"Artistic Pornography"

[catem]

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]

'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]

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]

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]

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 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]

*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]

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]

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.

[Roger Hicks]

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.

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]

[...] 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.