He who fights with monsters might take care,
Lest he thereby become a monster.
And if you gaze for long into an abyss,
The abyss gazes also into you.
Fredrick Nietzche
Monday, November 30, 2009
Response to Jacob's question on aesthetics, morality, pornography and erotica
Jacob's Questions:
Would an aesthetic difference between erotica and pornography change a moral view of the subject?
Would it be more likely that viewing one would be considered more moral than the other?
I think it is our personal moral views that determine whether or not we consider a work to possess an aesthetic, and that judgment would determine whether or not we viewed the work (except in individuals suffering with compulsive or aberrant disorders). For instance, I choose to limit my exposure to material that I consider either uninteresting (brain can't compute) or not helpful to my evolution as a human being. I strive for economy of energy. Therefore, I have not been exposed (since early 70s) to what is generally considered erotic or pornographic materials - including explicitly descriptive lyrics.
I consider this an evolutionary choice, some might consider it a moral choice.
Or should a class on aesthetics not even broach this subject?
Your questions remind me of the chicken or the egg dilemma. Personally, I think Philosophy class is an invigorating and appropriate venue for a discussion of morals, erotica, and pornography.
My Question:
Do you think most people's decisions are based in their morality?
Would an aesthetic difference between erotica and pornography change a moral view of the subject?
Would it be more likely that viewing one would be considered more moral than the other?
I think it is our personal moral views that determine whether or not we consider a work to possess an aesthetic, and that judgment would determine whether or not we viewed the work (except in individuals suffering with compulsive or aberrant disorders). For instance, I choose to limit my exposure to material that I consider either uninteresting (brain can't compute) or not helpful to my evolution as a human being. I strive for economy of energy. Therefore, I have not been exposed (since early 70s) to what is generally considered erotic or pornographic materials - including explicitly descriptive lyrics.
I consider this an evolutionary choice, some might consider it a moral choice.
Or should a class on aesthetics not even broach this subject?
Your questions remind me of the chicken or the egg dilemma. Personally, I think Philosophy class is an invigorating and appropriate venue for a discussion of morals, erotica, and pornography.
My Question:
Do you think most people's decisions are based in their morality?
Contemplating Thanksgiving
After President Obama pardoned "Courage" at his daughter's request, I wondered if the Obamas or any other Americans would be prompted by this child's compassion for that turkey to think about the relationship between a living creature and what they consume as food.
Pornography, Erotica, and Art
The dictionary defines pornography as obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit or sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal or the presentation or production of this material or lurid or sensational material (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pornography).
The Cultural Dictionary defines pornography as books, photographs, magazines, art, or music designed to excite sexual impulses and considered by public authorities or public opinion as in violation of accepted standards of sexual morality. And it states, American courts have not yet settled on a satisfactory definition of what constitutes pornographic material.
The Cultural Dictionary defines obscenity as behavior, appearance, or expression (such as films and books) that violate accepted standards of sexual morality. “American courts have long tried to define obscenity but without much success. Some believe, for example, that any depiction of nudity is obscene; others would argue that nudity in itself is not obscene.”
The Encyclopedia Britannica Online defines erotica as literary or artistic works having an erotic theme; especially, books treating of sexual love in a sensuous or voluptuous manner. The word erotica typically applies to works in which the sexual element is regarded as part of the larger aesthetic aspect. It is usually distinguished from pornography, which can also have literary merit but which is usually understood to have sexual arousal as its main purpose (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/erotica).
Matthew Kiernan provides the following definition of pornography: The primary goal is the elicitation of sexual arousal (p. 372), it is the sexually explicit, formulaic, and fantasy elements that constitute the pornographic (p. 375), and the standard view of pornography construes it as soliciting a certain kind of objectifying interest in those represented (p. 376). He declares, “We evaluate art works by applying a cluster of general criteria that concern the quality of the imaginative experience afforded (p. 375). He believes “pornographic works can make imaginative use of non-standard and standard formulaic elements in order to be artistically expressive and thereby afford a qualitatively high imaginative experience. Pornographic purpose does not preclude meaningful artistic aims.” (p. 376).
In Kiernan’s Footnote (#2, p. 379), he states, “Levinson characterizes pornography as essentially degrading to women, in terms of violence, domination or humiliation, whereas he does not see the erotic as thus characterized. This is either too narrow a characterization of pornography or it stretches the sense of terms like violence beyond meaningful limits.”
Jerrold Levinson claims that pornographic art is an oxymoron, that it is impossible for anything to be both pornographic and art.
The fact that the American judicial system has been unable, during its long history, to define pornography or obscenity illustrates the definitional nature of the problems associated with attempted categorizations of art and pornography.
Like art, or any artifact produced by humankind, its production and its reception are experienced in a sociocultural paradigm. Sociocultural influences of morality, ethics, and normative values are the determinant factors in the categorization of objects as pornographic, erotic, or works of art.
MY QUESTIONS:
Should works that are produced using or depicting moral patients in ways that are harmful to them be illegal?
Do we need to create a separate category for these types of works?
The Cultural Dictionary defines pornography as books, photographs, magazines, art, or music designed to excite sexual impulses and considered by public authorities or public opinion as in violation of accepted standards of sexual morality. And it states, American courts have not yet settled on a satisfactory definition of what constitutes pornographic material.
The Cultural Dictionary defines obscenity as behavior, appearance, or expression (such as films and books) that violate accepted standards of sexual morality. “American courts have long tried to define obscenity but without much success. Some believe, for example, that any depiction of nudity is obscene; others would argue that nudity in itself is not obscene.”
The Encyclopedia Britannica Online defines erotica as literary or artistic works having an erotic theme; especially, books treating of sexual love in a sensuous or voluptuous manner. The word erotica typically applies to works in which the sexual element is regarded as part of the larger aesthetic aspect. It is usually distinguished from pornography, which can also have literary merit but which is usually understood to have sexual arousal as its main purpose (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/erotica).
Matthew Kiernan provides the following definition of pornography: The primary goal is the elicitation of sexual arousal (p. 372), it is the sexually explicit, formulaic, and fantasy elements that constitute the pornographic (p. 375), and the standard view of pornography construes it as soliciting a certain kind of objectifying interest in those represented (p. 376). He declares, “We evaluate art works by applying a cluster of general criteria that concern the quality of the imaginative experience afforded (p. 375). He believes “pornographic works can make imaginative use of non-standard and standard formulaic elements in order to be artistically expressive and thereby afford a qualitatively high imaginative experience. Pornographic purpose does not preclude meaningful artistic aims.” (p. 376).
In Kiernan’s Footnote (#2, p. 379), he states, “Levinson characterizes pornography as essentially degrading to women, in terms of violence, domination or humiliation, whereas he does not see the erotic as thus characterized. This is either too narrow a characterization of pornography or it stretches the sense of terms like violence beyond meaningful limits.”
Jerrold Levinson claims that pornographic art is an oxymoron, that it is impossible for anything to be both pornographic and art.
The fact that the American judicial system has been unable, during its long history, to define pornography or obscenity illustrates the definitional nature of the problems associated with attempted categorizations of art and pornography.
Like art, or any artifact produced by humankind, its production and its reception are experienced in a sociocultural paradigm. Sociocultural influences of morality, ethics, and normative values are the determinant factors in the categorization of objects as pornographic, erotic, or works of art.
MY QUESTIONS:
Should works that are produced using or depicting moral patients in ways that are harmful to them be illegal?
Do we need to create a separate category for these types of works?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)