View Full Version : "Artistic Pornography"
11-22-2006, 10:08 PM
Did I say ridicule? No I thing the term used was "rag on" and I included the quotes to show it was not my term. I should have translated that as say "examine deeply".
And I believe that most religions, if not all traditional ones, have beliefs that will not hold up under scrutiny. And how is that hurtful?
Maybe I'm wrong, perhaps you could point me to one that does not.
11-22-2006, 10:10 PM
Here's an On-Topic Bit:
Is "Artistic Pornography" the same as "Pornographic Art"? (Are they both simply absurdities?)
I would have to say "yes" to the first question here. And no to the second one.
11-23-2006, 07:15 AM
If such remarks make people reluctant to express an opinion on APUG that is based upon their own beliefs because others wish to challenge them, to examine deeply, then such stifling of opinion seems to me to be outside of what APUG is for and such remarks are best saved for the soapbox.
Such activities I believe would be better spent on a website that has as its intent the examination of religious thought.
It may also be said that when it comes to matters of belief that science and logic are not at their heart. Is it our duty here to counteract and to provoke those that believe differently than do we? Should Aggie feel that membership in a photographic forum puts herself in the position of listening to attacks against, or having to defend, her religious beliefs?
If in the case of pornography if I were to say that I consider pornorgraphy to be an abhorrence, that I personally am deeply offended by it, what is to be gained by taking issue with me? Why not just concede me the right to feel that way. Why not settle for stating your own view?
If you feel that all of the major religions have foundations of bullshit so be it.
11-23-2006, 08:31 AM
This seems like a Monty Python argument thread. It's almost as bad as the pro-life issue.
11-23-2006, 03:38 PM
If such remarks make people reluctant to express an opinion on APUG that is based upon their own beliefs because others wish to challenge them, to examine deeply, then such stifling of opinion seems to me to be outside of what APUG is for and such remarks are best saved for the soapbox.I'm sorry Claire, but I'm confused: are you saying that some people should be able to express opinions, but others should not? Because that's really, really what it sounds like. I re-read what you've said several times and it always comes up that way.
How about this instead?
If such remarks make people reluctant to express any opposing opinion on APUG simply because it contradicts anyone's different beliefs, then such stifling of opinion seems to me to be outside of what APUG is for and such remarks are best saved for the soapbox.What's the the point of an "Ethics and Philosophy" forum if discussion of those exact two topics can be blanket-vetoed at any time by someone rattling the silencing sabre of "faith"?
11-23-2006, 08:51 PM
It is apparent that what I have written is easily misread.
Certainly, I intended to muzzle nobody. My statement is more intended as to whether an activity is worthy of being done and is constructive. I can believe what I wish..as may you. When someone says that their belief as a matter of faith makes something permissible... or the contrary... what is to be gained by a deep examination of their beliefs? In particular, what would be gained by rag on, ridicule or lambast someone that has beliefs different then our own? Would it not suffice to say "I understand your viewpoint and I am not in agreement. My view is xxxxxxxx." Both parties have stated their views. What is served with a deep examination of one's beliefs in a photgraphic forum? The parties have stated their ethics and philosophies relative to a photography situation.
People understand one another's views. I would not move to prevent someone from making a closer examination but I would question the advisablity of doing so. Certainly, there is no good in my saying "your beliefs are bullshit." It becomes no better by my saying "Here is BS that make up the foundation of your faith. xxxxxxxxxxxx."
I do apologize for writing unclearly.
Peter De Smidt
11-23-2006, 09:30 PM
I agree and disagree with Claire. I agree to the extent that little is to be gained by coaching one's positions or questions in offensive language. Instead of saying, "That's Bullshit!", or similar, it would behoove one to instead ask polite questions, along the lines of "If you believe..., what about ...?" Socratic questioning is much more effective at producing effective dialoque than coarseness or dismissiveness. On the other hand, we are adults, most of us anyway, and as rational people we should care about whether what we say is true. And the best way to do this is to discuss the matter with other reasonable people, especially if they don't agree with us. If people are too sensitive to really discuss issues, then they really shouldn't post their opinion publicly, especially on controversial matters. That's a shame, though. A quick look at public discourse shows that we need more decent, rational discussion of values (or other important matters) rather than less. For example, many people base public policy on their religious and ethical values. That alone is a good reason to examine them regularly.
11-24-2006, 05:57 AM
For example, many people base public policy on their religious and ethical values.It's already been made vividly clear that sometimes those public-policy values become enforced as photographic values, BTW.
11-24-2006, 09:06 AM
"Dirty pictures", James Woods in lead role, http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0217363/.
11-24-2006, 09:30 AM
It's already been made vividly clear that sometimes those public-policy values become enforced as photographic values, BTW.
Lost you there Bjorke
11-24-2006, 02:04 PM
Lost you there
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ :
"The piece caused a scandal when it was exhibited in 1989, with detractors accusing Serrano of blasphemy and others raising this as a major issue of artistic freedom. On the floor of the United States Senate, Senators Al D'Amato and Jesse Helms expressed outrage that the piece was supported by the National Endowment for the Arts, since it is a federal taxpayer-financed institution."
In that specific case, Christian conservatives specifically and loudly expressed their opinion that the NEA should be only supporting art that supported their interpretation of religious beliefs (notably, at least one Catholic nun supported Serrano, because her interpretation was different). The result was to threaten the work and livelihoods of all artists whose work was publicly supported.
02-11-2007, 07:47 AM
I started reading the first few pages of this thread then skipped to the end, missing out all that stuff in the middle. Which is, of course, why I never read mystery novels, getting so far I can’t help skipping to the end to find out what happen; which in this case, by enlarge is nothing, or at least so far.
People make up their own mind as to what is right or wrong (acceptable/unacceptable) and will disregard the rest – though I should limit this to adults, children’s minds are open and their values are yet to be written.
Having said above, and I like to be self contradictory, why on earth would any rational mind think the statue of David be pornographic? Is the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel pornographic with a picture of a naked man arm out stretched to God also pornographic, or how about all those little cherubs with male genitalia showing.
Obviously the Vatican is a den of vice, pornography and pedophilia and must be closed immediately!
02-13-2007, 01:36 PM
A bit off topic prehaps but the argument about peoples differing religous beliefs reminded me of a story I heared some time ago.
It would appear that 2 Welsh men were marooned on a desert island, being stoic chaps they accepted their fate and set to together to survive. They built a shelter to share, they worked together to grow crops to eat and in their spare time they worked together to biuld 2 chapels. Why 2 chapels, so they could have one they didnot go to.
To those who do not know, Wales is that bit of the UK to the west of England and the east of Ireland, is a NATION in its own right and is truly Gods green acre. You are all welcome to visit, bring cameras and rain coat just in case.
02-13-2007, 03:33 PM
To those who do not know, Wales is that bit of the UK to the west of England and the east of Ireland, is a NATION in its own right and is truly Gods green acre. Regards Paul.
Yes and managed to get left off the offcial EU maps - The Irish sea grew a tad bigger :p
02-14-2007, 04:57 AM
Yes and managed to get left off the offcial EU maps - The Irish sea grew a tad bigger :p
Shhhhh that was a failed plot to avoid paying VAT. It was ever thus and is part of why we are who we are.
The invite to visit even applies to our eastern neibours, best behaviour mind. Better get here soon before we are coverd by foreign owned wind farms buggering up all our horizons. The polotics of these things stink but that is not for this place.
See you all soon.