>>I'll attempt my own summary definition here. take the spirit rather
>>than the exact words.

>>"Pornography is visual input which is intended to or used to create
>>sexual arousal when viewed / used."

>>That gives you a vast range of course, Where and why would you draw
>>the line? The brain certainly doesn't.

> Out of interest, would you condsider the pictures in
> http://www.artformgallery.com/ to be pornography also?  Do you 
> consider
> any pictures of nudity to be pornography?  These are serious 
> questions
> by the way, I'm not trying to be argumentative.

Argumentative is OK :-)

Taking my definition above, the answer would be in many cases, 
potentially yes. Any definition which describes everything describes 
nothing (the principal fault of Marxism fwiw). But, in many of these 
cases the artist has sought to arouse some sort of sexual feelings in 
the viewer - especially in male viewers. This doesn't make then 
unartistic. This doesn't make them bad or wrong or evil. Although 
there is always the prospect of all this. But there is an intention to 
arouse sexual response. The term "erotica" is probably more useful 
here as low end porn - although there is room for substantial overlap.

Russell's porn tour:

Consider this painting from that site

        http://www.artformgallery.com/images2/vecchio/01_co.jpg

The posing of the model has been done "just so". I don't find the 
result especially attractive or especially sexually stimulating, and 
no doubt students of the art could find much to comment on in the 
picture per se. But would you (serious question also) suggest that he 
wasn't trying for sexual response in his original audience?

Then http://www.artformgallery.com/images2/blaas/01in.jpg also fits my 
definition, but I certainly agree is far far far from what has come 
today to be known as porn. I can easily appreciate this picture as 
fitting under James' definitions of wholesome, uplifting etc. BUT I 
also feel that I would be wise not to make such fare part of my 
standard viewing. Can I look at it without lusting after the woman. 
Sort of maybe - it stirs immediately sexual responses. Do I wish to 
have my way with her mentally metaphorically etc. Not per se BUT the 
responses are tightly linked to my whole sexuality. It's porn :-). 
Very pleasant and innocuous though it may be!!! I'm not so sure about 
the fishes though :-)

Then there's things like 
http://www.artformgallery.com/images2/bronzino/01_al.jpg
Can this be porn. Surely not. Horribly classical. May be a great and 
famous masterpiece for all I know. Is that God looking on stage right 
(or is that stage left). If so it can't be porn then can it? But, what 
is going on there in mid picture. Hmm - maybe even some sort of sexual 
activity can be non-porn if tastefully framed. Bzzzt. Sorry. Porn. By 
my definition. But I'd hate to have to view that sort of thing all day 
long. I find very little sexual or other attractiveness in it.

And for good measure. The sleepers 
http://www.artformgallery.com/images2/courbet/02sl.jpg
A bit too lifelike to be really pleasant. And they are indeed 
sleeping. And there may well be an entirely innocent explanation for 
what we see. But, what is the artist aiming for. What is the viewer 
viewing for? Why are more people dwelling on this picture than some of 
the others and not answering all the PIC questions etc.  Bzzzt.

Litmus test. If I show this email to my wife, my minister, assorted 
female friends - what would they think. How much justification would I 
have to do to explain myself etc.

Another test. How many people will bookmark this site. How many other 
sites of classical paintings but without nudes in them do they have 
bookmarked. Bzzzzt. ;-)

I THINK I've been consistent in exploring what IS porn without trying 
to ram the moral perspective down people's throats. Some will not 
agree. For me the moral aspect is inseparable but doesn't have to be 
yelled about.

Is porn bad? - often.

Is really soft and tasteful porn bad? - often - inasmuch as it leads 
people into areas where they would be better not being.

Is it possible to accurately judge for other people where they would 
be better off being? - very often it's not.

Are there guidelines based on experience which give you a fair idea? 
Of course.

Will they listen? Are you stupid! ?

    Bring it on :-)


            Russell McMahon




-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist