But then if it’s legal, it should be allowed - for it is, by your definition, just. Except the just is not the good, in your view. So just laws are not necessarily good laws.
So is it good to allow this picture in Australia (where it was ruled legal) or merely just?
Well… I also wonder if there was an exhibition displaying say… graphic sexual content which was either painted or photographed by a very famous artist … say at the level of a Picasso… or Matisse …and it was shown in a public gallery .I wonder if any conflict would arise?..
I didn’t say every law is a just law, I said every law is just (as in, only) a law.
As of right now it is legal there, so it should be allowed there. However, I think that it should be illegal, so if it were made illegal, it should not be allowed there. It should not be allowed there anyway, but the rule of societal law trumps my personal moral code by some millions of people.
I look at, “Just,” by the way, pretty much as whether or not something is right. Laws are not always right, so the fact that a person is punished for breaking one is not always right, and can therefore be, an injustice. However, if the person knows that something is a law, but acts in opposition to that law anyway, then they are taking a known risk. Whether or not taking that risk is right is simply a cost/benefit analysis based on:
1.) Expectation of Getting Caught
2.) Expectation of Being Punished if Caught
3.) Expectation of Severity of Punishment
4.) Expectation of Indirect Results of Punishment
vs.
1.) Potential for personal gain/enjoyment had by taking the action.
2.) Possible Outright Desire to Break the Law, in General.
3.) Belief in the Law Itself.
Let’s look at marijuana. For you, the first list does not outweigh the second list. In fact, I would imagine that either number one or number three on the second list, by itself, would be enough to conquer all of list number one. For me, the first list outweighs the second. While number one and two combined on the first list does not satisfactorily trump number one on the second list (Numbers two and three on the second list are non-considerations for me in this case), those combined with Number 3 and Number 4 are sufficient to trump Number One on the second list.
Oh. My bad.
But let’s get back to your real argument.
Of course, they were not illegal. The court found that no law was broken. And since you haven’t seen them, I must assume that you are claiming that any picture of a person under the age of sexual consent is pornography, since that’s all you know about the picture. But you also claim that this is a matter of law. So, where these pictures are illegal, they are pornography.
But if pornography is defined only by the law, how does the law examine the pictures? If they are not illegal when the laws are written, they are not pornography. But laws change. How can they, if the law is based solely on the law?
I made an incorrect assumption in positing that they were illegal in Austrailia. They are definitely illegal in Ohio, had I hit that link, I would have committed a second degree felony.
I wouldn’t say that pornography is defined only by the law. Take the theoretical hardcore video I mentioned earlier, that would definitely be pornography, but it would not be illegal.
As I said before, anything associated with human nudity (or nudity of any kind, as you mentioned bestiality and necrophilia) has the potential to be pornographic. Whether or not something is intended to be pornographic is another matter altogether, but I’m not sure the intent of the artist (in Ohio) would necessarily be given legal consideration.
The law is not based solely on the law. The concept of law, as a whole, is a social contract and the concept of punishment is simply punishment for breaking the social contract. Of course, society does not vote on every single law anymore, Hell, society doesn’t have anything to do with who Supreme Court Justices are at this point. It can be said, then, that some laws (in and of themselves) are not social contracts. However, since the concept of law is a social contract, violations of a particular law (whether or not the law in and of itself represents a social contract) still violate the social contract of law, in general.
What would be just is if all laws were voted on and periodically re-voted on. Of course, with a population as large as ours, there is a question of feasibility that must be considered.
Okay, but isn’t the question not about what it might be, but about what we think it is?
What we think it is as individuals? No, I don’t think the question is then about what we think it is because what we think, individually, does not necessarily have to do with the social contract, the existence of laws or anything of the like.
What we think it is collectively could matter, and apparently does matter in Austrailia because they collectively seem to think it is not child pornography or there would be a law against it. Collectively, the citizens of Ohio (Per our social contract) seem to think it is pornography, or if they do not, have not chosen to do anything about it yet.
That’s not my question. My question is “What do you think”?
Do you mean whether or not I think it is porn?
I mean, if you were the king of the world, and your very word was law, and that it was entirely up to you, would you allow that picture to be exhibited in an art gallery or museum?
I think it’s funny. All of it is really funny.
If you just look at it it gets funnier and more absurd.
I would have to say no. I wouldn’t allow any picture that contains nudity to be exhibited in an art gallery or museum.
I still have not and will not see that particular picture, by the way.
I suppose to answer the OP I have changed my mind and decided that it is neither porn nor art, in and of itself. It is whatever people want to make of it.
For the creator, I think that it is two things:
1.) A product created to appeal to a very niche market, which may or may not include pedophiles.
2.) A Marketing strategy based on generating controversy in order to secure popularity.
-Think about Howard Stern, I think more people that hated him listened to him than those that liked him!
Artists with some frequency create art that is controversial for one reason or another. That doesn’t mean they create that art just to be controversial.
For as a wise man once said:
Thank you for the compliment!
I don’t think they create, “Art,” to be controversial. They create art to make money, controversy just helps the art make money.
In this guy’s case, I think he made that correlation and acted accordingly.
“It’s political correctness gone mad!”
The Daily Mail.
No seriously though its this sort of publicity that gets these artists off, I’d take a picture of my arsehole if it would significantly increase the value of my work.
Publicity = Cash
Not all publicity stunts are done for cash, and neither do all publicity stunts make cash. There are other reasons to be provocative. Good reasons.
To think artists are beyond the financial concerns of art is naive. Some are most are not, some start off being able to do anything because they have the funds to do anything until they die. I don’t underestimate any contribution but some are just crap. They just are crap.
…like making people come out of complacency and think, for one. This is why I’m usually open to transgressive art.