I agree. Hmm - I've seen pornography that couldn't be called art. A totally unedited snapshot or video of me walking down the street isn't art either. But you're right in most cases: it depends on who's seeing it.
There are cultural differences, of course. In Denmark, we don't even consider calling a drawing or wood carving and the like porno, it has to be photos or movies of real flesh-and-blood people. The latter may or may not qualify as art.
This is a tough question. What is indecency and what is art vary according to times, places, cultures. For example 'hair' had been long regarded as ' obscene' in our country. It was merely about ten years ago that the ban was released.
Important thing is that control of pornography had been used as the way to rule the general public by authority. Pornography had been prevailed in a process that the political power was held in democracy.
I think artistic appreciation and sexual preferences are very closer to one another.
For example, suppose there are three photos. One is a slim naked woman's and the other is a powerful naked man's. The third one is an obese naked woman's. I like a slim woman, so I put more artistic value on a photo of the slim naked woman. I don't like to see other two photos, but those who like either of those, two other photos might be artistically appreciable to them.
Art is inevitably subjective and it is just a natural thing. We'd better not get rid of other photos in the name of art simply because they are not cut out for our preferences.
Of course if I regard something as disgusting, that just shows my own attitude. And if I think depictions of sex are disgusting, it means I feel sex is disgusting rather than beautiful.
Of course a lot of this is hypocrisy. Like I may feel that my own sex life is beautiful and even sacred, while the sex lives of other people are sordid and disgusting.
The obscene thing for me is cruelty. And then it is a judgment call -- is art showing cruelty as a thoughful exposure of what cruelty really is? Or is the artist expressing enthusiasm for cruelty and enjoyment of the power it can bring?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder , and in the Bible it said ,A woman's hair is her glory.And that was how I was raised. Thanks for sharing. I love art and it doesn't offends me but then when I was married I loved sex too . It was NOT a disgusting thing but beautiful.
I think my definition of art is rather different. A photo of a "powerful" young man may be pleasing to my eyes, but I wouldn't call it art if it just shows the model standing there in front of a wall. A work of art should have a message, something to say, not just report a fact. A picture of an ugly old man or woman may well be art if it conveys a message, and it may be pleasing as a picture although the model isn't attractive. Artistic value and sexual attraction are totally unrelated for me.
Yes, it's something like this I mean. The message may be agreeable to you or me, or it may not - but there is one. A photo taken to be used as evidence in court isn't art. If I write down a conversation that actually took place between some people, it isn't literature. It may become literature if I put it in a context where it conveys something of general/universal interest.
Nakedness in a whole is NOT art per say ,it's a revealing picture.I don't believe art has to say anything ,if it has character and is appealing to the eye and makes you feel something THEN it's art , ugly can be art also .This conversation is going DEEP. Thanks for sharing view.
I think.. any photos, any writings can be a work of art or literature when those photos or writings were taken or written under serious intension and strong conviction.
It may become literature if I put it in a context where it conveys something of general/universal interest.
I understand you put more artistic value on laborious work than spontaneous one, but I must say the work of genius often requires no great time and energy but simply an inspiration to come up with artistic work.
This is still one of the typical attitudes of some rigorous people.
I think this attitude shows remains of the strong influence of the Middle Ages when only few people monopolised to enjoy having various sex conducts and the general public were banned to obtain various sexual pleasures.
As a result people were forced to live under the dark side of life. I think both liberation of sex and the acquisition of economic freedom are connected very closely one another.
No, not exactly. I can easily imagine someone who's inspired making a drawing in 5 minutes and producing a great work of art. And I don't think the "message" has to be to the intellect; it may be to our feelings as well, as someone said. The best art talks to both parts of us. I mean that you don't produce art by simply recording what happened by a photo or by writing down a dialogue. Perhaps what I really mean it that there should be something of yourself in the product in order to make it art.
I agree. Hmm - I've seen pornography that couldn't be called art. A totally unedited snapshot or video of me walking down the street isn't art either. But you're right in most cases: it depends on who's seeing it.
ReplyDeleteThere are cultural differences, of course. In Denmark, we don't even consider calling a drawing or wood carving and the like porno, it has to be photos or movies of real flesh-and-blood people. The latter may or may not qualify as art.
ReplyDeleteYeah, exactly.
ReplyDeleteThis is a tough question. What is indecency and what is art vary according to times, places, cultures. For example 'hair' had been long regarded as ' obscene' in our country. It was merely about ten years ago that the ban was released.
ReplyDeleteImportant thing is that control of pornography had been used as the way to rule the general public by authority. Pornography had been prevailed in a process that the political power was held in democracy.
I think artistic appreciation and sexual preferences are very closer to one another.
ReplyDeleteFor example, suppose there are three photos. One is a slim naked woman's and the other is a powerful naked man's. The third one is an obese naked woman's. I like a slim woman, so I put more artistic value on a photo of the slim naked woman. I don't like to see other two photos, but those who like either of those, two other photos might be artistically appreciable to them.
Art is inevitably subjective and it is just a natural thing. We'd better not get rid of other photos in the name of art simply because they are not cut out for our preferences.
Of course if I regard something as disgusting, that just shows my own attitude. And if I think depictions of sex are disgusting, it means I feel sex is disgusting rather than beautiful.
ReplyDeleteOf course a lot of this is hypocrisy. Like I may feel that my own sex life is beautiful and even sacred, while the sex lives of other people are sordid and disgusting.
The obscene thing for me is cruelty. And then it is a judgment call -- is art showing cruelty as a thoughful exposure of what cruelty really is? Or is the artist expressing enthusiasm for cruelty and enjoyment of the power it can bring?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder , and in the Bible it said ,A woman's hair is her glory.And that was how I was raised. Thanks for sharing. I love art and it doesn't offends me but then when I was married I loved sex too . It was NOT a disgusting thing but beautiful.
ReplyDeleteI think my definition of art is rather different. A photo of a "powerful" young man may be pleasing to my eyes, but I wouldn't call it art if it just shows the model standing there in front of a wall. A work of art should have a message, something to say, not just report a fact. A picture of an ugly old man or woman may well be art if it conveys a message, and it may be pleasing as a picture although the model isn't attractive.
ReplyDeleteArtistic value and sexual attraction are totally unrelated for me.
Yes, it's something like this I mean. The message may be agreeable to you or me, or it may not - but there is one. A photo taken to be used as evidence in court isn't art.
ReplyDeleteIf I write down a conversation that actually took place between some people, it isn't literature. It may become literature if I put it in a context where it conveys something of general/universal interest.
Nakedness in a whole is NOT art per say ,it's a revealing picture.I don't believe art has to say anything ,if it has character and is appealing to the eye and makes you feel something THEN it's art , ugly can be art also .This conversation is going DEEP. Thanks for sharing view.
ReplyDeleteIt's so suggestive. I've never thought about that.
ReplyDeleteFor me, sex life is indispensable. I work hard. I love my wife more earnest than working.
ReplyDeleteArt for the sake of art. Art is toward itself. Art ends up in itself.
ReplyDeleteI think.. any photos, any writings can be a work of art or literature when those photos or writings were taken or written under serious intension and strong conviction.
ReplyDeleteIt may become literature if I put it in a context where it conveys something of general/universal interest.
I understand you put more artistic value on laborious work than spontaneous one, but I must say the work of genius often requires no great time and energy but simply an inspiration to come up with artistic work.
Sex morality seems to have been used for a long time as a way to oppress people in general under the absolute rule of Middle Age Christendom.
ReplyDeleteThis is still one of the typical attitudes of some rigorous people.
ReplyDeleteI think this attitude shows remains of the strong influence of the Middle Ages when only few people monopolised to enjoy having various sex conducts and the general public were banned to obtain various sexual pleasures.
As a result people were forced to live under the dark side of life. I think both liberation of sex and the acquisition of economic freedom are connected very closely one another.
No, not exactly. I can easily imagine someone who's inspired making a drawing in 5 minutes and producing a great work of art. And I don't think the "message" has to be to the intellect; it may be to our feelings as well, as someone said. The best art talks to both parts of us.
ReplyDeleteI mean that you don't produce art by simply recording what happened by a photo or by writing down a dialogue. Perhaps what I really mean it that there should be something of yourself in the product in order to make it art.