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?
Monday, November 30, 2009
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?
Monday, November 23, 2009
Are Trading Games Works of Art? A Response to Ed's Question
Though Ed's questions originated from a topic on which I am nearly absolutely ignorant, I found they led down an intriguing path.
Question 1.
Would these pieces, commissioned specifically to appear on a trading card, be considered works of art?
I think we would all agree from studies in this class and the Philosophy of Art course that some of the greatest works of art are commissioned pieces. So we cannot exclude the illustrations on Magic Cards as art because they are commissioned.
Question 2.
Would the cards on which the artwork appears be considered works of art, themselves?
I can relate this to previous chapters on art forgeries and reproductions. It is my belief that this is more a question of morality than one of art. In the case of Magic: the Gathering, the illustrations were created intentionally and specifically for reproduction as an artistic component of the game. I think the caliber of the illustrations themselves, as they appear as reproductions, should be the determinant factor as to whether or not the cards can be considered as containing works of art. I question whether one could consider the entire card as a work of art because then one is also evaluating whatever is written on the illustrated card. I am too ignorant of the game and these cards to respond strongly. If they are all similar to the card appearing on Tania’s blog, then I think the instructions appearing under the illustration might disqualify the individual cards themselves from consideration as individual works of art. I did find the quotation in this card quite clever, the reference to Borborygmus (stomach noises – growling or rumbling) with food and the boarish resemblance of the character on that card reflect the scope of knowledge of this game’s creator. I see no reason not to consider the artwork on these cards as similar to morally produced prints or reproductions of legitimate works of art – which leads to Ed’s last question.
Or the trading card game taken as a whole (be considered as works of art)?
If we take the trading card game as a whole to be a work of art, then we are necessarily including the instructions and the quotations, as well as the story and the illustrations.
Again, my ignorance of these games leaves me at a disadvantage. If the story were unalterable, as it is in literary works (which may be reprinted with new illustrations or photographs, but the literary text of the work is unchanged), then we would have to evaluate the game as a whole by assessing the artistic qualities of its parts. If the story qualifies as a literary work of art; and if the quotations and the illustrations deepen that story and are of the caliber necessary for consideration as works of art, then one still must determine whether or not the instructions are intrinsically considered as an aspect of the story AND as a result of this consideration OR on their separate merit, meet the requirements necessary to qualify as a work of art before one might consider evaluating the game as a work of art.
If the storyline itself were altered by individual players, then we would necessarily need to evaluate each new story (game) and judge the caliber of each new story (only if we had already granted work of art status to the original story and its instructions, quotes, and illustrations) in order to consider it as a work of art.
Given all this, I think we either have to conclude that these games as a whole, while comprised of artistic elements, which separately might be considered as works of art, are not works of art (as now classified and accepted), or we need to provide an additional category for works of art that allows us to evaluate, classify, and categorize them as works of art.
My Question
Are the categories or classifications of "works of art" as they currently exist, sufficient or insufficient? Do they invite or discourage art?
Question 1.
Would these pieces, commissioned specifically to appear on a trading card, be considered works of art?
I think we would all agree from studies in this class and the Philosophy of Art course that some of the greatest works of art are commissioned pieces. So we cannot exclude the illustrations on Magic Cards as art because they are commissioned.
Question 2.
Would the cards on which the artwork appears be considered works of art, themselves?
I can relate this to previous chapters on art forgeries and reproductions. It is my belief that this is more a question of morality than one of art. In the case of Magic: the Gathering, the illustrations were created intentionally and specifically for reproduction as an artistic component of the game. I think the caliber of the illustrations themselves, as they appear as reproductions, should be the determinant factor as to whether or not the cards can be considered as containing works of art. I question whether one could consider the entire card as a work of art because then one is also evaluating whatever is written on the illustrated card. I am too ignorant of the game and these cards to respond strongly. If they are all similar to the card appearing on Tania’s blog, then I think the instructions appearing under the illustration might disqualify the individual cards themselves from consideration as individual works of art. I did find the quotation in this card quite clever, the reference to Borborygmus (stomach noises – growling or rumbling) with food and the boarish resemblance of the character on that card reflect the scope of knowledge of this game’s creator. I see no reason not to consider the artwork on these cards as similar to morally produced prints or reproductions of legitimate works of art – which leads to Ed’s last question.
Or the trading card game taken as a whole (be considered as works of art)?
If we take the trading card game as a whole to be a work of art, then we are necessarily including the instructions and the quotations, as well as the story and the illustrations.
Again, my ignorance of these games leaves me at a disadvantage. If the story were unalterable, as it is in literary works (which may be reprinted with new illustrations or photographs, but the literary text of the work is unchanged), then we would have to evaluate the game as a whole by assessing the artistic qualities of its parts. If the story qualifies as a literary work of art; and if the quotations and the illustrations deepen that story and are of the caliber necessary for consideration as works of art, then one still must determine whether or not the instructions are intrinsically considered as an aspect of the story AND as a result of this consideration OR on their separate merit, meet the requirements necessary to qualify as a work of art before one might consider evaluating the game as a work of art.
If the storyline itself were altered by individual players, then we would necessarily need to evaluate each new story (game) and judge the caliber of each new story (only if we had already granted work of art status to the original story and its instructions, quotes, and illustrations) in order to consider it as a work of art.
Given all this, I think we either have to conclude that these games as a whole, while comprised of artistic elements, which separately might be considered as works of art, are not works of art (as now classified and accepted), or we need to provide an additional category for works of art that allows us to evaluate, classify, and categorize them as works of art.
My Question
Are the categories or classifications of "works of art" as they currently exist, sufficient or insufficient? Do they invite or discourage art?
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Response to Aristotle, Benefits of Exposure to, and Overconsumption of, Certain Fiction and Non-fiction
A certain theme developed from reading the latest blogs.
I agree with Aristotle that being constantly weighed down by certain feelings may cause impediments in the quality of execution and experience of one’s daily life. I do not think that it necessarily follows that being cleansed of pity or fear leads one to become a more courageous being – though this could be a semantical issue. There are at least sometimes when even emotions putatively considered as negative, are nevertheless the appropriate response to the particular experience.
I believe we can we equally benefit from exposure to certain fictions and non-fiction, especially those exposures undertaken mindfully.
I think exposure to fictional situations offers opportunities for us to step outside of, or suspend temporarily, the thoughts and feelings that we have not yet sufficiently organized, absorbed, and holistically integrated into our evolutionary progression as a human being. The pause fiction provides can be utilized by us in various manners. We may choose to immerse ourselves in fiction to create a respite from an intense, unresolved reality; a tool used intentionally to suspend reality - as others may do through the sufficient consumption of alcohol or other mind-altering substances.
Participating in fictional experiences may allow us to shed at least some of the intensity of our (unproductive) emotions, at least temporarily. Additionally, fiction can potentially provide us with opportunities to mentally review the causational relationship between our thoughts and our emotions; and possibly extract some understanding through this process that alters the degree, or nature, of the emotion that was hampering us (from executing our life to its fullest potential).
I believe what Jamie is referring to in his blog is the unhealthy over-consumption of specific genres of non-fiction by some members of certain cultures. It appears that some Americans are obsessively substituting engagement in fictional realms in lieu of appropriately participating in, and relationally engaging with, their natural, physical world.
Fiction and non-fiction appropriately managed, may offer us situations and experiences that would otherwise be impossible for us to encounter, thereby increasing our opportunities for understanding, health, and evolution.
My Questions:
1. Do you think that some, many, or most, of the individuals who utilize Role-Playing Games do so in a healthy or obsessive manner?
2. Do you think individuals use RPGs and LARPs for the same reason others use fiction?
I agree with Aristotle that being constantly weighed down by certain feelings may cause impediments in the quality of execution and experience of one’s daily life. I do not think that it necessarily follows that being cleansed of pity or fear leads one to become a more courageous being – though this could be a semantical issue. There are at least sometimes when even emotions putatively considered as negative, are nevertheless the appropriate response to the particular experience.
I believe we can we equally benefit from exposure to certain fictions and non-fiction, especially those exposures undertaken mindfully.
I think exposure to fictional situations offers opportunities for us to step outside of, or suspend temporarily, the thoughts and feelings that we have not yet sufficiently organized, absorbed, and holistically integrated into our evolutionary progression as a human being. The pause fiction provides can be utilized by us in various manners. We may choose to immerse ourselves in fiction to create a respite from an intense, unresolved reality; a tool used intentionally to suspend reality - as others may do through the sufficient consumption of alcohol or other mind-altering substances.
Participating in fictional experiences may allow us to shed at least some of the intensity of our (unproductive) emotions, at least temporarily. Additionally, fiction can potentially provide us with opportunities to mentally review the causational relationship between our thoughts and our emotions; and possibly extract some understanding through this process that alters the degree, or nature, of the emotion that was hampering us (from executing our life to its fullest potential).
I believe what Jamie is referring to in his blog is the unhealthy over-consumption of specific genres of non-fiction by some members of certain cultures. It appears that some Americans are obsessively substituting engagement in fictional realms in lieu of appropriately participating in, and relationally engaging with, their natural, physical world.
Fiction and non-fiction appropriately managed, may offer us situations and experiences that would otherwise be impossible for us to encounter, thereby increasing our opportunities for understanding, health, and evolution.
My Questions:
1. Do you think that some, many, or most, of the individuals who utilize Role-Playing Games do so in a healthy or obsessive manner?
2. Do you think individuals use RPGs and LARPs for the same reason others use fiction?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)