Was replying to the underlined.

An update on the content:

Charles Brownstein, executive director of the CBLDF, said that the materials that led to the arrest of the man, whose identity is being withheld both as a matter of legal strategy and to protect his privacy, were comics, not photographs. “My understanding with regard to the material at issue is that it includes fantasy comics drawn in a variety of manga styles,” he said in an e-mail to Comic Book Resources. “One of the items is believed to be a doujinshi, or fan-made comic, of the mainstream manga series Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha. Another is believed to be a comic in the original Japanese, depicting stick figure-like figures in various sexual positions. In all cases, the authorities are targeting expressive art and not any photographic evidence of a crime.”

OK, let the man go.

@sapphi_snake

I have a question for you, and I hope you reply: take something that you consider to be a work of art (film, book etc.), and tell me why it's a "work of art", why you consider it to be that way. 

The thing is, I already explained to you what kind of definition of art I believe (similar to the one Britannica Online did), which is much broader than yours. In my definition, almost every work in all media qualifies as a work of art. As long as it's a creative expression of ideas or imagination through a particular skill or craft, is art to me (taking into account the medium obviously). To give a few examples of boundaries, I don't classify porn (the one that truly fits its definition, mostly "real" one, if not entirely) or news (in its different forms) as art, and I believe that advertisements could be art depending on the case. However, as I argued before, there's many interpretations of art so these views of mine are just an opinion, not a fact.

Anyway... I don't see much point to it, but since I'm curious why you asked, I'll answer your question. Given that we're in a gaming site and I believe videogames are a form of art, I will choose one that most of us know: Street Fighter II (my favorite fighting game ever, in its Super/Turbo iteration).

Ok, was the game created through a particular skill or craft ? Yes, it was. Its game design, sprites, music, programming, etc require a certain amount of technical skill in order to be made. It's not something anyone is capable of doing.

Is the game an example of applied imagination or creativity ? Yes, it is. It takes imagination to come up with the characters overall design, the music that represents them, the original designs that are later turned into the stages, the general game design, etc.

Does the game express any ideas to the player ? Yes, it does. From the premise of a world fighting tournament that takes place on different countries simultaneously to the small conceptual details of the characters/settings and gameplay mechanics, the game presents plenty of ideas. Each character has its own background, motivations, perspectives, abilities and mannerisms while also being representatives of their own cultures (at least, from the creators point of view). The stages and music also support this design, adding their own concepts to reinforce these ideas. And I believe even the gameplay mechanics have their own concept value, as the characters get their own fighting style represented in the player by the required commands, for example.     

So, according to my interpretation (a work in progress, probably...), Street Fighter II is a work of art. Feel free to destroy my views though !

Now that I've answered that, I'll take the opportunity to answer some of your other comments.

Th ideea is that such material may confirm the paedophile's views and give him the necessary encouragement to enact his desires.

Yes, I got it before. And as I said, the argument requires evidence that links lolicon with paedophilia or actual child pornography to prove it. If paedophiles don't see the fictitious lolicon characters and settings as if they were representative of the actual act, it wouldn't work. Also, you could speculate in the opposite direction and claim that lolicon could function as an escape valve to paedophiles, which would help prevent the actual act (just like it has been argued with rape fantasy). Both arguments are just speculation without proof, and therefore equally valid as far as we know.

Besides, as others and I have already mentioned here, your argument could be used against any kind of media that shows "immoral" or criminal behaviour, as there's always the chance that someone misinterprets it or takes it as inspiration for their actions.

Anyway, I'll ask again, do you still believe that anyone that enjoys lolicon is a paedophile or there's enough differences and/or a lack of evidence to support that claim ?

Art is not science, but interpreting it is.
There's no such thing. Art only exists in the mind of humans.

You're contradicting yourself here. If art only exists in the mind of humans, then it's interpretation can't be science as it depends on the perception of said minds. It would be a subjective matter as I'm arguing, unlike science which determines it's facts based on evidence which is verifiable outside subjective perception (let's try to avoid the eternal discussion of what's "real" here...).

I don't believe I ever said anything of the like.

That's right, you didn't. In that specific part I was refering to the negative cultural bias regarding explicit sex in media, which I should clarify that it's not the same in every country, of course. It seems I wasn't clear enough, so my bad.

Not any interpretation is relevant, and some can be terribly far-fetched.
If they can give convincing arguments, they can be taken into consideration.

Ok... And who or what defines what's "convincing", "relevant" and "far-fetched" here ? Also, what makes his/her/their opinion/views more relevant than the rest ? That's the whole point. Anyway, as I said before, we won't reach an agreement here. It's like we're running in circles... Can you tell me at least what do you think about the several different views that appear on Wikipedia (for example) regarding the subject ? I don't see how can you ignore all this evidence of the exact same discussion we're having... The Aesthetics article also has its own "What is "art" ?" section, if you care.

Well, again, if you have another question hit me, otherwise I'll just read what you want to add.

@Akvod

Look, this artistic argument itself is stupid.

...  -_-

But yeah, the art discussion that sapphi_snake and I are having is besides the topic here. And I'm mainly responsible for it, as I'm the one that started the discussion in reference to some of his comments. Although, let's face it, anything that gets labeled "art" has a much higher chance of being protected by freedom of speech/expression than the rest, even though that shouldn't matter to the law.

We have still being arguing about the main topic though. And for the record, I agree with your comments about what the main principles of the law should be, as you can probably tell by my previous posts.

Ok, thanks for the update.

It just confirms what we thought though. I think Nanoha's characters were around 10-years old in the original series but they've been growing up in the later seasons. I haven't watched the series though, so I don't know the actual details. It probably qualifies as lolicon, but it's hard to say for sure. And who knows what the other one was.

In any case, poor unfortunate guy... Wrong time and place, nothing more than that.

people who are sexually attracted to real children should have help forced on them if they are not willing to accept help voluntarily.

Thank you!

@seiya19:

I'm gonna keep this short.

Your analysis of SF2 is good, though it's definately not an example of good art.

Ok, was the game created through a particular skill or craft ? Yes, it was. Its game design, sprites, music, programming, etc require a certain amount of technical skill in order to be made. It's not something anyone is capable of doing.

You should be careful. Everything is created through a particular skill or craft, but not everything is art. IF you extend the definition this far, you'll wind up with aberrations, like plumbing being an art.

You're contradicting yourself here. If art only exists in the mind of humans, then it's interpretation can't be science as it depends on the perception of said minds. It would be a subjective matter as I'm arguing, unlike science which determines it's facts based on evidence which is verifiable outside subjective perception (let's try to avoid the eternal discussion of what's "real" here...).

Any interpretation depends on the perception of the human mind. This includes the interpretation of scientific facts, classification of certain things as facts, and even the scientific issues studied. What I was trying to say is that the ideea of art exists only in the minds of humans, the same way as mathematical problems exist only in the minds of humans.

Yeah, I know. Just to clarify, the definition I used requires that all its points be true in order to be art. So sure, things like plumbing could meet the skill/craft requirement but it would also have to be a creative expression of ideas/imagination to classify it as art. But hey, if someone wants to argue about plumbing being art, I'm all ears ! (even though I would probably disagree anyway)

I thought about adding something about intent (an evident one) and aesthetics, but those terms could add more questions than answers... and I would have to be careful to clarify that by aesthetically pleasing you can't assume beauty, as I believe not all art tries to be that. Maybe expanding on said concept by saying something like sensually pleasing (appealing to the senses, whether it's considered "beautiful" or "ugly") could work, but I wasn't sure about it. Anyway, as I see it, the concept of "art" will constantly be in "motion" as long as we discover new ways to express ourselves, because these applications will force us to constantly review our interpretation of it (like it happened with movies and how it's happening now with videogames). A perpetual work in progress...

Differences aside, this whole discussion was certainly useful to me. I never analysed the whole concept of art like this before. I'll shut up now though...