21 Oct 14
1 edit
“I don't think that exhibitionism ... is the same thing as pornography. People send each other pictures of themselves in the all together using the internet. I don't think this makes a large fraction of the population pornographers. “
Ah, now here’s an interesting example demonstrating where the line is. Sending a nude selfie into the Internet is exhibitionism, not pornography. But forwarding the same picture to someone else may be pornography. Some underage teenagers have uploaded selfies and their ‘friends’ have forwarded them. The US govt has prosecuted those who forwarded such pictures, but not those who first took/uploaded them, under ‘proliferation of child pornography’ laws. No money changed hands; no profit motive was present.
EDIT: this might lead some to the absurd conclusion that it's not pornography while it's happening, only after some third party has it.
21 Oct 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIt doesn't matter. People who make vacuum cleaners don't normally do it for free either. That doesn't have any bearing on what is or is not a vacuum cleaner. Or do you think an amateur vacuum cleaner would no longer be a vacuum cleaner?
The flaw in your point is that professionals are simply not going to do it for free. In any realistic scenario the people involved would all be amateurs and they wouldn't distribute it widely.
There is also plenty of amateur pornography distributed widely now thanks to the internet.
My example of the billionaire giving porn away for free is, of course, hypothetical, but that does not undermine the argument that the material being produced would still be pornography.
Therefore, whilst porn is normally closely associated with a commercial motive, it is not strictly part of the definition of what porn is.
21 Oct 14
Originally posted by Rank outsiderDid your billionaire pay the actors?
It doesn't matter. People who make vacuum cleaners don't normally do it for free either. That doesn't have any bearing on what is or is not a vacuum cleaner. Or do you think an amateur vacuum cleaner would no longer be a vacuum cleaner?
There is also plenty of amateur pornography distributed widely now thanks to the internet.
My example of the ...[text shortened]... associated with a commercial motive, it is not strictly part of the definition of what porn is.
21 Oct 14
1 edit
Originally posted by moonbusI'd be a little wary of basing an argument about definitions on what they use laws for. When the Icelandic banks collapsed leaving British savers in the lurch the then Labour government used anti-terrorist legislation to prevent funds from being moved out of the country. I don't think anyone would seriously argue that that made Icelandic banks terrorists.
“I don't think that exhibitionism ... is the same thing as pornography. People send each other pictures of themselves in the all together using the internet. I don't think this makes a large fraction of the population pornographers. “
Ah, now here’s an interesting example demonstrating where the line is. Sending a nude selfie into the Internet is exhibiti ...[text shortened]... d conclusion that it's not pornography while it's happening, only after some third party has it.
I'm more interested in the point in your first post about ugly art. I'm not sure the novelists you quoted really count as even if what they described was ugly they still did their word-smithing well. With visual stuff, can something be made so hideous it gains it's own beauty, an anti-aesthetic of its own?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
21 Oct 14
1 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfieIf someone, the creator or not, considers something to be art, then it is art for that person. Same with porn. The question is, are there objective observable attributes supporting the opinion? (or agreed subjective impressions)
i would say that regardless of what the viewer thinks, it is only art if it was created with the intention of being art or artistic, otherwise everything in the universe would potentially be art.
21 Oct 14
Originally posted by JS357I think what we seem to be reaching is that objective is a little difficult with art. I'm not sure "agreed subjective criteria" makes any sense.
If someone, the creator or not, considers something to be art, then it is art for that person. Same with porn. The question is, are there objective observable attributes supporting the opinion? (or agreed subjective impressions)
21 Oct 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThere are (at least) two aspects involved: the technique and the content. The technique encompasses what you call "word-smithing", or, for a painter, his brush technique, for a composer, his tonal/melodic savvy, for a coreographer, his 'moves', etc etc. The content is, well, the content. Yes, certainly, they can be at odds: the most horrible content can be rendered by sublime technique. Shakespeare's tragedies being a case in point. Aristotle wrote a treatise on how tragedy can move us so, on how man finds beauty even in extreme distress.
I'm more interested in the point in your first post about ugly art. I'm not sure the novelists you quoted really count as even if what they described was ugly they still did their word-smithing well. With visual stuff, can something be made so hideous it gains it's own beauty, an anti-aesthetic of its own?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
21 Oct 14
Originally posted by JS357i disagree, art is something created intentionally. if you look at an object (that has no artistic intent) and find it aesthetically pleasing then its simply that - an aesthetically pleasing object....if you find the object aesthetically pleasing because of the context you have discovered or see the object, then it becomes art, you have given the object meaning and intent, you have become the artist.
If someone, the creator or not, considers something to be art, then it is art for that person. Same with porn. The question is, are there objective observable attributes supporting the opinion? (or agreed subjective impressions)
21 Oct 14
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtSo if they are paid the material in the envelope is pornography, but if they are not it is not? Is that what you are saying? Really?
Did your billionaire pay the actors?
I have looked at every definition of pornography I could find, and not one mentions a profit motive as part of its definition.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
21 Oct 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtHere's an example of I mean by agreed subjective criteria.
I think what we seem to be reaching is that objective is a little difficult with art. I'm not sure "agreed subjective criteria" makes any sense.
"I like paintings that utilize the 6 tertiary color system. The complexity that it allows, intrigues me."
"Hey, I do too. Let's buy that one."
Use of the "tertiary color system" is an objectively confirmable attribute of a painting. The complexity it allows may be arguably objective, or at least may be reduceable to a measure, like skating performances are judged. The assessment that the complexity is intriguing is subjective. The agreement of people on liking it due being intrigued by the complexity it allows, is an example of agreed subjective criteria.
AKA intersubjective agreement.
21 Oct 14
Originally posted by JS357I'm wondering if we are in danger of equivocation regarding the use of the word subjective. After looking up "intersubjective agreement" on Wikipedia it produced the page "Community of Inquiry", Pierce and Dewey introduced the term to discuss Natural Science rather than Art. In their model, as I understand it from the Wikipedia page, what we would have regarded as "objective" before their contribution is actually "intersubjectively agreed". In which case "subjective" would mean that no such "intersubjective agreement" had been reached.
Here's an example of I mean by agreed subjective criteria.
"I like paintings that utilize the 6 tertiary color system. The complexity that it allows, intrigues me."
"Hey, I do too. Let's buy that one."
Use of the "tertiary color system" is an objectively confirmable attribute of a painting. The complexity it allows may be arguably objective, or at lea ...[text shortened]... lexity it allows, is an example of agreed subjective criteria.
AKA intersubjective agreement.
How about: Art is something crafted which is not intersubjectively agreed not to be art.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
21 Oct 14
Originally posted by DeepThought"How about: Art is something crafted which is not intersubjectively agreed not to be art."
I'm wondering if we are in danger of equivocation regarding the use of the word subjective. After looking up "intersubjective agreement" on Wikipedia it produced the page "Community of Inquiry", Pierce and Dewey introduced the term to discuss Natural Science rather than Art. In their model, as I understand it from the Wikipedia page, what we would have ...[text shortened]... hed.
How about: Art is something crafted which is not intersubjectively agreed not to be art.
Fine, if it works for you. Do you mean art is a work that is not "universally" agreed not to be art?
I like the idea that art is any work that a person deems to be art, and that fact makes it art for that person. Any number of subjects may hold a similar view on a work, and then it is art for them. That is a sort of complement of what you say here. And the same for porn, oddly.
22 Oct 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIsnt that close to my previous "definition"?
I'm wondering if we are in danger of equivocation regarding the use of the word subjective. After looking up "intersubjective agreement" on Wikipedia it produced the page "Community of Inquiry", Pierce and Dewey introduced the term to discuss Natural Science rather than Art. In their model, as I understand it from the Wikipedia page, what we would have ...[text shortened]... hed.
How about: Art is something crafted which is not intersubjectively agreed not to be art.
It's art so long as one single person considers it so.
(Possibly extend to include past and present tenses)
22 Oct 14
Originally posted by JS357The point of the intersubjective agreement is that it requires more than one person. So a significant minority thinking it was would be sufficient, but just one person wouldn't be enough - agreement with oneself is not agreement.
"How about: Art is something crafted which is not intersubjectively agreed not to be art."
Fine, if it works for you. Do you mean art is a work that is not "universally" agreed not to be art?
I like the idea that art is any work that a person deems to be art, and that fact makes it art for that person. Any number of subjects may hold a similar view on a ...[text shortened]... s art for them. That is a sort of complement of what you say here. And the same for porn, oddly.