Who creates pornography?

[tooblue]

The Chit Chat thread about art set my wheels turning. For some time I have wrestled with the issue of arguments concerning art and pornography. Is there art that is pornographic and or may pornography be considered art?

Pornography most definately is NOT art. It never may be considered art for the inherant intent is to exploit.

However what of art? In particular I am fascinated by the situation where an exhibit of Auguste Rodin’s art at BYU and the exclusion of his sculpture ‘The Embrace’, in addition to other supposedly sexually provocative pieces.

I have to ask myself: what is Rodin’s intent … to exploit? Or are his sculptures a deft study and appreciation of the human figure? Based upon the common themes of Rodin’s overall body of work he most definitely was not compelled to sculpt intertwined male and female figures with the intent to exploit or even titillate.

His work ‘The Embrace’ is an earnest expression of the appreciation for the beauty of human form. There is nothing inherently impure or exploitative in the pose. To suggest otherwise is to fabricate false notions of purism in artistic expression.

That leads me to an interesting conclusion. While I have stated elsewhere that some art may be considered pornography, Rodins’ ‘The Embrace’ most emphatically is not pornographic, exploitative or sexually provocative objectification.

Ergo those who suggest that the work in question is pornography are in fact the purveyors of pornography. In other words they, the purveyors, have created pornography, not the artist.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by tooblue

The Chit Chat thread about art set my wheels turning. For some time I have wrestled with the issue of arguments concerning art and pornography. Is there art that is pornographic and or may pornography be considered art?

Pornography most definately is NOT art. It never may be considered art for the inherant intent is to exploit.

However what of art? In particular I am fascinated by the situation where an exhibit of Auguste Rodin’s art at BYU and the exclusion of his sculpture ‘The Embrace’, in addition to other supposedly sexually provocative pieces.

I have to ask myself: what is Rodin’s intent … to exploit? Or are his sculptures a deft study and appreciation of the human figure? Based upon the common themes of Rodin’s overall body of work he most definitely was not compelled to sculpt intertwined male and female figures with the intent to exploit or even titillate.

His work ‘The Embrace’ is an earnest expression of the appreciation for the beauty of human form. There is nothing inherently impure or exploitative in the pose. To suggest otherwise is to fabricate false notions of purism in artistic expression.

That leads me to an interesting conclusion. While I have stated elsewhere that some art may be considered pornography, Rodins’ ‘The Embrace’ most emphatically is not pornographic, exploitative or sexually provocative objectification.

Ergo those who suggest that the work in question is pornography are in fact the purveyors of pornography. In other words they, the purveyors, have created pornography, not the artist.

You are a heretic for going against the lord's annointed

[MikeWaters]

Bateman is a candy bar salesman who became a university president, and in one of his first public speeches, commited plagiarism.

That's all you need to know. The Rodin debacle was just par for the course.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

You are a heretic for going against the lord's annointed

You'd like to think so, but of course that doesn't make it so.

[UtahDan]

To me this is simple, it is totally subjective. It is no different than what constitutes a swear word. You can't articulate why it is bad other than to say that society has decided that it is so. And it is a moving target over time.

To me, conforming to societies' expectations in both of these regards is enough reason to observe the generally defined boundaries.

I remember seeing something on Discovery channel or the like not too long ago where it was observed that in almost all cultures and societies that we know about, eating is a communal activity and sex is a private activity. We seem to be hard wired for this. Pretty clear to me where that taboo comes from.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Bateman is a candy bar salesman who became a university president, and in one of his first public speeches, commited plagiarism.

That's all you need to know. The Rodin debacle was just par for the course.

I had a man once (LAPD homicide detective, no less) tell me that Michelangelo's David was pornographic. He was convinced (probably still is) that it was the 16th century's version of Hustler (or the equivalent for nude males).

Although I couldn't convince him that David was not porn, I assured him that I could probably dig up some real pornography from the 16th century and he could decide for himself.

E.g. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=003...3E2.0.CO%3B2-I
[Don't worry, it's a scholarly article - not a photo website]

[woot]

The FCC just decided that the buttocks is a sexual organ, so clearly there is significant confusion on the issue.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by woot

The FCC just decided that the buttocks is a sexual organ, so clearly there is significant confusion on the issue.

I knew it! Now my wife will have to......never mind.

[MikeWaters]

Some of your wives have requested I take bodouir photos of them, as gifts to you all for Valentines. I have assured them it would not be pornography. at least to me and them.

[woot]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I knew it! Now my wife will have to......never mind.

Awesome.