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

[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.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by 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.

I don't disagree with your point and in fact it only bolsters the argument of my post. There is more than anecdotal evidence to understand Rodin's intent. His intent most certainly was not to create pornography. Therefore it is NOT pornography and it has been forced into compliance with arbitrary general boundries that are not merely subjective but incomprehensible.

[tooblue]

Just so we know what we are talking about here:



What if they were adorned in Americana as painted by Rockwell:



What's the difference?

[woot]

That second one isn't showing up for me.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by woot

That second one isn't showing up for me.

Here's the link ... one of his many paintings depicting a kiss:

http://members.tripod.com/~gold_2/gr...cards/kiss.jpg

[Solon]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Here's the link ... one of his many paintings depicting a kiss:

http://members.tripod.com/~gold_2/gr...cards/kiss.jpg

When I went to Paris in 1999, I sent a postcard of Rodin's Kiss to Bateman at the BYU. I'm guessing he never got it.

[PaloAltoCougar]

This thread has spawned two very different trains of thought. The first, of the typical wiseass variety, is that I learned from the King Follett Discourse that pornography isn't "created", it's "organized."

The second, somewhat more serious thought, is that viewers are willing participants in the "creation" of pornography, which I suppose was the thread's point. Due to the ravages of age and declining hormone levels, I'm affected very differently now by "art" than I was at the age of 18. I concur with Justice Stewart's observation that I can't define pornography, but "I know it when I see it." And I see things differently than I did 35 years ago, and that's quite a dilemma for legislators and administrators.