent with Whitedragon, or at least from what I have seen, porn is not art. Art has some effect on our spiritual selves and makes us think, realise and gives us all kinds of mixed emotions. however the way I see porn is hollow. There is no long term benefit to it, in the end you go sit down and think, was that really that great? Was it worth it? For me it is not, it's impure and plagued by some of the worse things in life, i.e. disease, regret etc. I can not help but feel it is wrong, or in other words a sin. Something that we can be in control of for it is nothing but the faults in our self discipline, personality or anything that opens up weakness. please understand me when I say this, I accept it is apart of this world, I am not saying "if you watch porn you are evil" but what I am saying is that from most people you ask (I've done this little bit of research in my social circle) eventually find it, not so much as a thing to watch for enjoyment, but more a habit or addiction. If these things mainly effect your mental state of mind, and have negative effects in the long term.


From this we have figured that porn is a short term thing with a long term addiction (or habit), mainly has negative effects, is done by sad people that are not fulfilled in life (which is what life is all about) and has absolutely no emotion or care or love or effort by anyone how is it art? It's not. any points that need clarification or if anyone would like to agree/ disagree with me, let me know. I suggest we discuss this topic further.

[Logic_ill]

I understand your concerns. I personally do not consider porn an art (generally). I don't do so because of what someone before me mentioned: intent. Its major or principle objective is to stimulate a person sexually, under the knowledge that viewing people engage in sexual activity can be very enticing.

A part of me rejects pornography because I fear there may be negative effects. This is highly dependent on the mind or person and his or her circumstances, but porn's existence or availability does contribute sexual ideas and high powered stimulation that may very much influence our sexual constructions. It may create expectations about our sexualities that may turn out to be negative to our sexual interactions. Negative because in having expectations of what the sexual acts should be, each person might not allow or be open to the others natural sexual expression. I mean, allow for the sexual expressions to take its course without feeling defrauded or disappointed. I at least may resent the lack of genuine expression or the thought that the other is responding to his expression actually constructed or influenced by porn and society, and not so much by what comes natural.

On the other hand, I probably wouldn't have even come as remotely aware as I have of this, if it hadn't been for porn, so in a way I am grateful. Sometimes I put my curiosity above the possible negative effects. It is an approach.

So is porn art? Not in my mind, but it has been a kind of teacher. Porn can turn us into hedonists (in the negative sense of the word), and somehow make us fail to appreciate and love the other, the way they naturally are. It may create unnecessary sexual tensions and make us fail to realize how unbelievably lucky we are that we have someone to share our sexualities with.

[Whitedragon]

Maybe it will be art if it can depict human strife and triumph better.