sapphi_snake said:
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).
|
1- Ok, but you still don't have any evidence that paedophiles can't recognize the difference between lolicon and child pornography... Even if they don't know what's real and what's not (which is still arguable to what degree, if any), it doesn't mean that they can't recognize any difference. And your whole idea of "anyone that enjoys lolicon is a paedophile" depends on proving that both have the same effect. So, reasonable doubt ?
2- Well, the main point was whether being sexually attracted to said person would constitute being a paedophile or not. And hormonal problems could be more or less noticeable, depending on the case. Obviously, since we are talking about an hypothetical example we can't corroborate the situation, but in this discussion what matters is appearance (from the accused of paedophilia's point of view), not the biological status of the other person. And I just find it hard to believe that an 18-year old person could have no traits of its actual age... but even if this is the case, it's still an extreme example and one that would need to be evaluated on its own. In addition, as I mentioned before, our perception has its limits and it's not always evident how mature a person is from a biological point of view (without close examination...).
Also, one need not be exclusively attracted to a children in order to be a paedophile.
Right, primary or exclusively attracted, as the definition states it on Wikipedia. Either way, you need more than one superficial case to prove the tendency, so the point still stands.
3- Again, art is not science. There's no way you can prove that your interpretations of art are the only valid ones. The best you can do is quote different people through time that have expressed their views on the subject (where you would definitely find disagreement and inconsistency) and maybe some modern consensus. A opinion, no matter how cult may be, is still an opinion. You're completely ignoring the historical process that the definition itself has been subject of, as well as how said views and perspectives were and are affected by their own time. You just can't pretend that nothing happened before and after the concepts you're defending. We wouldn't have a whole article in Wikipedia titled "Classificatory disputes about art" if only "uneducated" people disagreed with what you call the only "genuine" interpretations.
Artists themselves are part of schools of thought, and they illustrate the principles of those schools of thought in their works.
Yes, artists may belong to "old" schools of thought which would reflect on their work, but they could also create their own "new" school of thought. And the people that interpret said art can also be divided in schools of thought (which was what I was refering before, not being subject to one kind of interpretation). Again, it seems you believe that somehow all these "experts" that evaluate art never disagree with each others views, which is completely ridiculous, even in the same period of time. And we then have the personal style of the artist itself, of course, which can be more or less alined to said school of thought.
But, if the only way to appreciate the artistic value of a work is through complete knowledge of its time and artist as you seem to claim, then the value of older works is already lost. Clearly, it wouldn't be correct to assume that we have complete knowledge of such old times when many works of art we value today were created, as we're still discovering new things from these cultures today. And what about all the doubts about Shakespeare's authorship then ? Or how about all those works that are still anonymous today ? Are we incapable of evaluating them ? As I said before, I believe that to fully understand the creator's point of view you require these elements, but besides that, the work has its own inherently artistic value. Perhaps that value is not exactly the same as what the creator intended, but it still exists and is clearly part of the same work.
But all porn is devoid of artistic value.
I probably wasn't clear enough... Yes, porn is devoided of artistic value by definition, but I was refering to everything that is labeled "porn", where many times works appear that defy such definition. People rarely bother to actually examine works that include sexually explicit content, just including them in that category. Granted, most works that get labeled "porn" would probably fit the definition (specially acted ones, in my opinion), but that's not an excuse to make assumptions or generalizations. And believe it or not, many hentai works (lolicon or not) do include stories that can be (arguably, of course) considered valuable, besides the value of the drawn work itself. And on the other hand, people rarely act the same way with explicit violence for instance, which shows a clear cultural bias regarding these and other subjects, no matter what your definition of art is. As I mentioned before, the idea that a work ceases to be art the moment you show sexually explicit content is completely irrational and only explained by the moral views of the time, evidenced by how the evaluation of what we consider to be "taboo" or illegal has changed throughout history.
Everything that is not art does not present those superior levels interpretation
Even if we consider this to be an absolute truth (although "superior" is rather ambiguous...), it would still be subjective as different people could still have different perspectives on the same image, at different levels. For example, in sexually explicit content, different sexual positions and gestures, the settings (time/place) where these ocurrs, the kind of people involved, etc could denote various interpretations for different people, which would be more or less relevant to them. And all of this is without context in other forms like text, audio, etc or even before we take into account the style of the artist in the case of drawings. So, what if someone takes a look at one of these "filthy" images and interprets that there's value in it, beyond sexual arousal ? How can we define which arguments are valid and which aren't in a way that can be evidenced by any individual ?
Anyway... It doesn't seem that we'll reach an agreement here... I'll read your post if you have anything to add but I won't reply again unless you have a question for me.
