Nihil Obstat Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 33 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said: Calling that pornography is rather offensive. Edit and warn as necessary, but I highly object to classifying it as porn. Puritans on this site, dude... Not criticising the warning. It is just not porn.
little2add Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 the notion that women are judged by their outer appearance rather than character, ability and competencies is pornographic
dUSt Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 21 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said: Calling that pornography is rather offensive. Edit and warn as necessary, but I highly object to classifying it as porn. Puritans on this site, dude... I called it classy porn.
little2add Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 I was referring to the so-called nude art work that was posted here. See: A million props for that. In exchange, my favourite painting ever, Chloe, by Jules Joseph Lefebvre: Edited: Classy pornography. - dUSt - As if, you didn't understand
Nihil Obstat Posted January 13, 2017 Posted January 13, 2017 13 minutes ago, dUSt said: I called it classy porn. I noticed. It is classy, it is not porn. Pornography is inherently evil. What I posted was art. Nude portrait art in the academic tradition. If that is against the rules then fine, I do not mind the warning and it is your prerogative. It is not pornography. I do mind being accused of posting pornography. There is no coherent definition of pornography that that painting falls under.
Anomaly Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 3 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said: I noticed. It is classy, it is not porn. Pornography is inherently evil. What I posted was art. Nude portrait art in the academic tradition. If that is against the rules then fine, I do not mind the warning and it is your prerogative. It is not pornography. I do mind being accused of posting pornography. There is no coherent definition of pornography that that painting falls under. "Classy porn" in and of itself is an oxymoron and carried a touch of levity in the context used The problem with your post was that it was gratuitous nudity outside the context of a serious art conversation in a media and conversation where it may not be interpreted properly by all age groups or potential viewers. You know the title and first meme was a double entendre to tease at being salacious. Not a major offense, but worth editing by some opinion. You may disagree, but you don't seem to think dUSt was completely unreasonable. No need to feel besmirched.
Nihil Obstat Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 9 minutes ago, Anomaly said: "Classy porn" in and of itself is an oxymoron and carried a touch of levity in the context used The problem with your post was that it was gratuitous nudity outside the context of a serious art conversation in a media and conversation where it may not be interpreted properly by all age groups or potential viewers. You know the title and first meme was a double entendre to tease at being salacious. Not a major offense, but worth editing by some opinion. You may disagree, but you don't seem to think dUSt was completely unreasonable. No need to feel besmirched. As I said, I do not care about the warning. My one and only concern is calling it pornography. If the word pornography is removed then I am perfectly content.
HisChildForever Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 I suppose one could say it appears a bit pornographic, but is not pornography. That is, a sensual photo or art piece is not pornography per se but the intentions of the person or persons depicted, the photographer, and/or the artist are not entirely "innocent" either. Someone who creates a nude piece is bringing attention to the bare human body, and is likely attempting to elicit a number of things from the viewer, such as awe, sensuality, appreciation of natural beauty, etc. Out of curiosity, are there nude male artworks transformed into shower curtains too? (I am quite happy with my beach-themed curtain, make no mistake!)
Nihil Obstat Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 If the painting I posted is porn, so is the statue of David.
little2add Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 Truth is, you deprive art of its inherent beauty anytime you zap life out of the living. When you turn living, breathing men and women into naked, silent objects to be gawked at, you rip away the possible beauty of what could be if only they were represented as they truly are.
Anomaly Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said: As I said, I do not care about the warning. My one and only concern is calling it pornography. If the word pornography is removed then I am perfectly content. Pornography: printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings. In other words, it's both the context of the intent of the displayer, the display itself, and the intended or unintended context by the viewer. It's not solely the art itself or your intent, Nihil. Even David could be viewed as pornographic by a group of middle schoolers or prudes if not viewed within the context of art and simple pure beauty of the remarkab human body. It's still a nude male body whether in a museum or a particular type of night club. Context matters. Nobody even comes close to blaming your intent or the artistry and beauty of the painting. It's the art being placed outside of an artistic framework and subject to misinterpretation in a semi-ribald 'net conversation despite your good intentions to elevate the caliber of the conversation. It's not you or the art itself, bro. Edited January 14, 2017 by Anomaly
LittleWaySoul Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 On 1/12/2017 at 8:20 PM, Nihil Obstat said: Calling that pornography is rather offensive. Edit and warn as necessary, but I highly object to classifying it as porn. Puritans on this site, dude... Yeah, what?? There's is a definite place for nudity in art that is way outside the realm of pornography. JPII discusses it in his TOB lectures. Just think of the Sistine chapel, David, etc. We hold these to be high works of religious art in the Catholic Church, and they involve tons of nudity. They are the opposite of pornograhic as they defy objectification and mere titilation but hint at holy things, especially God and the sacredness of the person. The human body is a good thing. I wonder if we'd have less of a problem with porn addiction today if we as a society would stop fearing/shaming the image of the naked body and learn to see it with reverence and respect. It's one thing to deem such an image objectionable for a thread like this and another thing entirely to compare it to porn. The two image categories could not be further apart from one another. Edit/addition: oh wow somehow I missed this whole next page of thread. I thought I was the next to comment after Nihil hah
KnightofChrist Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 I'd be concerned that accusing someone of distributing pornographic material for displaying an image of a work of art like Michaelangelo's David could be considered libel and defamation of character.
Anomaly Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said: I'd be concerned that accusing someone of distributing pornographic material for displaying an image of a work of art like Michaelangelo's David could be considered libel and defamation of character. I'm concerned that you think that is what this discussion concerns. For the love of Art, man. DE-ESCALATE. DE-ESCALATE. DE-ESCALATE. DE-ESCALATE Edited January 14, 2017 by Anomaly
Amppax Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 2 hours ago, Anomaly said: Pornography: printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings. In other words, it's both the context of the intent of the displayer, the display itself, and the intended or unintended context by the viewer. It's not solely the art itself or your intent, Nihil. Even David could be viewed as pornographic by a group of middle schoolers or prudes if not viewed within the context of art and simple pure beauty of the remarkab human body. It's still a nude male body whether in a museum or a particular type of night club. Context matters. Nobody even comes close to blaming your intent or the artistry and beauty of the painting. It's the art being placed outside of an artistic framework and subject to misinterpretation in a semi-ribald 'net conversation despite your good intentions to elevate the caliber of the conversation. It's not you or the art itself, bro. Anomaly, your definition means the exact opposite of your commentary. Even though I agree with your commentary insofar as context matters, from the basic perspective of language you're just straight up wrong.
Anomaly Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 14 minutes ago, Amppax said: Anomaly, your definition means the exact opposite of your commentary. Even though I agree with your commentary insofar as context matters, from the basic perspective of language you're just straight up wrong. No. The definition does not delineate who's intent to stimulate erotica. The intent could be implicit to the object, the context of its display, or the intent of the viewer. For example, an undergarment advertisement could be used as porn to stimulate for some, or merely for commercial information to decide if that is a product I'd like to buy and use.
Guest Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 If anyone was stimulated by the picture Nihil posted they have problems lol
BG45 Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 I think that perhaps the most important thing here is being overlooked. Dust's website, Dust's decision as to what he does and doesn't want posted to it.
Guest Posted January 14, 2017 Posted January 14, 2017 (edited) 110% agree with that. I think Nihil does too from his response. He only objected to it being called porn. He said he was fine with the warning and it being removed. Edited January 14, 2017 by Guest
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now