I'd say there are a lot of good arguments for why pornography, or at least the public distribution thereof, could be made illegal, and it seems that many countries in the West are beginning to regulate internet pornography more strictly lately.

Some arguments I find interesting:

1. One argument is that an actor in a pornographic film doesn't have the physical ability to consent to being viewed by strangers on the internet, therefore a 'contract' of consent to a porn company is null and void; and a person viewing a stranger in a sexual situation would typically be criminally charged under laws such as voyeurism laws; therefore viewing internet pornography is the same as voyeurism, and therefore could be made illegal to view or distribute.

2. Likewise, an argument could be made that producing or viewing pornography violates the property rights of one's body, and while legally a body is one's living property, much like a horse one owns, one isn't legally allowed to do "anything" they want to it in practice; for example one can't legally give a person written permission to murder you and have them escape murder charges.

So using these facts, a case could be made that producing pornography for the viewing of strangers is permitting them to engage in a property rights violation against one's body, and therefore could be illegal regardless of one's consent.

---

I think these arguments have good philosophical bases, and apparently the trend in the West is to begin cracking down on internet pornography, so it will be interesting to see where this trend leads; likewise the popularity of 'amateur' pornography seems to be helping to drive commercial pornography out of business, much as internet piracy has more or less done CD music, so it'll be interesting to see the direction things go.

Hopefully not an excessive backlash like the Victorian Era of England, or the rise of the Ayatollah in Iran following the Shah's removal from power, but if society on the whole is showing signs of backlash against the more uncultured and sub-literati elements in mass culture, a la internet pornography and lots of "quasi-pornography" which doesn't meet any artistic merit despite barely being over the 'legal' threshold, this may be a good thing.

Views: 1307

Replies to This Discussion

And the funniest part is that most so-called experts on art are generally talking out of their asses:

https://www.techly.com.au/2015/04/08/art-experts-cant-tell-the-diff...

http://www.psypost.org/2017/04/art-connoisseurs-tend-rely-prestige-...

Read that last one carefully. It's pretty clear. So-called experts are prone to over-valuing exclusivity, elitism and snobbism OVER ACTUAL AESTHETICS.

Art experts are simply proponents of their own opinions which, as Liam pointed out, usually contradict one another (there is very little consensus among art experts) and, as I pointed out, are mostly BS since art experts are actually biased against aesthetics and beauty, and towards exclusivity, elitism, prestige, etc.

And you're calling me a troll??


How is your post forwarding your argument at all? You're only diminishing any logical statements you may have made by outright attacking folks on a personal level..


Why don't you post a link to "your" book so that we can evaluate your credentials as a published author??

It sure is!

"Pornography isn't considered art for example, because it appeals to the more visceral, unevovled senses (like that of any animal), as opposed to the more evolved, creative senses (like that of reason and aesthetics)."

Opinion / assumption; not fact.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”

 -Margaret Wolfe Hungerford, 1878

Even aesthetic philosophers disagree, and have done so for centuries. 

The Dadaist movement alone proved that beauty didn't have anything to do with art. 

You have read a few books. I have taken a dozen college level courses, both on design and art theory, as well as the philosophy, and given lectures on the subject, worked as an art director and photographer (for 20+ years), and I would never assume someone random in a forum I was relatively new to, knew less than I did on the subject. Much less that they knew so little as to not comment meaningfully. 

e.g. Check yourself. Before you wreck yourself. 

"As far as credentials goes, I've read various literature such as "A History of Art and Music" by Joseph Kirman, and I'm a published writer"

"An again no offense, but the general standards of what is passed off as "art and music" today seem extremely low, and more just about marketing than about knowledge of actual artistic or aesthetic subject matter."

;)

PS: I'm surprised that a published writer has such a unique understanding of concepts, laws and contracts related to the distribution of art, published works, intellectual property, etc.

The Dadaist movement alone proved that beauty didn't have anything to do with art. 

Or else that art didn't have anything to do with Dadaism.

I'm joking, really.  I like Dadaism.  It's so crazy.

Well no, it proved that the Dadaist or "anti-art" movement itself didn't have anything to do with beauty, and therefore art, but rather attempted to redefine art as an incorrect definition in which all 'rules' were stripped out.

That suggests to me that you missed, entirely, the point of what DADA was about. If anything, art is not defined by beauty, but by intent and process. And even that is fraught with exception. 

Also - LOL.

Aesthetics are not science. Asserting without evidence that there are objective criteria for beauty lands you in hot philosophical water. Nor is there any necessary link between art and beauty - you have asserted that, not demonstrated it, aside from your own criteria, you would have a hard time showing it to be true.

So which stance are you using? Art? or Aesthetics - who will be in charge of determining if it meets either criteria it for the purposes of legal justice?

Your analogy to sports doesn't track, EXCEPT with something like the olympics, which often do have categories not only for objective scores, technical scores, but also interpretive/artistic scores - where someone can indeed perform better for their intent and interpretation, than someone who objectively did better on technical merits.


But even so, I would argue something like modern dance and ballet - intent and process are important, and there is not a ball-game type score to override, and makes a better example per a discussion of aesthetics versus merely performance. 

Regarding Dada - unlike the Flat earth people, where the scientific community asks for evidence, and rejects the claims made - the Art community asks for evidence, and accepts the claims made. You therefor find Dada works in books, museums, galleries, and private collections the world over. 

Consensus does not define absolute truth, but often it is as close as we can actually get until new evidence is brought to bear (since we can never know that what we believe to be true, is the absolute truth). 

"albeit there isn't (currently) an "aesthetic method" for testing it as rigorously as the scientific method..."

And that makes a lot of your argument pretty hard to defend. Without an objective method for defining and evaluating claims of aesthetic merit, it comes down to very subjective measures. And that's our entire point.

Using "ignorant" to mean "disagrees with me" does not help your case. 

Plato and Aquinas could help more.

RSS

Latest Activity

Todd McFarland replied to Christopher Everet's discussion How do you handle just being friends with your crush?
"The answer is simple. If you haven't already, make your feelings for her clear.  You don't want to walk away without knowing for sure that you are in the friend zone. If she puts you in the friend zone, forget about her and move on.…"
1 hour ago
Todd McFarland replied to George Corbul's discussion How does one become a 'real' man exactly?
"+1"
1 hour ago
Todd McFarland replied to George Corbul's discussion How does one become a 'real' man exactly?
"Agreed that women's ideas vary widely, which means there are women for who like whatever type of man you want to be.   Don't let any woman define what a real man is for you.  That's ass-backwards."
1 hour ago
Jesse Dean replied to Jesse Dean's discussion What Would You Do?
"What? It was light hearted. I don't think I can learn how to read people's minds and tell if their dad is the coach of the team. But thank you. Maybe they aren't that helpful."
7 hours ago
Jesse Dean replied to Jesse Dean's discussion What Would You Do?
"How can I resist when someone is wearing something like that here?"
7 hours ago
derick bean posted a status
7 hours ago
Pale Horse replied to Portnoy's discussion History in the group The Great Debate
"But it's not delivery. It's Digiorno's."
8 hours ago
Pale Horse replied to Pale Horse's discussion They Who Shall Not Be Named in the group The Great Debate
"Yeah, they essentially funneled the protesters to clash with antifa. Look up the history of the vice mayor and tell me what you find."
8 hours ago

© 2017   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service