What is erotic art anyway? Art with any erotic aspect to it?
Right, intent is behind everything we do, but the artist’s (name removed by moderator)ut on their own art shouldn’t decide our own on the same. It is what it is to the individual, we choose what it means to us, not the artist. The artist can suggest what he or she will have wanted you to take from it but we choose what we do or do not want and we put or do not put imagination into what we see; He or she cannot force you to do that in a morally neutral artwork, and the best they can do in porn is tempt you, the rest is on you and the power of your will. To see naked people posed in art (and by art I mean drawings, paintings, sketches more so than photography which are real people, not works of fiction) is as little or as much as we choose to make it based on own our predispositions to that kind of subject matter. Are we comfortable with nudity in general? Does it bring us shame or embarrassment? What do we think of when we hear the word nudity? Do we think anatomy or do we think sex acts? (as in thinking of nude people versus what they are doing if anything). These are the questions art viewers need to ask themselves. Do we fear that if we see nudity or attractive people in the nude in art that we cannot or will not control ourselves? The pornographer is betting and hoping that you cannot. The ‘good’ artist is hoping that you will and can enjoy his/her work free of shame as they have in having had the pleasure of creating it. If the artist can control him/herself enough to draw the picture to begin with and do this morally, why can the viewer not do the same in viewing? The burden lies on the viewer, not the artist because it’s their choice what to do with what they see if it is not clearly pornography. And even if it was, it’s their choice to back up, look away, move away, and move on.
Lets break this down for the sake of conversation. Describe “sexual content” in an artwork (a painting or drawing for example) where the intention of the artist is morally ambiguous to the extent that the figures (lets say attractive women since that’s the easiest example to use) are not definitely doing anything inappropriate? Since artwork is muted in the sense that it is not animated (like live action) we see one snap shot which depicts a scene, a motion, an action, etc. What are we to take from that ‘snap shot’ where nothing is actually happening other than a nude figure standing or lying or whatever? Where is the “sexual content”?
Describe “less crude”. Again, it all comes down to what they are or are not doing. Simply being nude and attractive, in the art, is not a crime. Why would an artist NOT want to draw, at least what they envision, to be human bodily perfection, or the closest thing to it? People want to see and create nice looking things. Do note however, that I am referring to actual ART, not photos of REAL people. Hustler and Playboy are purposely meant to tempt you, even if only to buy the magazine, whether you’ll actually look at it. Adverts. work on the same principle. They don’t care whether you use the product, they just want you to buy it. With porn and things that are clearly porn, it’s similar in that the pornographers don’t care about your soul, they’re selling a product.
The Church IS against this, the exploitation especially, which is why it emphasizes the people involved (actresses, producers, etc.) just as much as the ACT of viewing or creating it.
No, porn is not restricted to sex acts, it can be as simple as a stare, since all the other factors are designed to make that stare as sensual as possible. If that stare was lustful enough to get you to lust in return then the job is done regardless of what else happens.
I agree 100% in that the artist knows what he’s doing (good or bad) and is responsible in the sense that he chooses how to market himself carefully, but there’s no issue if his conscience is clean, his morals are in good standing when he approaches nudity in his work, and when his artwork clearly is not pornography both by the definition and by the subject matter itself. In order to make this evident however, and not scandalize his name, he should obviously not permit his work to be featured or sold in publications like playboy or hustler or an erotic artwork magazine of any sort (his nudes would be soiled by the raunchy filth). I don’t consider this art, personally, I consider it photography. It was just the way I learned about art as a young child, art = sketches, drawings, paintings. Photos I considered as seperate. This isn’t technically true, since lots of things classify as “art” where you’re creating something, which is where the porno has such easy access and is made to appear reputable and something of substance, which it of course, is a far cry from.
Such stuff is fairly mild by today’s standards.Whoa, wait a minute. I would much rather agree with the nuns that the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is obscene. Think about it – from where do “today’s standards” originate? Have you seen them written down somewhere? If so, please send me a link.Allow me to chime in here, please.
When I was in graduate school I did my thesis on the Law and the Internet. This was 15 years ago when the 'Net was just coming into existence. One of the chapters discussed the subject of online pornography.
The most puzzling question I encountered in my research was, for the purposes of my study, to come up with a definition of “pornography” and, putting morality aside for a moment, I discovered that there is no legal definition of pornography; it is largely in the eye of the beholder. In Miller v. California (1973) even the U.S. Supreme Court could not come up the a working definition of pornography so it left the decision up to the individual localities, essentially saying “If the material violates your local community standards for decency and those communities want to regulate it, you have our (the Court’s) blessing.”
Justice Potter Stewart, in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) remarked that he too could not define pornography but (paraphrasing) “[he] knew it when he saw it” and regarding the subject matter at hand, a French film called “The Lovers”, (a story about an adulterous love affair), was not, in his opinion, obscene even though it contained nudity and a scene of adulterous sexual intercourse.
On the other hand, I remember when I was in Catholic school back in the 70s, the Sisters were quick to snatch the annual Sport’s Illustrated swimsuit issue off the racks of the library because it was “obscene.”
In my humble opinion, “looking” at “pornography” - however you define it - may or may not be “sinful” depending on the context of the situation. I do not consider my thesis research sinful because I considered it to be for academic purposes; not for sexual titillation. I am also a computer technician by trade and occasionally I have to remove malware and viruses that connect to sexually explicit websites from people’s computers. I may be “looking” at pornography but don’t consider that to be “viewing” pornography (if that makes sense). However, sneaking a look at a stolen Playboy back when I was at Boy Scout camp probably was wrong.
So in conclusion, looking at “porn” or “erotic” art for the wrong reasons (whatever “wrong” means) is probably sinful. Looking at it for academic, scientific, bonafide job-related reasons, or artistic appreciation is probably not.
My 2 cents.
A good Catholic will try and avoid these things, but as you demonstrated by your examples, it’s not always easy, since it permeates the culture. You can’t help being exposed to it when it’s so in your face, but you can avoid it. We still have to live on this world, after all, so it’s never going to end…unless you move somewhere isolated and free of the corruption of society.
OK. Perhaps it would have been better if I had said “…fairly mild compared to what we see today” instead of “today’s standards.” But I think you are missing my point.
I am with you there. This is an addiction that I am trying to shake as well. In the last two weeks, I’ve succumbed twice. This is a harder thing to kick than tobacco But I’ll do it. As someone else mentioned on the board… some things cannot be unseen.
This is an extremely important distinction. Thank you for bringing it up.
33 year addiction for me. Totally addicted, couldn’t help myself. Harder to kick than cocaine and I know that by experience.
, over the past 3 years I have been looking at it, but I always thought meh go to confession come out and then go to confession again, but the past few months have really got me worried about where I will go when I die… making me quite anxious…The two go together, you are indulging in sin by looking and by masturbation. It’s not going to be easy but you have to stop looking at the porn AND not masturbate. It is not the kind of sexuality that God has in mind for you, to be alone and fantasizing about women you’ve seen on the computer. Just think about the whole process and you will recognize Satan’s footprint all over it - what is the point of showing you women without clothing and doing sexual acts, other than to get you to do something sinful and twisted, that will affect your sexuality for the rest of your life? Yes you can go to confession but look at what you’ve already done, failed yourself and God over and over, that puts a wedge between you and God and Satan knows that, he will give you guilt and then after a while, you might just turn away from God, saying “Well it’s not really that harmful and the Church is just wrong.” See what Satan has done?