Fun Stuff > CHATTER
Child Pornography or Art? Is there a line, if so where?
pilsner:
Every day on these forums, Est sticks his thumb up the of-age consenting arsehole of truth.
Eris:
--- Quote from: clockworkjames on 24 May 2008, 17:03 ---Because I personally feel that pictures of naked children is not art, just like I don't think alot of other photography people call art is "art".
I used to paint and draw a fair bit, and the whole medium of photography didn't always seem like art alot of the time, neither did alot of my scribbles but then I guess what is one persons art is anothers rubbish.
A kid draws a picture, is it art? Some people would say no but some people would say yes so on a personal level art is - for lack of a better word - relative.
--- End quote ---
A lot of photography that is readily available and taken by your average person is generally nothing special (or interesting, really) for the viewer. One could look at it and say "hell, I could do that." But there is also some photography out that incites an emotion from the viewer. To do that takes a lot of skill, even just to know what will look good in a photograph. They also have to take into consideration the framing of the shot, the lighting (be it natural or set up) and what it is about the shot that they want to capture. Sure, I could do that with my little old camera, but if I did, it would be a massive fluke.
There is a certain amount of skill involved in any form of artwork, be it drawing, or painting, or sculpture or photography or any of it. Just because these photos have naked kids in it doesn't mean there was any less skill involved in taking them, so it doesn't make it any less a piece of art. The photographer has just as much right to display them than if the kids were clothed, because it still has a huge amount of effort put into it. The photos were not just candid shots of naked kids, and he didn't have them naked for the sake of it, so there shouldn't be an issue.
ForteBass:
I wouldn't exactly claim it's preposterous. He didn't make a blanket statement speaking for everyone. He said that this is the case for him personally. So it is not so much preposterous as it is a difference of opinion.
Pro-tip: Making generalized and/or absolute statements doesn't work for either side of the discussion
Elizzybeth:
--- Quote from: KharBevNor on 24 May 2008, 20:35 ---
Ars facere. It's latin. Neither is really derived from the other but there's such a thing as being pithy. Ars means 'Method or technique', facere is the infinitive form of facio, meaning to do, to make, to cause or to bring about. So an art is a method or technique, 'state of the art'.
--- End quote ---
Agreed--this is what the etymologies I quoted said, in essence. And I can appreciate pithiness; it just bothers me when people trade bullshit etymologies to support otherwise ill-supported arguments. You obviously know more Latin than that, so I apologize.
--- Quote from: KharBevNor on 24 May 2008, 20:35 ---
The OED lists 16 definitions for the word art, including "Skill in doing anything as a result of knowledge and practice" and "Human skill as an agent, human workmanship, opposed to nature", to pick one definition purely to support your own viewpoint is rather circumventing the issue.
--- End quote ---
I honestly felt the others weren't specifically applicable here. "Skill in doing anything," for instance, clearly is describing art in the sense that any profession is an art, e.g. the art of practicing law, Bachelor of the Arts, etc. "Human skill [...] opposed to nature" is more along the lines of what you were claiming, but I again felt it was too broad an application of the term, which was ultimately my greatest problem with your post.
--- Quote from: KharBevNor on 24 May 2008, 20:35 ---Besides which, you are wrong. Photography is art. A childs drawing is art. A novelty coffee mug is art. Only someone who has been living under a rock as with regards everything that has happened in the field of art over the last century could possibly think otherwise.
--- End quote ---
Wrong about what? I simply raised a question. I agree that photography's art. I would agree that children's drawings are art. I would agree that the design of a novelty coffee mug is art; I disagree that each mug is art, simply because they're mass-produced by machine.
Essentially, I'm sorry if I came off as pedantic and ignorant (what a combination!). I agree with you more than not.
RedLion:
--- Quote from: madassalex ---Giving away liberties for the sake of security is understandable to some extent.
--- End quote ---
Nah. The phrase has been overused, but Ben Franklin's statement that "those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security" is still dead on, nearly 250 years later. Look at present-day Russia--most of the population there has just accepted that it's better to have a strongman who crushes all freedom of speech, expression and even belief (Putin, now Medvedev) than a freely elected one who leads the country to chaos (Yeltsin.) It's too bad that Russia's only actually vaguely democratic leader was a drunkard and somewhat incompetent.
Anyway, even after all the strong-arming by the siloviki, the FSB, the oligarchs and Putin's goons, Russia is more threatened than ever. Ukraine and George are gradually moving closer to the West, the Baltic states have long since already forced their way out of Russia's sphere of influence, and even though Chechnya has calmed down a lot, Russia's fraying southern Caucasus border, particularly the provinces of Ingushetia and Dagestan, is still a powderkeg waiting to explode.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version