PDA

View Full Version : "Artistic Pornography"



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Christopher Nisperos
11-04-2006, 09:36 PM
Cher Nisp,
But no doubt you are familiar with the argument that the reason He is always portrayed with loincloth is because He was a nice Jewish boy and therefore circumcised -- and the less intelligent or educated goyim prefer to ignore the fact the He was Jewish.
Shalom,
R.

Raja Royale and Dearest,

Todah rabah ("thank you very much" in my best memorized phonetic Hebrew ... therefore, perhaps in error!). But really ... Jesus, Jewish? HA! Who told you that? Everybody knows that He went to a Catholic church and prayed to his mom and real dad in front of an icon of ... oh, wait a minute . . .

In fact no, I hadn't heard that argument, but it certainly does seem plausible, doesn't it? Having briefly attended Catholic school and having gone to catechism like a good boy (due, in part, to nuns who would show up on the doorstep of our house with a sort of "subpoena" if I had missed class the previous week --no kidding), I of course know that Jesus was Jewish (making Mary a Jewish mother, don't forget. Can you picture the kvetching? "Jesus, when are you gonna get a job? All you do is hang around with guys all day.. fishing, walking on water... making bread fall from the sky... and who's gonna clean all that up? Are you happy? Look at me when I talk to you and stop looking up at the sky" .. etc.)

But I have to give the Cathos credit; they came clean with the naked truth. I remember being taught something about "the Lord being exposed with a naked body, because He was not even deemed worthy of being covered". Sheesh. Talk about adding insult to injury! Those Roman guys sure knew how to be mean, huh? Sounds like Pontius needed to be punched. Even my dad was never as severe!

But the Catholics sure got their revenge. Have you seen the gorgeous dresses the pope wears now (as well as the shoes and hats .. no purse though)? Jesus would be spinning in ... ah, nevermind. He's supposedly not there anymore.

Say hi to the lovely FS.

Le Nisp

PS/ the word loincloth sets off an alarm: according to some stories and a "secret Gospel" written by , did you know that Lazarus was in fact [I]not an old man, as is usually taught ... but a young boy in a loincloth (!). He's mentioned at least a couple times in the secret gospel.. he was apparently a Jesus groupie (no stalkers or paparazzis yet!). If you want more details, email me..I don't want to start a religious war here!

Christopher Nisperos
11-04-2006, 09:47 PM
Dear Aggie, If there is one thing that could make me attend a BYU gallery opening night -- and it's a big IF -- it's the chance of seeng a picture of you in the buff.
Cheers,
R.

Ha! .. or a good spread of food! Thus the motto, "If there's not someone good in the buff, there'd better be something good in the buffet"

I just made that up ... but I think I'll now live by those words (at least regarding openings!).

.

Christopher Nisperos
11-04-2006, 10:02 PM
Dear Chris, Well, as Xaviera herself might have said, f*** that...
Cheers,
R.

Raja,
I met Xaviera Hollander —aka, "The Happy Hooker"— at a party back around 1996, when I lived in Amsterdam. She invited me to her home the following week, where I cooked a horrible dinner (nothing more happened ... not even eating). She's really a very nice and talented lady with an incredibly beautiful face, however, she weighs probably more than 250 kilos (!). Unless dear Xaviera has lost a great deal of weight since then, she might say "f*** that", but I doubt that she would actually be able to do it! Of course, I've been wrong before.

By the way, I know that she now runs a B&B (no, not a brothel!) in a very nice area of Amsterdam, for anyone interested, go to http://www.xavierahollander.com/ Worth the stay.

Don't tell her I sent you, though. She might remember the "dietary dinner" I boggled! (Just kidding..actually, she has a fantastic self-deprecating sense of humor and I don't think she'd be offended if she saw this)

Best,

Chris

Ricardo41
11-05-2006, 04:08 AM
My favorite. If these books don't turn you on (erotically, sexually, artistically), you're probably dead or a Klingon.

http://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/books/sex/all/facts/01352.htm

ricardo

catem
11-05-2006, 06:58 AM
I've been thinking about this and I've decided that the idea that 'art' cannot be 'porn' is a load of b******s :p :)
Cate

TheFlyingCamera
11-05-2006, 08:04 AM
I've been thinking about this and I've decided that the idea that 'art' cannot be 'porn' is a load of b******s :p :)
Cate

Cate-

I agree- look at that Caravaggio painting I posted to this thread. That's both. High art and not-so-subtle eroticism.

Peter De Smidt
11-05-2006, 10:57 AM
Cate-

I agree- look at that Caravaggio painting I posted to this thread. That's both. High art and not-so-subtle eroticism.

I agree with Cate as well, but that painting...yuck!

blansky
11-05-2006, 01:03 PM
Just to add more confusion to the debate, we can perhaps correlate the concept of porn and art, or eroticism and art, with the concepts of love and lust, and our body's responses to them.

If art stimulates a cerebral reaction and porn merely a physical reaction, they're sort of in the same league as love vs lust. Probably by definition, although hard to define, we would say that love is a highly revered quasi cerebral response to something, and lust a supposedly less than virtuous (although generally more fun) reaction to a stimulus. This of course correlates with the highbrow reaction we have to art and the more earthy response with that nasty old porn.

I would argue that both love and lust can occur at the same time. (By saying I love to lust after women does not apply here). One can love their mate and be very full of lust (lustfull) after a couple of glasses of wine, good lighting and the room service tray is placed outside. The combination of the two is perhaps even be more fulfilling than just lusting after your secretary and nailing her in the executive washroom.

So I believe that indeed one can appreciate art and porn at the same time and perhaps both at the same time are indeed more fulfilling than looking at just art alone.



One problem I've tried to square away is my argument that lust is just a base reaction (reptilian brain) response that needs no higher thinking to be performed. Although we are drawn to it like flies to watermelon, we still, damn it, have to use our higher brains to qualify it. Is it safe? Is it legal? etc.

I've always been fascinated with the time/age problem as well. I look at a naked beautiful 25 year old woman and lust after her. I'd ravage her in a heartbeat. Would I feel the same way if I saw the same woman and she was 60. Same woman. Different illusion. What if she was 18? Yeah I jump her. 16? Hmmm.. better not. 14? Damn. Whats wrong with me. 10? Oh my God. I shouldn't even be looking. But it's the same "woman", just a different illusion.

So what I'm saying is that even with lust and with porn, although reptilian in nature, there is still higher cerebral thought processes occurring during the viewing. I guess the question is are these thought process high enough to be given the label of art.

Carry on.


Michael

catem
11-05-2006, 01:29 PM
So what I'm saying is that even with lust and with porn, although reptilian in nature, there is still higher cerebral thought processes occurring during the viewing. I guess the question is are these thought process high enough to be given the label of art.

Carry on.


Michael
'Porn' is lust without love, so I suppose you mean, is it possible for it to be art, and therefore w*****g on a higher plain?

If it makes you feel better....frankly I still think its (self-delusional) b******s. ;)

Cate

Claire Senft
11-05-2006, 01:54 PM
Dearest Cate, concerned am I that you not wear out your * key. Love C****e.

catem
11-05-2006, 02:09 PM
Thank you Claire. It's bearing up well.

It's true I'm using it far more than is normal for me; it must be something to do with the subject matter of this debate ;)

Cate

blansky
11-05-2006, 02:13 PM
'Porn' is lust without love, so I suppose you mean, is it possible for it to be art, and therefore w*****g on a higher plain?

Cate

Exactly.

How may times have you been in a gallery and the person working there prattles on about this work "saying" this and that and you just walk away flashing the universal stroking gesture, rolling your eyes and shaking your head.


Michael

Bromo33333
11-05-2006, 02:21 PM
Exactly.

How may times have you been in a gallery and the person working there prattles on about this work "saying" this and that and you just walk away flashing the universal stroking gesture, rolling your eyes and shaking your head.

Most art openings I have attended, conversations seem to be about anything but the artwork being displayed. :rolleyes: In some cases I would have much preferred what you experienced.

Reading artist statements, now that can generate some of the reaction you talk about ... ;)

Peter De Smidt
11-05-2006, 02:40 PM
Distinguishing 'higher' from 'lower' pleasures has a long history, from early Hedonism, through JS Mill, to....Blansky :) The problem is that if pleasure is a good, then why are high brow pleasures somehow better? You can either hold that highbrow pleasures give more pleasure, better pleasure, or they entail another type of good that's not reducible to pleasure. Each of these options faces rather considerable difficulties.

Bromo33333
11-05-2006, 02:45 PM
Distinguishing 'higher' from 'lower' pleasures has a long history, from early Hedonism, through JS Mill, to....Blansky :) The problem is that if pleasure is a good, then why are high brow pleasures somehow better? You can either hold that highbrow pleasures give more pleasure, better pleasure, or they entail another type of good that's not reducible to pleasure. Each of these options face rather considerable difficulties.

The difference for me is that one form of pleasure (I think of as "low") is primarily concerned with sating an appetite. The "higher" form feels more like growing and becoming better in some way. I suppose it would be most analogous to the difference between 'mindless sex' and 'love.'

There is a great book called [Amazon Link:]The Pleasure Trap (http://www.amazon.com/Pleasure-Trap-Douglas-Ph-d-Lisle/dp/1570671974/sr=8-1/qid=1162756127/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-8147103-0849557?ie=UTF8&s=books) that has an interesting premise that focuses mostly on overeating, but seems to be applicable in other areas with well known "appetites" and the possibilities of excess.

Salmonoid
11-05-2006, 02:48 PM
*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).

1. All sex is pleasurable. (heterosexual, homosexual, monosexual, s&m) This simply is how we're designed as sexual beings. It is very mechanical, and we are not vastly different from one another. Rub Y, get X. That simple.

2. Pleasure can be destructive. Just because something is edifying in one context, in another it can harm and destroy. For instance, fire does a wonderful job of roasting asparagus to that perfect softness/crispness to make it a pure pleasure, but fire all over the kitchen, or all over the forest is a terrible producer of death and destruction. Examples: Abuse of drugs is pleasurable but it leads to self destruction. To much alchohol leads to death on the highway and destruction of your liver. Licentious living leads to sexually transmitted deseases.

3. Sexuallity serves the essential function of reproduction of the human species. This is a very good thing. Nuff said.

4. Children are dependant on a stable environment, and need protection from those who can easily harm them. 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.

5. Men are aroused visually. Women much less so. This is were pornography comes in.

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.

Now I certainly hope that no one here would argue with any of they truths. If they offend you, you should ask yourself why reality bites. I would also hope that you would not produce art which leads to destructive sexual behavior, but would aim for a more edifying goal. Stop being an animal, and be human.

Rev. Timothy Gordish

Father of an adopted child who was the product of fornication, neglected by her mother, abused by a boyfriend and used for child pornography. We are currently dealing the the devasting effects of her early sexualization.

Roger Hicks
11-05-2006, 03:00 PM
What if she was 18? Yeah I jump her. 16? Hmmm.. better not. 14? Damn. Whats wrong with me. 10?

This has long intrigued me. The pervert is the man who does NOT find a beautiful 14-year-old girl attractive. Or, alternatively, the pervert is the man who does find the beautiful 14-year-old girl attractive, but refuses to accept that no matter how beautiful she is, if you're over about 15, the only decent thing is to leave her alone, admire her from a distance, and either never let her know or (if you know her well enough, which has to be pretty well -- and includes knowing her parents well too), to say, "If I were 15 or 16, I'd fancy you something rotten."

Cheers,

R.

Bromo33333
11-05-2006, 03:09 PM
This has long intrigued me. The pervert is the man who does NOT find a beautiful 14-year-old girl attractive. Or, alternatively, the pervert is the man who does find the beautiful 14-year-old girl attractive, but refuses to accept that no matter how beautiful she is, if you're over about 15, the only decent thing is to leave her alone, admire her from a distance, and either never let her know or (if you know her well enough, which has to be pretty well -- and includes knowing her parents well too), to say, "If I were 15 or 16, I'd fancy you something rotten."

Cheers,

R.

Actually, simply refrain from saying anything along those lines at all implying that you would find her attractive. No matter what, since nothing good would ever come of it.:mad:

Roger Hicks
11-05-2006, 03:16 PM
Actually, simply refrain from saying anything along those lines at all implying that you would find her attractive. No matter what, since nothing good would ever come of it.:mad:

Yers and no. In 56 years I have met two young girls -- both the daughters of friends -- to whom I have said this. Both were extremely mature for their years, and by the age of 14 were probably as wise/grown up/whatever you will as the average 20-year-old: IQs off the end of the scale, that sort of thing, and VERY dismissive (vocally, in conversation with their parents and me) of boys of their own age. At that point I see little harm in saying, "Oh, come off it, ___________. You're a very attractive girl. If I were 40 years younger I'd ask you out immediately."

Cheers,

R.

Bromo33333
11-05-2006, 03:18 PM
[...] At that point I see little harm in saying, "Oh, come off it, ___________. You're a very attractive girl. If I were 40 years younger I'd ask you out immediately."

That's very different. The other thing you said sounded like a dirty old man .. this sounds more like a mentor.