Not sure why this made me laugh

[swirly]

You know the different meanings and such that are applied here is something I actually find a little funny. For instance, as has been stated, erotica generally speaking is more of a positive thing. For me though, when I first hear erotica I think of more extreme porn basically instead of more positive things. So the meaning that I have picked up for it from somewhere over the years (who knows where anyone picks up meanings to words....probably from context they are used in by others which is often wrong as well) is quite different than the actual meaning of it. So yeah, I agree that there is always a problem in discussing these things because there is a difference in the definitions people use for things and the actual definitions.

Thats actually why I like to see definitions like Pete gave in threads like this. It gives a kind of common ground to build off of. From those definitions he gave I am able to look at both terms and say that neither is negative or positive and so then when I read them I can keep that in mind. It basically helps me try and pull personal preferences out of things and be more objective. I can simply say, does this fit the definition provided? If it does then it is fair to call it such.

Basically I am agreeing with you though that the problem is that there is too much subjectivity in these kind of discussions. People are unable to seperate what they think of things from what may actually be. I find it interesting though cause having read the definitions and attempted to give some thought to what they mean will enable me in the future to use and interpret the words as they are supposed to be rather than as how I have grown accustomed to. It may also help with noticing when others use them improperly and so help identify when others are applying connotations to them that shouldn't actually be applied to the words as a whole.

[--Pete]

Hi,

From those definitions he gave I am able to look at both terms and say that neither is negative or positive

In a sense that is true, but in another sense that is false. For instance, there have been laws against "pornography" but not, as far as I know, against "erotica". That's because to most people, pornography is bad and erotica is art. The words mean much the same (they have much the same denotation) but they convey different emotions (they are different in connotation).

Using the right word is more than simply choosing a word from the dictionary that has the right definition. It must also convey the right "feeling". Consider the difference in the images generated by "statesman" and "politician". In spite of the fact that they bring to many people's mind two entirely different images, their primary definitions are very similar:

statesman: one versed in the principles or art of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government or in shaping its policies

politician: a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government

Which term is used is usually dependent on personal feelings. One person's "corrupt politician" is another's "elder statesman". :)

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Ah, the philosophy of Aesthetics.

If I recall, the conclusion kind of swirls around the motivation of the creator of the images and the societies willingness to view them in the spirit of the artists intent. Which then begs the question of "What is an artist?"

This was a hot topic in the late 16th century with the increasing popularity of realism in painting which culminated with the works of "The Dutch Masters". Prior painted or sculpted depictions of a nudes were less vivid and considered by some to be scandilous, but most viewed them as art. Those attitudes changed over time, and at times fig leafs were painted over parts and sculptures had their bits knocked off. The advent of photography was another time when this question was re-addressed. Some photographs of nude persons were considered artistic, whilst others were not. This led to the art community trying to clearly describe an artist as one who is held in high esteem by the art world.

The suggestion was that anything that a renowned artist constructs is art. That led to DuChamps Fountain, Yoko Ono, and an entire anti-establishment art movement that culminated in the 50's and 60's.

But, after 3 months of my course in Aesthetics, the best one can come up with is that each persons definition of Art, and what is Aesthetic is a personal decision. Certainly one can suspect the motivations of the creators, and one might say that the more they are attempting to attract us via excitation of our instincts and namely libido, the less artistic that object becomes. But, one must reason that a created object might possess both the qualities of artisticness and be sexually exciting (to some). One I can think of off hand is the statue of David, by Michelangelo (ahemm not that it was so to me, but it seemed to have quite an effect on some).

Mostly if one holds up what is considered to be pornography to the artistic scrutiny very little of it has much merit, other than arousal. When it comes to literature, again, it is a judgement that must be made in critiquing the work against the body of literature. I'm thinking of the writing of Marguerite of Navarre, or D. H. Lawrence.

Then again, we hardly think twice about the merits and aesthetics of action movies like "The Terminator". We don't neccesarily need to see good acting, as long as our adrenal glands are fully pumped. So, I guess that means when glands are involved, it is hard to be objective, and yet we are creatures of passion.

[swirly]

Well first just let me say that for me when I hear statesman or politician I simply view them as the same. I hear statesman and then my mind just translates it into an older form of politician. Like as if statesman is simply a word that my grandfather would use (assuming I still had one) when talking about politicians. I would just assume they mean the same thing. Now I realize that this is an incorrection in my own interpretation, but I thought I would put it out there anyway.

Also as I'm typing this it occurs to me that it could have a slight age relevance (and I'm getting into dangerous generalization grounds here). What I mean is that most older people seem to be more respectful of government officials and such than younger people. So thus older people say statesman because as you have said, it often has a better connotation. It kind of reminds me of my mom telling me not to call police officers cops. She has said to call them police men or women and that cop is a bad name for them. Now I don't know of any definition that says that, but it seems to be just something to do with how she was raised or something she picked up somewhere. Anyway I'm getting side tracked so back to my original topic.

I guess my main point with this is that I would argue more that to most people erotica and pornography are the same thing and when they say pornography they just are throwing everything that fits their personal definition of it into that. Like I know if I was talking about something like this with my dad, or most other people I know of, that if I brought up erotica they would more than likely ask me what the difference is between the two because its simply not a word that is common enough for them to have a decent working definition of. I am kind of curious what would happen if a poll was taken of people of the world that simply asked them to define erotica. I would wager that the majority of the definitions would involve relating it to pornography.

I'm not really disagreeing with you though. I agree that when most people use the word pornography that it is used in a negative connotation. The context that a person uses a word in does greatly effect its meaning. I'm just saying that the fact that 99.999% (I'm exaggerating probably) of people use the word pornography in a negative way does not mean that pornography is a negative thing. It is not actually defined that way, it is just that our society and the people in it currently see it that way. The viewpoint on it could change in the next 20 years and the actual definition of it wouldn't have to. So thats my point, that the definition itself doesn't mean things one way or the other and that realizing this helps notice the context itself. So instead of going in and applying a negative connotation to it right off the bat one can actually consider what is being said by the person using the word and see more of what they are saying than what you think yourself. This doesn't prohibit one from realizing that the person means pornography as a negative, but simply makes it easier to accept the rare cases where somebody uses it in some other way.

It seems kind of that your point is more that one has to know the current environment they are in when discussing things with a person. Words as they are used differ greatly from their actual definitions. As you say, one person's corrupt politician is another person's elder statesman. How do you know the difference? I don't think this is really as much a matter of definitions as it is a matter of environment. (I don't really like that word to describe what I mean, but I can't think of a better one) You have to know a little bit about the person saying things in order to interpret correctly what they are saying.

I guess what I am talking about is the difference between the definition of a word and how a person actually uses it. They don't always match up.

[kandrathe]

Around the world? Hmmm, I think most people would relate them to their latin roots. Erotica to Eros the god of love. And Pornografia to "pictures of prostitutes". I think media and advertising has done a superb job of bluring the distinctions between one and the other. I may be suspicious of something you describe as erotic. But, if you call it pornographic, well then I know exactly where you stand. I would describe many fashion magazine photos or fragrance advertisments as erotic -- not neccesarily nudity and certainly not graphic.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I think most people would relate them to their latin roots.

Make that Greek roots. Erotica from Eros, whom the Romans equated with Cupid. Pornography from, as you said, writing about prostitutes. The "graphikos" ending is common: as in "biography", "bibliography", etc. Right off, I can't think of anything else that uses the "porne" root. Except maybe in corn pone (sorry). :)

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Nit accepted. Before latin... Greek of course. :)

[Occhidiangela]

. . . a _porn cone_.

Is this an ice cream cone style treat, with porn as a filler? Is it an adult erotic aid? Is it a volume of space within which porn is OK? (See also the Cone of Silence or the Cone of Confusion.) Is it a sort of a Dunce Cap given to someone who refers to or uses porn too much, or inappropriately, in a College Art class studying Erotica in Art History?

Or, is it something along the lines of a Pornucopia, something like a never ending source or wellspring of porn . . . like the Internet! :)

"The mind (the root of all porn) is a terrible thing, don't stamp it out in your life time!" :o

*voice from the back of the Room*

Blast it, she's been chewing the coffee beans again, get that straight jacket back onto her before she gets out and hurts someone!

*sound of leather clad feet scampering, a few maniacal giggles, and the sound of three or four large bodies colliding and thudding to the floor, accompanied by suitable "oofs" and "awhsits," as the pitter patter of leather clad feet fades into the distance, presumably down some tiled hallway . . .*

*voice, in exasperated tone*

I don't get paid enough for this crap!