little2add Posted January 14, 2017 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted January 14, 2017 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleWaySoul Posted January 14, 2017 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted January 14, 2017 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted January 14, 2017 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted January 14, 2017 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted January 14, 2017 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 If anyone was stimulated by the picture Nihil posted they have problems lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG45 Posted January 14, 2017 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 14, 2017 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 Just now, Anomaly said: 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. I agree with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 1 hour ago, BG45 said: 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. This makes me wonder if any other Phatmass'ers were offended by the nude female imagery and complained via the "report post" tap on the top of the page. I don't believe nude art has any place on this website, no offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 13 hours 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 think you take internet reputation too seriously friend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 (edited) nm Edited January 15, 2017 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, little2add said: 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. Who exactly was gawking at the picture? Are you serious? Edited January 15, 2017 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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