Who's Sin is it Anyway?

[Thomas]

Yep. Unless perhaps one follows a strict religion with little room for individual expression...

Well a strict anything by definition limits the room for individual expression.

But can I point out this is a philosophical/secular question and not a religious one? My responses have been from a societal viewpoint, and not a religious one. And I think we're moving away from the original question.

 

[Thomas]

There are times when we view our works as purely innocent, while others view them as wrong or even sinful.

Then the question revolves around 'freedom of expression' of the individual when what is being expressed comes into conflict with societal values.

'Self expression' is not a given. If it were, then there would be tyranny and anarchy, the oppression of the weak by the strong.

As a photographer, a lot of my work falls into question.

Why? I know plenty of professional photographers – indeed a lot of artists – who's work doesn't.

Especially if it involves a young lady in a state of undress.

Why does your photography involve young ladies in a state of undress?

I don't shoot pornography by the way.

That rather depends on your definition. I raise this point because depending on context, shooting sexual activity is not necessarily pornography. I would define pornography as the exploitation of its subject.

I'm talking something along the lines of an open blouse or a raised skirt.

Which begs the question: Why are you shooting open blouses or raised skirts?

So my question is: Who's in the wrong here? The one who produced the work or the one who automatically viewed it as sinful?

That depends on the answers to the above.

 

[Thomas]

I would also suppose the question revolves around the distinction between 'eroticism' and 'pornography', as the first is generally acceptable and the latter is not. Good luck with that one.

I am making the point that the artist is not 'blameless' simply because he's an 'artist', that somehow being an artist gives one a special licence, above and beyond the hoi polloi. So the artist is not beyond the critique of culture. I know many personally who like to think they are, but really, they're kidding themselves.

As for up-skirt and down-blouse shots ... I hope, one day, we will, as men, be able to look at women beyond Benny Hill stereotypes. I'm reminded of the old joke about the guy who was loved by three women: One was a nuclear physicist, one was a neurosurgeon, one was a university professor. Which one did he marry? The blonde with the big tits.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

But can I point out this is a philosophical/secular question and not a religious one? My responses have been from a societal viewpoint, and not a religious one. And I think we're moving away from the original question.

I'm not at all sure one can remove the theological perspective from this discussion. It is as much involved as the philosophical and secular perspectives. Why? Because many people form their views on this subject from a religious perspective.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

That rather depends on your definition. I raise this point because depending on context, shooting sexual activity is not necessarily pornography. I would define pornography as the exploitation of its subject.

Actually this is the very question Aussie is asking. Where is the line drawn between what is and what is not pornography? If I am understanding you properly you would say if it is exploitive it is pornography. But by what rules do you decide if an artist's work is exploitive or not? My impression is that you believe that a photograph of a young woman with her blouse open is exploitation, even though there is nothing sexual about the content. Geez, you see way more flesh than that on woman wearing string bikinis on the beach these days. Is that exploitive of women if the women are displaying themselves in public that way? Or is it only exploitive if a man shoots a model in a string bikini.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

As for up-skirt and down-blouse shots ... I hope, one day, we will, as men, be able to look at women beyond Benny Hill stereotypes. I'm reminded of the old joke about the guy who was loved by three women: One was a nuclear physicist, one was a neurosurgeon, one was a university professor. Which one did he marry? The blonde with the big tits.

Great joke! And entirely accurate all too much of the time. Successful men want trophy wives. Women who other men are going to be jealous of that you 'have' her and not them. I would suggest that a lot of this is a part of our biological directive, which we still possess no matter how much we want to say we have advanced beyond such basic instincts.

My way of thinking is that there is nothing wrong with a woman being physically attractive and also happens to have a functioning brain as well. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Thomas]

I'm not at all sure one can remove the theological perspective from this discussion. It is as much involved as the philosophical and secular perspectives. Why? Because many people form their views on this subject from a religious perspective.

OK. If this was a theological discussion I would have adopted a different point of argument. But it's under philosophy / secularism, so I'm discussing the secular perspective. Humanists have an opinion upon the question too. Much of the argument against sexual objectification in contemporary culture is humanist in the sense it doesn't rest on theological axioms.

 

[Thomas]

My impression is that you believe that a photograph of a young woman with her blouse open is exploitation, even though...

No, I'm asking why one is photographing a young woman with her blouse open.

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

My responses have been from a societal viewpoint, and not a religious one.

Really? All I've seen is a lot of preconceived notions backed by irrelevant supposition. You've yet to respond to the question posed to you in #32.

I would suggest that a lot of this is a part of our biological directive, which we still possess no matter how much we want to say we have advanced beyond such basic instincts.

Spot on mate. As I've said, men are still men and women are still women. The only thing that's changed is the public mask many wear in order to hide their true feelings..

 

[Thomas]

The only thing that's changed is the public mask many wear in order to hide their true feelings..

Oh good grief ... you do realise your defence of 'art' falls by the same argument?

Re #32

... suppose because you have such artwork in your home you were labeled a pervert and a detriment to the community. Would that make you wrong for having such artwork in your home or would it make those who formed that opinion wrong?

You still don't get the point.

Supposing you have a catamite in your home. Are you in the wrong, or is society wrong for taking the child away from you?

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

You still don't get the point.

One of us doesn't.

Supposing you have a catamite in your home. Are you in the wrong, or is society wrong for taking the child away from you?

Huh? Completely off topic. Nice dodge though.

 

[Thomas]

Oh dear.

Let me explain:
It depends on whether society determines the image as perverse or not. If society thinks it is, then you are a pervert. If it ain't, then you ain't.

Whether you think the images are perverse or not depends on the society which raised you, which is the point I have been trying to make all along. Your reference is a received frame reference. Tastes in pornography, for example, are often culturally determined and a product of that particular society and reflect that society.

Which brings me round to my question: Why are you shooting up-skirt or down-blouse?

 

[Thomas]

My way of thinking is that there is nothing wrong with a woman being physically attractive and also happens to have a functioning brain as well. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Nor are they dependent, and that's the point. That a woman with a functioning brain is judged according to her looks moreso than her male counterpart.

I'm getting bored with this ... it sounds like old men justifying tired old stereotypes.

A man rises to the top, he's a good guy. A woman is a pushy bitch. A man has a number of sexual partners, he's doing his thing. A woman is a slut. Do I keep having to reference the imbalance?

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

Nor are they dependent, and that's the point.

The actual point was made in #38 not the one under your hat.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

It depends on whether society determines the image as perverse or not. If society thinks it is, then you are a pervert. If it ain't, then you ain't.

This is the reverse of what I was saying. Not suggesting you are wrong as you are not wrong. Often innocence or guilt is based upon the belief held by the largest majority of the society. That's what humans do.

It's not what I do. For me it really is the individual's perception, not the group's that counts. I am well aware that I am in the minority in adhering to that. Most societies believe the greatest common denominator rules. If one goes against the ruling of the majority you are considered a radical or a trouble maker. And we have seen time and time again where an artist does some work that is considered distasteful to the majority, and also applauded by a minority for going against the grain.

Again I don't think this is a situation of one of us is right and the other wrong. Both are valid comments on what people find acceptable.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I'm getting bored with this ... it sounds like old men justifying tired old stereotypes.

Really? Cause that is not what I was thinking at all. I certainly understand the different stereotypical names we give men and women who are doing the same thing. Yes those stereotypes die very slowly. I'm not sure that this fact is directly relevant to the discussion at hand though.

It does not mean that the art of women in various stages of undress, or even nude for that matter, is automatically exploitive. What about women photographing women for instance. One of the most well known photographers of nudes during the '50s & '60s was a gal named Bunny Yeager. She didn't see the female nude as exploitive of women.

 

[juantoo3]

I'm not at all sure one can remove the theological perspective from this discussion. It is as much involved as the philosophical and secular perspectives. Why? Because many people form their views on this subject from a religious perspective.

Absolutely.

Even atheists "form their views on this subject (and most others) from a religious perspective."

 

[juantoo3]

Often innocence or guilt is based upon the belief held by the largest majority of the society. That's what humans do.

Indeed. That's where politics comes in. Cultural "fashion" shifts from time to time, but steadily. We forget that in America only 150 years ago it was perfectly acceptable for a young girl to marry at 13, conceive and have a child before she turned 15. That was typical. She was also chattel, with no political rights to speak of.

Now if anything like is even mentioned you could be buried under the jail and the key thrown away. And that's not even to mention Child Protective Services and their "above the law" attitude and "guilty until proven otherwise" methods.

I'm not as familiar with legal systems in other places, and I do understand there are differences...but the root core remains. What is socially acceptable now may at the turn of some unforeseen event become unacceptable, and likewise in reverse...as we have seen a lot of recently.

There's plenty of finger pointing to go around, nobody is immune.

So I've adopted the "to each their own," "live and let live" attitude...up to the point someone gets in my face about how to live "my" life...at which point the white gloves come off.

 

[juantoo3]

Seems something I was trying to convey about tyrannical oppression by CPS for merely having one of these "artsy" prints in a home with children present being enough to convict in the court of public opinion and state courts of law is being suppressed.

Interesting...reword the concept and the site accepts. Doesn't change the facts on the ground.

 

[Emi]

Yep. Unless perhaps one follows a strict religion with little room for individual expression. Then it would be wrong. Period. No matter the artist's intent. All the fundamentalist versions of the Abrahamics would see it this way.

But even then it in itself would not be wrong. I get what you're saying though, I think. You are saying that if from their perspective it is wrong, then it must be wrong entirely, or it is wrong to them?