RE: [Leica] The fine line between art and pornography

["Phong" <phong@doan-ltd.com>]

sam,

> The line between pornography and art is not thin. 
> I can't even imagine what would make you suggest 
> that it is.

It sounds like you want to shut me out of an honest
discussion.  If you do not want to discuss further, please 
ignore the rest of this post.  I am not into rhetorics,
and really am not interested in convincing anyone of
anything.

That said, let me just say, in case you are genuinely
interested in a discussion, that the line is thin enough 
for the late US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's 
"I don't know how to define, but I know it when I see it".
The line is blurry enough to generate controversies such 
as the draping of the bare chest of a statue, mentioned 
by B.D.  There are many other examples to "suggest" that 
the line is blurry.

Of course, I have a clear view of what is "pornographic"
and objectionable. My point is the lines are subjective 
and depend much on the viewer's sensibilities, cultural 
background and prejudices.  I have my own.


> Pornography is objectionable because it treats human 
> beings like senseless beasts.

I object to treating human beings like senseless beasts too.
But that does not delineate what is or is not pornography.
What kind of pictures "treat human beings like senseless
beasts" ?  can you a priori give an objective definition, 
one that does not rely on having to look at the picture itself ?



> Now I wonder who come to its [pornography's] defense?

Certainly not me, unless you define pornography as
any depiction of human nudity, or the sexual act.


Thanks,

- - Phong

I know that Stewart was talking about obscenity, rather than
pornography, but consider them the same in the context of
this discussion.



sam wrote:
>
> The line between pornography and art is not thin. I can't even imagine 
> what would make you suggest that it is.
> 
> Pornography is objectionable because it treats human beings like 
> senseless beasts. And because it offers fantasy in place of human 
> warmth, kindness, understanding, and communication. It exults the 
> mechanics of sex detached from its humanness. It's difficult to believe 
> but there are people in relationships that require pornography as an 
> integral part of their sex life. The dummy actions on a screen mean more 
> to them than the person they are with. The detachment of reality from 
> sexual intimacy is a very bad thing. Have you noticed that almost all 
> serial killers engage in some type of perverted sexual ritual with their 
> victims? Pornography is infantile and destructive.
> 
> Now I wonder who come to its defense?
> 
> 
> Sam S

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html