PDA

View Full Version : "Artistic Pornography"



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

bjorke
11-05-2006, 03:18 PM
'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.. Gosh Michael, this is a surprising turn for your studio business :)


------------------

Personally I see no problem with lust w/o love, largely because 'love' is so incredibly amorphous as to defy definition. Despite the occasional sign that there really is a G*d, (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061103/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_korea_miniskirts) I usually look at everything through the lens of evolution and see most of these moral conflicts as reflecting the behavior of primates that evolved living in small bands now living in large societies. We don't worry about these sorts of things in social groups smaller than the Dunbar number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar_number) — it's only in groups large enough to afford anonymity (media like TV and the 'net can add this to even the tiniest hamlet these days) where people start worrying about effects like 'lust without love.'

I see a lot of correlation between 'porn' and 'art' and other aspects of culture (http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/computing/users/dixa/papers/edge-of-madness-2004/): we can play football or hockey without actually going to war to defend our tribe. We can run on the elliptical machine and enjoy it without actually being pursued by a predator (not counting the predations of Father Time). We can enjoy the sweetness of a Tiramisu without really needing to eat, because we've already got plenty. And yes we can enjoy a host of lustful stimuli without having to actually create children, provide long-term care for their other parent, and all the other associations one can cite as 'love.' The Primate of Rome may not approve but I find it not particularly harmful or surprising.

bjorke
11-05-2006, 03:20 PM
The other thing you said sounded like a dirty old man .. this sounds more like a mentor.They get trickier as they age :)

Roger Hicks
11-05-2006, 03:25 PM
That's very different. The other thing you said sounded like a dirty old man .. this sounds more like a mentor.

Which merely demonstrates the scope for misunderstanding on the internet, as compared with face-to-face. If you know the person in question, you know what you can say, and in what language: again, this is both culturally specific and specific to the person/situation. I had known both these girls for years, and their parents for a decade in one case and three decades in the other. One is now a research scientist at Pfizer, while the other is currently trying to choose which of the Hautes Ecoles to attend. These are the French equivalent of the Ivy League, but with more guarantee of success when you leave.

Cheers,

R.

Bromo33333
11-05-2006, 03:25 PM
[...] We can run on the elliptical machine and enjoy it without actually being pursued by a predator (not counting the predations of Father Time). [...]

Brings us t the quote:

Eat right, exercise regularly, die anyway. ~Author Unknown

catem
11-05-2006, 03:31 PM
However, Roger, I would counsel against any such comments, for your own sake. At 14 anyone over 20 might as well have false teeth, a bald head, stoop and deaf aid. The effect on the girl is I have to say (I remember one or two similar comments) most likely to be puke-inducing (using their sort of parlance), and the most harm is likely to be done to your pride (probably in your absence).

Cate

Bromo33333
11-05-2006, 03:41 PM
However, Roger, I would counsel against any such comments, for your own sake. At 14 anyone over 20 might as well have false teeth, a bald head, stoop and deaf aid. The effect on the girl is I have to say (I remember one or two similar comments) most likely to be puke-inducing (using their sort of parlance), and the most harm is likely to be done to your pride (probably in your absence).

Cate

I realized I was an adult when at 30, I was in a store, and a kid pointed at me and said (all I overheard was) "...No, no mommy, that old guy over there!"

At that point I figured I was of the "never trust anyone over 30" crowd, and Recalled the cheesy "Logan's Run"

Aggie
11-05-2006, 03:41 PM
Getting back to what this thread was about, and the book that the owner of this thread has sited and posted a link to.... At the end of all these lofty debates who are we to tell the author of the said book what to name it? Also at the end of all this discussion is not the subject no matter what it is debated to be in the artistic realm still pornography?

Another twist, since religion has been brought into this, do all of you respect the cultures of other countries you travel to? Would you be so outspoken about all of this in a muslim country? there are many many groups, relgions, and such that have differring views. Do we have the right to tell a Muslim how to live their religion? In the end of all of this is it not respect for others beliefs, and culture?

dmr
11-05-2006, 03:44 PM
... some obvious and universal facts ...

1. All sex is pleasurable. (heterosexual, homosexual, monosexual, s&m)

Consensual sex is usually pleasurable.

Forcible sex, sex under duress, coercion, violence, is not. :( It can be scary and traumatic! :(

As sexual beings, we also develop likes and dislikes. We like things certain ways, and we don't like things certain ways. Some sex acts for some people are not pleasurable, but uncomfortable.

Roger Hicks
11-05-2006, 03:51 PM
However, Roger, I would counsel against any such comments, for your own sake. At 14 anyone over 20 might as well have false teeth, a bald head, stoop and deaf aid. The effect on the girl is I have to say (I remember one or two similar comments) most likely to be puke-inducing (using their sort of parlance), and the most harm is likely to be done to your pride (probably in your absence).

Cate

Dear Cate,

Probably true. Both comments are years in the past. But both girls are some way from 'average': I suspect that their reaction was nearer, "Poor old fellow, but he means well."

Cheers,

R.

Claire Senft
11-05-2006, 03:59 PM
I would like to nominate Hicks and Blansky as Pontiff candidates for Apug.
Do I hear any seconds?

bruce terry
11-05-2006, 05:05 PM
Stumbled upon an interesting 1912 image 'Dance Study' by Baron Adolph de Meyer while browsing The Metropolitan Museum of Art website. I can't get the address into my copy but it's easy to find.

Baron de Meyer was born 1868 Paris, educated in Dresden, joined Royal Photographic Society 1893, a photo-seccessionist group in 1898 and in the early 1900s he and his wife's home (in Paris?) became HQ for a 'coterie' of artistic (including dance companies) and bohemian guests. (By 1914 he had moved to New York as head photographer for Vogue and Vanity Fair.)

That background in hand, I would just bet this dramatic study was considered heavy-duty porn back then. Now it is Art in a premier museum. Timing is everything sometimes.

Salmonoid
11-05-2006, 05:08 PM
DMR,

Point well taken. But someone is get pleasure, no matter how destructive that pleasure may be to another human being. Good clarification.

Salmonoid
11-05-2006, 05:12 PM
[ Do we have the right to tell a Muslim how to live their religion? In the end of all of this is it not respect for others beliefs, and culture?[/QUOTE]

If you care to look away as someone else is being sexually exploited, I would not call that the correct action. Is it tolerance and respect to allow one person to destroy another?

I have every right and duty to do good to my neighbor no matter what their religion is.

Salmonoid
11-05-2006, 05:19 PM
Quote: And yes we can enjoy a host of lustful stimuli without having to actually create children, provide long-term care for their other parent, and all the other associations one can cite as 'love.'

My question is simply, which is more noble and human? To love or to lust? Which should we cultivate? Is there no pleasure in self giving love? Is that pleasure greater than the pleasures of lustful stimuli?

blansky
11-05-2006, 05:21 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.

Good luck with the child. Seriously.

Beware of universal truths. They are rarely universal, and even rarer, true.

Children thrive on love, nurturing, and direction from whomever supplies it.

Don't marry people with addictive personalites. One day it's drugs, the next day religion. There is no end.

Humans thrive on mental stimulation as well as physical. On mans pornography is another's medical journal.

Eat your vegetables.


Michael

TheFlyingCamera
11-05-2006, 05:23 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.

I would be interested to see where you got your statistics about porn use and sexual predators. I would also like to see where you got your "fact" that a heterosexual coupling is the superior way to raise a child. I have seen numerous studies that prove children raised in a stable, loving same-sex couple are indistinguishable from children raised in a heterosexual coupling. They are no more prone to psychological issues, poor academic performance, misbehavior, or any other problem than children raised in hetero households. They are certainly no more prone to being abused by their parents, if anything, they are less likely, since being a homosexual parent takes infinitely greater legal paperwork and governmental supervision than being a heterosexual parent does. It is a known fact that the vast majority of child sex abusers ( at least 90%) are heterosexual.

Salmonoid
11-05-2006, 05:43 PM
"Beware of universal truths. They are rarely universal, and even rarer, true."

Is this a univeral truth? If it is not, then there must be universal truths. If it is, then it is self contradicting.

bjorke
11-05-2006, 05:47 PM
And yes we can enjoy a host of lustful stimuli without having to actually create children, provide long-term care for their other parent, and all the other associations one can cite as 'love.' My question is simply, which is more noble and human? To love or to lust? Which should we cultivate? Is there no pleasure in self giving love? Is that pleasure greater than the pleasures of lustful stimuli?Straw men and teleological smoke & mirrors, all. Saying 'lust is good' does not preclude the value of love. 'Nobility' implies a pre-ordained heirarchy, among species and usually among humans specifically. I have little evidence that one set of humans is a priori intrinsically superior to another, or that humans are inherently superior to beetles -- considerable history hints that they are not. I enjoy being human and all that comes with being human -- not being some flawed copy of a 'more perfect' boogieman.

'Self giving love'... well I'm not going to guess at what that means but it sounds like lustful stimuli to me :)

Salmonoid
11-05-2006, 05:49 PM
"I would also like to see where you got your "fact" that a heterosexual coupling is the superior way to raise a child."

I am speaking in idealistic terms. If you were to compare apples to apples, and not rotten bannas (maybe I should stick to vegetibles) then heterosexual coupling is superior because they model a relationship that is reproductive, vice simply erotic. Homosexual sex does not produce life, if life is superior, then heterosexual coupling is superior.

A homosexual couple as parents is superior to no parent at all, and this is often the case in real life, and not the ideal, but we should always strive for the ideal.

bruce terry
11-05-2006, 05:52 PM
One of the best things about this photography site, above all the others, is that fools are suffered gladly, or simply disregarded - I of course speak of my inability to incorporate a website link in my copy a few posts back.