UPDATE Man Faces Minimum 1 Year in Prison for Bringing Manga to Canada On His Laptop

[sapphi_snake]

seiya19 said:

1. The first part of my post was meant to highlight the differences between a drawing and an actual image of a pre-pubescent human, which I don't see acknowledged in your post. The reason why I did this was to show how many of the concepts regarding paedophilia that you're arguing about don't really apply when it comes to drawings, as their origin, discussion, purpose and execution is based on actual humans, not fictional characters. Not only that, but as I mentioned before there's no evidence (at least, that I know of) that proves that lolicon and real child pornography have the same effect on paedophiles, so you can't assume there's a link between being sexually aroused by a lolicon drawing and the actual thing. Even a person that can't perceive the difference between reality and fiction (what you argue that is a characteristic of all paedophiles) might see lolicon and actual child pornography as different things. Until there's conclusive evidence of lolicon having exactly the same effect from a mental perspective as real child pornography (and therefore, being able to prove that someone is a paedophile by being aroused by it, as you claim) compared to "regular" pornography (drawn or real), I believe there's enough reasonable doubt to not assume the person is a paedophile. In addition, while the fantasy example I used was indeed an extreme, the point still remains, which was basically that in a fictional world, fictional rules apply (no "cherrypicking" !). You can't prove that a character that doesn't exist has a certain age and many lolicon images have inconsistent or ambiguous body proportions which make their nonexistent biological "age" to be subject to interpretation.

2. Also, regarding your example about a paedophile, I urge you to consider that the biological process of our bodies is not "black or white", nor is our perception of them. In order to prove that a person is a paedophile you have to be certain that the person is only sexually attracted to pre-pubescent individuals and not cases in between that are rather ambiguous, just like in your example. Surely an 18-year old person has at least some traces of their age, even if it looks mostly pre-pubescent, not to mention the fact that the whole concept of choosing 18 as the age of consent is predicated on the notion that any individual at that age should be ready (from a biological point of view) to engage in a sexual relationship.

3. As far as evaluating whether something is art or not, I'll have to respectfully disagree, again. While I admit that I'm certainly unqualified (AKA a complete ignorant...) to discuss the definition of art, I do know that... there's not one definition of art. There's just many, many, many (a lot) of definitions by "experts" or "erudites" through time and their subsequent discussions of them, including varied perspectives/points of view, which is logical to assume that are affected by the overall views of the respective culture and time. With this in mind, there's indeed some definitions that are much broader than others and I would go with those because of their capacity to encompass different perspectives about a concept so fundamental to all cultures. Like for example, Britannica Online's definition: "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others", which is available on Wikipedia.

Personally, I consider the idea that only those that can "interpret" (in a specific form, like what you described) art are able to recognize its value to be pure elitism. Yes, artistic value always depends on interpretation, but that interpretation is not subject to any particular process, cultural view (including moral views, of course) or school of thought. While a certain knowledge might be required to understand some artistic elements from the creator's point of view or its process, the overall value of the work doesn't depend on it. In fact, what can be considered meaningful by an individual could be considered irrelevant for another and someone might even discover new elements of the work or have a different perspective than what it was intended by its creator. I would even argue that interpreting art doesn't have to be a purely rational exercise like you are proposing.  

Besides, even with your interpretation of art, we would have to analyse porn, lolicon or other hentai works on a case by case basis in order to determine whether it qualifies as art or not, instead of just assuming that everything that's labeled as "porn" is devoided of artistic value like you were doing.

Regarding drawings, use Erwin Panofsky's iconological method.

From what I saw on Wikipedia his ideas seem to be about understanding art to different degrees, not defining/identifying it. Nevertheless, his views would still be opinions, no matter how knowledgeable or respected are. Art is not a science, nor it should be. For the record, I'm not arguing against his views, just claiming that they're not the only valid ones. 

(note, portraying children in sexual scenarios is illegal, even if we're dealing with a genuen work of art).

Yes, although cases like Lewis Carroll's photographs are quite arguable as nudity alone is not necessarily sexual... (and assuming parent consent was given, even if this is also arguable in itself) But I don't have a conclusive opinion about that so I can't argue in favor or against it.

PS: Thanks for the welcome. ^_^

1. By "difference between reality and fiction", I was talking about a situation when a paedophile reads lolicon and sees small infants having sexual relations with adults and "liking them", thus conforming his view that "they want it".

2. The laws were established taking into consideration the normal development of a human being. Someone who had hormonal problems and was still pre-pubescent at the age of 18 would obviously not be physiologically developed enough to have sex. Also, one need not be exclusively attracted to a children in order to be a paedophile.

3. The interepretations of art I mentioned are the only genuine interpretations. Everything else is just uneducated nonsense. I see you fit in the second category of people I mentioned.

Yes, artistic value always depends on interpretation, but that interpretation is not subject to any particular process, cultural view (including moral views, of course) or school of thought. While a certain knowledge might be required to understand some artistic elements from the creator's point of view or its process, the overall value of the work doesn't depend on it.

You couldn't be more wrong in this section. Artists themselves are part of schools of thought, and they illustrate the principles of those schools of thought in their works. Not being familiar with such principles will only lead to a superficial and worthless interpretation. And you cannot isolate a work of art from the cultural context it was made in. Not being familiar with the culture in which the artwork was created in likewise makes interpretation impossible (how could anyone interpret Leonardo da Vinci's Last Supper if they have no knowledge of Chritianity?), not to mention that it would inevitably lead to subjecting it to moral views. Art is not just aesthetically pleasing material, it is much more than that.

Besides, even with your interpretation of art, we would have to analyse porn, lolicon or other hentai works on a case by case basis in order to determine whether it qualifies as art or not, instead of just assuming that everything that's labeled as "porn" is devoided of artistic value like you were doing.

But all porn is devoid of artistic value. By definition pornography is the portrayal of explicit subject matter meant to cause sexual satisfaction and excitement. That's the sole intent pof porn. If it does more than that, then it is not really porn, but an artistic creation that features sex.

From what I saw on Wikipedia his ideas seem to be about understanding art to different degrees, not defining/identifying it. Nevertheless, his views would still be opinions, no matter how knowledgeable or respected are. Art is not a science, nor it should be. For the record, I'm not arguing against his views, just claiming that they're not the only valid ones. 

He identified levels at which you can analise art. There are other models that are similar in structure. Everything that is not art does not present those superior levels interpretation (for example porn is stuck in the pre-iconographic stage >>> it's jsut an image portraying two people having sex, there's no superior interpretation you can give it).