Author Topic: Art vs Porn (Read 1245 times)

Airhead · « **Reply #15 on:** March 11, 2005, 09:33:10 AM »

Or maybe some Euro forgot to read the first line of the first post-

"Aside from the recent incident that occured on "the other boards", I'm curious to know what constitues the difference between art and porn."

Obviously Goth was talking about Staga's whine, wasn't he? You DO see that, right? Huh? Don't you???

Sandman · « **Reply #16 on:** March 11, 2005, 09:36:38 AM »

Happens all the time. Something comes up and someone decides to create a new thread rather than hijack.

This thread isn't about Checksix, Euros, or bannings. Hence the word "aside".

mora · « **Reply #17 on:** March 11, 2005, 09:40:47 AM »

If a typical hollywood movie is consider an "art", then why doesn't a typical movie depicting sex acts couldn't be described as an "art" instead of "porn"?

FiLtH · « **Reply #18 on:** March 11, 2005, 09:57:44 AM »

If its pink its porn.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #19 on:** March 11, 2005, 10:24:52 AM »

Ok..

What does

Quote

issue is what is work safe and what isn't.

have to do with

Quote

Aside from the recent incident that occured on "the other boards", I'm curious to know what constitues the difference between art and porn.

Read the sentence carefully, then try to understand it.

"I'm curious to know what constitutes the difference between art and porn?"

Dune · « **Reply #20 on:** March 11, 2005, 10:54:23 AM »

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . ut I know it when I see it . .
- Justice Potter Stewart when asked what "obscene" was, 1964

Sandman · « **Reply #21 on:** March 11, 2005, 10:58:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dune
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . ut I know it when I see it . .
- Justice Potter Stewart when asked what "obscene" was, 1964

That's nice, but it doesn't lead to good legislation.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #22 on:** March 11, 2005, 11:02:01 AM »

Sandman I thought you have very simple rules already.

You can show breast - if you cut out the nipple.

You can show a fully naked woman - without nipples and labia cut out.

Just snip snip.. bad parts away and all is good.

Dune · « **Reply #23 on:** March 11, 2005, 11:09:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
That's nice, but it doesn't lead to good legislation.

Judicial decisions rarely do.

mora · « **Reply #24 on:** March 11, 2005, 11:11:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Just snip snip.. bad parts away and all is good.

Just like Japan, the age of the actor is not an issue(I believe they actually raised the minimum to 13) as long as the pubic hair is blurred.

Gotta love Japan though, they even have vending machines for used underwear.

john9001 · « **Reply #25 on:** March 11, 2005, 11:48:50 AM »

don't worry about what is art or porn, the NEA will tell you cause they been to school an are smart.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #26 on:** March 11, 2005, 12:20:46 PM »

You've been to Japan mora? Way cool. That's one of the places I definately want to visit one day.

Have you seen any movies of Takeshi Kitano btw?

Staga · « **Reply #27 on:** March 11, 2005, 12:33:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Airhead
I can't believe the Euros are so thick they turn this into an "art vs, porn" debate, when the issue is what is work safe and what isn't.

You guys can't all be so stupid, can you?

I guess you can. LOL.

So it's not work safe in US of A to see a painting from Rubens from your computer screen?
Have you thought about burning books and paintings yet???

Goth · « **Reply #28 on:** March 11, 2005, 03:55:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Happens all the time. Something comes up and someone decides to create a new thread rather than hijack.

This thread isn't about Checksix, Euros, or bannings. Hence the word "aside".

Wow...I rarely agree with Sandman, but I would have to say he's dead on with that posting.

I was looking more for the philosophical difference between what constitutes pornography and where is that line that defines it as art. This was never designed to be about Staga's post...use the other thread for those issues.

Some people have claimed the "eye of beholder" stance. I believe that works for beauty but does not constitute art or porn. I have seen some ugly art.

I think if I had to put a definition to it...I would say art is more than simple gratification. Art, in various forms, invokes not only physical stimulus, but also piques the cerebral as well.

Porn to me is more base. It can be stimulating obviously, but on a more fundamental scale.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #29 on:** March 11, 2005, 03:57:46 PM »

I'd say many of the Playboy photographs are closer to art than porn, for example.

They have real talent working there.