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.
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.
”There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.
![[Image: yVR5oE.png]](http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/329/yVR5oE.png)
![[Image: VKQ0KLG.png]](http://i.imgur.com/VKQ0KLG.png)