Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,911   Posts: 1,521,596   Online: 849
      
Page 21 of 32 FirstFirst ... 111516171819202122232425262731 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 315
  1. #201
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,218
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    435
    So then are you saying that artists who photograph or paint sexual imagery are unethical?

  2. #202
    Markok765's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,270
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    24
    Nude women are only art if there's an urn in it... or a plinth. Both is best o'course. It's a secret sign, see, that they put in to say that it's Art and okay to look at.'
    Marko Kovacevic
    Blog
    Youtube

  3. #203
    Salmonoid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    67
    Images
    8
    "All the other studies argue for the cumulative effect of it on people who commit sex crimes. Which is a whole different argument."

    No this is exactly my point. A direct quote from my original post. "It is a well established fact that all sexaul preditors are users of pornography first." There is a link between sexual preditors and pornography use. There is a link between pornography production and pornography use/addiction. (I am sure you will argue this point as well, but why?) From these studies it would also logical to deduce that there are responders on topic who are also sexual preditors. Statistically this is very probable. I think many of you doth protest too much.

    Just because something is illegal it doesn't mean that is is immoral or wrong. And just because something is legal doesn't mean that it is moral or good. I do not think we need to discuss the legality of our action, and I do not need to make any argument for the banning of pornography if I can convince the producers of pornography to make more constructive use of their time. We only need fully understand our place in the picture (pun intended).

  4. #204
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Salmonoid View Post
    In a forum on ethics, the title Rev. should lend credence to my opinions seeing as I have actually been formally trained in the subject of ethics.
    No, you have been formally trained in dogma which has been proven time and time again can never really coexist with ethics. Dogma always wants to triumph. This in turn lends less credence to your opinions because they are not in fact yours.

    What was being conducted here was an intellectual discussion on art, what constitutes it, and how we can be drawn to something that may well be art but is attractive to our human hunger/craving to sexual stimuli. I have no doubt you have intelligence, and a valid point of view. Unfortunately when you started spouting religions dogma and ill thought out examples, and then stamping it with a token religious title claiming some higher authority for your responses, your opinions no longer have much to offer.

    What works in a church may not have much merit in an intellectual discussion.


    Michael
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  5. #205

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Salmonoid View Post
    In a forum on ethics, the title Rev. should lend credence to my opinions...
    Dear Rev,

    Hardly. Either your arguments stand, or they do not. If they do not, it is irrelevant that the Pope himself endorses them. If they do, it does not matter whether Hitler would have approved. The quality of your arguments is entirely independent of the title bestowed upon you by any sect.

    Consider also that ethics are to a large extent an environmental subject. The number of ethical standards that are universally agreed at all times among all people is small, even unto vanishing point.

    Cheers,

    R.

  6. #206
    Salmonoid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    67
    Images
    8
    Michael it is apparent to me that you are unable to distinguish the difference between religious doctrine and logical thought. You seem to assume that the two are mutually exclusive. If my examples offended you, then please ignore them. The MDiv degree includes ethics courses that include sections on all different theories of ethics from a secular point of view. If it didn't, then we would not have any way to communicate with those who do not ascribe to our faith concerning the subject of ethics. It does not help either, if you out of hand assume that your own disagreement to my points is not based on your own religiously held dogma. Sorry you feel this way about my title.

    BTW, does religion have nothing to do with art? My first year studies in art history at MCAD would argue against such a bigotted response. Sorry, for citing my education once again. I guess I wasted a lot of money and time on that.
    Last edited by Salmonoid; 11-06-2006 at 10:57 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: spelling again...

  7. #207

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggie View Post
    That's all I have ever meant. Is to respect others who do not believe as we do. It's not just one religion, or one culture. each culture and religion will have differeing ideas. In a forum like this, there are many more reading who do not post that have ideas about it on both sides of the question. It's subjective depending on what you like. Is it so hard to respect others? Then again there is pushing the envelop in art. Can we respectfully push that envelop? Would not art be in doing the pushing while respecting others? Yeah I know puns intended too!
    I agree with what you're saying. I believe in transgressive art/photography and questioning/breaking taboos - some of the most exciting art of the twentieth century has been transgressive in various ways (not necessarily sexual, but including this of course).

    However, those taboos I'm interested in seeing stretched are those that I MYSELF THINK are repressive, or misconceived, and wouldn't be the same that others choose. My personal view of 'porn' - talking just in 'artistic' terms here - is that it is not transgressive and forward-looking, but often extremely predictable and time-worn (even if it's dressed up). Others will disagree

    Some taboos are there for a good purpose, and are necessary for a healthy society. We'd all agree about some central taboos - like killing someone if you didn't like them - but would obviously disagree on many 'peripheral' taboos. I certainly wouldn't wish to break any taboos of the Navajo Indians or any other culture. You have to work within your OWN culture, and work with or against the limits there, as you see fit, or as it interests you.

    Are you responsible for how your work is received in the outside world? Yes, but it should not be a limiting factor, otherwise art would never test any boundaries.

    It's less straightforward in a forum such as this one, where like it or not we are a diverse community of different cultures brought together by a common interest in photography...And it's also strikes me that galleries and books and very different places to see and discuss work than forums. I'm not saying it can't work in forums - but it's definitely trickier.

    Cate
    Last edited by catem; 11-06-2006 at 11:15 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #208
    Salmonoid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    67
    Images
    8
    "So then are you saying that artists who photograph or paint sexual imagery are unethical?"

    No. But those who knowing produce images that lead to the harming of others are.

  9. #209
    bjorke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SF & Surrounding Planet
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,032
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt View Post
    No, he clearly meant that the argument that pornography is ok because more kids are harmed by other things is fallacious. He's absolutely right. Btw., that conclusion doesn't imply that pornography, whatever it is, is either good or bad.
    Yes, tho ChrisNisp is right, I mis-used the figure of speech. I meant a red-herringish decoy, maybe all the recent hoohah about escorts and sexual preference left me feeling a bit ducky.

    Bringing it back....

    Chris, did you mean this Dahmane book (caution: link contains naughty bits)? Assuming so, I'll first admit that Dahamane's list of fetishes don't exactly correspond to my own, so maybe this explains my feeling that this book is rather passionless and clinical. Or maybe it's just that his printing is over-wrought and it interferes with the Real Message of the work.

    By titling the work "Porn Art" are we to take it that Dahmane truly intends to challenge the notions of either definition? Does he feel that flashy printing automatically elevates any material to 'art'? Or is it merely a cheap ploy to get his product to be sold by two different sets of book distributors at the same time?

    The meaning of 'art' in a modern context is of course even more contestable than 'porn' (albeit with fewer legal ramifications associated with the definition). A lot of modern art makers and viewers (myself included) often view art as an important means to connect and ponder over issues that a couple of centuries ago were largely within the domain of religious philosophy: mystery, connection with the hidden portions of our minds and the apparent ongoing structure and destructuring of the universe around us, etc. Photography, with its immense capacity for surprise and chance and its detailed specificity, is imo the best of all mediums for these sorts of explorations -- assuming one doesn't get sidetracked by issues of mediacy (mistaking pictures and expressions for the things they represent, and then finding oneself unable to look at a picture withough confusing it for something else). ymmv

    I have pretty definite feelings about a strong distinction between what makes good 'art' and what's merely good craftsmanship, which is ultimately pretty ideologically neutral and can be applied to most any subject.

    (A.L. shot as printed in Spanish Vogue)

    --

    Thanks rev for your link, the citations there are rather partial -- they have names of authors and (20 or 30 year old) dates but such citations only make sense against a list of associated references -- but there are none! So we're left with a set of disconnected and uncredited assertions. In fact the conclusions cited are just blankly stated without revealing any of the associated numbers or evidence*. As science goes, this is pretty poor. You may draw one set of conclusions from them, but the conclusion I draw is that this dog don't hunt.

    Some of that site's other links are fascinating and illuminating.

    * (Except as self-citation -- for example, trying to find a substantial reference to "Goldstein, Kant and Harman (1973)" -- which on the surface seems like an important bit of info to support the "porn inherently harms kids" argument -- found a lot of references TO THE REFERENCE, usually with 100% exact cut-n-paste identical citations, but *zero* to the actual research, to its title or source. For all we know those three researchers could have been the heads of prestigious and trustworthy institutions, or three guys playing chess in Washington Square Park. But who can tell?)

    "What Would Zeus Do?"
    KBPhotoRantPhotoPermitAPUG flickr Robot

  10. #210
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Salmonoid View Post
    Michael it is apparent to me that you are unable to distinguish the difference between religious doctrine and logical thought. You seem to assume that the two are mutually exclusive. If my examples offended you, then please ignore them. The MDiv degree includes ethics courses that include sections on all different theories of ethics from a secular point of view. If it didn't, then we would not have any way to communicate with those who do not ascribe to our faith concerning the subject of ethics. It does not help either, if you out of hand assume that your own disagreement to my points is not based on your own religiously held dogma. Sorry you feel this way about my title.

    BTW, does religion have nothing to do with art? My first year studies in art history at MCAD would argue against such a bigotted response. Sorry, for citing my education once again. I guess I wasted a lot of money and time on that.
    Logical thought doesn't have foregone conclusions. Religion does. The fact that you study secular ethics so you can smoke and mirror it into convincing people that religious dogma is in fact ethics doesn't carry much weight.

    I don't have dogma, just thoughts which can change with convincing "thoughts" suggested by other people.

    Because religions historically had the money to pay artists to promote doctrine hardly takes that into the realm of what art is about. In my opinion religious art is to art as what infomercials are to information.

    As for whether you wasted your money or not, hell, I've wasted a bunch myself over the years.

    Carry on.


    Michael
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin