Why do we make exceptions for art when normally, this sort of activity is unacceptable in society?
Or the other side of the argument is: Art is for art's sake. It is has aesthetic value and that is all.
I am trying to have an intellectual discussion that is thematically structured by giving both sides of the argument. My main point is: context and interpretation of the artwork - how the picture is presented and others' perception of the artwork with a few themes.
Any opinion of either side of the issue would be really appreciated!
Thanks!
i meant
*other sub themes that i will talk about. Not themes that are in the artwork.
These themes are such as:
Why are we trying to hide by avoiding to show these artworks? vs. What is it achieving by showing them?
and
The freedom of choice vs. moral and ethical views.
Art is the expression of the artist and how they percieve what they are creating whether on canvas or in carving or molding,etc. SInce it is art it is viewed differently than if the same item they are creating was in a social setting. For example: An artist creates a nude figure. In the past that was done lots of times even in statues and paintings. The piece is not looked at in any form of sexual contant but for the beauty of the painting or sculpture and what the piece represents. For example the poise or the soft lines or the image or what was used to create it, etc and then it is judged by those standards. If that piece was put into the sexual world it would be classified as porn and nudity and people would use it to lust after and talk all kinds of horendous things about just to get a high of some sort. The artist would be arrested for porn. The point I am making is that it depends on the attitude it was presented in. Another example is the difference of child porn vs a mother taking a photo of her little toddler running naked from the bath to the bedroom to be dressed. There is no porn in a mother's love. But if she took that photo and sold it to a porn dealer and it was posted as child porn then the mother could get arrested. If she just sticks it in her albums as 'this is my sweet child that I birthed and they are growing up' then there is absolutly nothing wrong with that picture. It is what is represented in the photo or drawing or sculpture and what the artist is trying to portray vs what the attitudes of the sexual scene of people are trying to sell to make a profit in a world of lust.
Art is the expression of the artist and how they percieve what they are creating whether on canvas or in carving or molding,etc. SInce it is art it is viewed differently than if the same item they are creating was in a social setting. For example: An artist creates a nude figure. In the past that was done lots of times even in statues and paintings. The piece is not looked at in any form of sexual contant but for the beauty of the painting or sculpture and what the piece represents. For example the poise or the soft lines or the image or what was used to create it, etc and then it is judged by those standards. If that piece was put into the sexual world it would be classified as porn and nudity and people would use it to lust after and talk all kinds of horendous things about just to get a high of some sort. The artist would be arrested for porn. The point I am making is that it depends on the attitude it was presented in. Another example is the difference of child porn vs a mother taking a photo of her little toddler running naked from the bath to the bedroom to be dressed. There is no porn in a mother's love. But if she took that photo and sold it to a porn dealer and it was posted as child porn then the mother could get arrested. If she just sticks it in her albums as 'this is my sweet child that I birthed and they are growing up' then there is absolutly nothing wrong with that picture. It is what is represented in the photo or drawing or sculpture and what the artist is trying to portray vs what the attitudes of the sexual scene of people are trying to sell to make a profit in a world of lust.
