</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Aggie @ Feb 10 2003, 01:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>One, all art from about 0 ad...on til the time of LOUISE the XIV was done purely for the church and its officials. read your art history! the catholic church had a vested interest in making the autrocities from the bible look more herendous than the next painting.
The thing is, until the advent of photography, paintings were staged or made up in the mind of the artist doing the painting. They were of maybe real subjects, but ficticious in their content. They were interpretive of an event.
... Or do we allow anything and everything no matter what and call it art. You would make the Ted Bundy's of the world happy. I personally think the bounds of common decency have been crossed and not for the good.
First - when I jumped into this discussion, I installed a piece of my patented Flavored Inner Tube (Amaretto) between my teeth. I had assumed that a few waves would be created - but then - waves are what keeps the waters pure. See "swamp".
Uh .... (pause ... try to think of a delicate way to do this...) I'l have to disagree with the idea that "All art from 0 to Louis XIV (1638 - 1715) was commissioned by the church." This would include Rembrandt, Velasquez, Rubens, Tintoretto, ad Boticelli... and a bunch of others.
It is true that *many* works were commissioned by the church, and many artists were more or less dependent on the church for their livelihood, but there were a lot of portraits comissioned privately, and there were a great many paintings based on Roman and Greek mythology - which would certainly not have been condoned by the church. Nudes were definitely discouraged - to the point of being burned at the stake, in some instances - and yet there were many from this period.
"Paintings ... were ficticious in their content."?? I don't quite understand this - portriature would not be "ficticious" ... would it?
"Do we allow anything and everthing to be called art?"
Dr. Bergen Evans once said "The purpose of art is not to support society, but to rescue us from it." Going aganst the grain, occasionally, is probably necessary, if for no other reason than to provoke thought, to bring us to examine - and constantly re-examine our priorities, ideals, and values. There is a place - and porbably a necessity, for the Devil's Advocate.
Now... Ted Bundy? How the heck did he get in here? No... I don't support or condone or encourage or want to "make him happy" - not even a little bit.
I tried to convey the idea that I was neutral in my position regarding "pornography" - whatever that is. I have not and will not assume the role of a morality-based policeman. There are PLENTY of others eager - at times far too eager - to do that.
I do not consider my work to be pornographic. I hope it is emotional -- sensual and erotic - well ...OK, I guess ... One of the significant artists - I think it was Rodan - was once asked, "Do you thnk your work is erotic?" He replied, "I certainly hope it is .. if it isn't, I've failed miserably."
I am aware of a number of studies of the effect of uh ... "Explicit" material - a few were conducted at UCLA. None that I know of concluded that ANY harm was done to anyone. I an open to additional input here - but please, something definite - I'm really not interested in mythological "everybody knows that..." rants.
The most "pornographic" publication I ever read ws the "Report of President's Commision on Pornography" published sometime in the mid '70's. They descibed "every wrinkle in the sheets" ... to the point where I sarted to suspect the onset of obsession.
At a gallery exhibition, someone once asked me, "Do you do pornograhy?" I answered, "Nah! The field is too crowded."