Thank you for this, I find it very interesting. I'm going to put a counter-argument here, not to persuade you, because your views are valid as they are - but because this interests me a great deal.
I feel this may be returned to after some saki on Saturday. *grin*
Why is it alright for art to depict war, mutilation etc and not portray sexuality? Why is it OK to depict adultery, murder and torture in every medium from TV to computer games, but somehow not Art?
In my view, the examples you give above are equally tasteless.
As for there being 'no need for it,' well, no, there's no need for any art really;
That depends on your definition of need, which is a difference debate entirely so I won’t go into it here.
there's also no need for all the blood and limbs in Grand Theft Auto...
Too true. Then if I was Empress I’d ban playstation/X Box/Sega whateverdrive and all those type of things.
Do all those violent films and videogames produce killers and torturers?
Therein lies a huge topic of debate amongst some of the world’s leading psychologists. There is a lot of evidence that shows a correlation between such games (and such television viewing) in childhood and violence in later life. However, as we all know, correlation is not proof of cause, as both could be the symptoms of a third factor. However, a lot of the leading minds think that violent films and videogames do indeed have a hand in producing killers and torturers.
Sex in Brookside, say, seems acceptable;
I would disagree that any kind of full on sex scene would be acceptable in a context such as Brookside.
let's chew around those ideas of incest and rape because that's just on telly, but an erect penis in a museum is a shocker because we think any physical depiction of it will trigger every sex maniac who sees it?
That’s a bit of a misrepresentation of what I said. If I didn’t express myself clearly enough I apologise. What I was trying to say is that if the production of erect members in polite company becomes more socially acceptable then it is likely to become more commonplace, and those who would wish to push the boundaries into the unacceptable will find it less of a jump. In the example I cite, if getting your erect cock out in House of Fraser is fine, it’s not a very huge jump to wanking down poor girl’s back (I use this example only because I know someone who it happened to). I am not suggesting a direct causal link between the statue we refer to and such behaviour, but merely a connection between such statues and general levels of decency, and a link between general levels of decency and increasingly prevalent indecency.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
zaluzianskya and ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
skylark_photos
This will be in a number of parts due to the LJ word limits on comments.
Date: 2004-10-28 03:04 pm (UTC)Thank you for this, I find it very interesting. I'm going to put a counter-argument here, not to persuade you, because your views are valid as they are - but because this interests me a great deal.
I feel this may be returned to after some saki on Saturday. *grin*
Why is it alright for art to depict war, mutilation etc and not portray sexuality? Why is it OK to depict adultery, murder and torture in every medium from TV to computer games, but somehow not Art?
In my view, the examples you give above are equally tasteless.
As for there being 'no need for it,' well, no, there's no need for any art really;
That depends on your definition of need, which is a difference debate entirely so I won’t go into it here.
there's also no need for all the blood and limbs in Grand Theft Auto...
Too true. Then if I was Empress I’d ban playstation/X Box/Sega whateverdrive and all those type of things.
Do all those violent films and videogames produce killers and torturers?
Therein lies a huge topic of debate amongst some of the world’s leading psychologists. There is a lot of evidence that shows a correlation between such games (and such television viewing) in childhood and violence in later life. However, as we all know, correlation is not proof of cause, as both could be the symptoms of a third factor. However, a lot of the leading minds think that violent films and videogames do indeed have a hand in producing killers and torturers.
Sex in Brookside, say, seems acceptable;
I would disagree that any kind of full on sex scene would be acceptable in a context such as Brookside.
let's chew around those ideas of incest and rape because that's just on telly, but an erect penis in a museum is a shocker because we think any physical depiction of it will trigger every sex maniac who sees it?
That’s a bit of a misrepresentation of what I said. If I didn’t express myself clearly enough I apologise. What I was trying to say is that if the production of erect members in polite company becomes more socially acceptable then it is likely to become more commonplace, and those who would wish to push the boundaries into the unacceptable will find it less of a jump. In the example I cite, if getting your erect cock out in House of Fraser is fine, it’s not a very huge jump to wanking down poor girl’s back (I use this example only because I know someone who it happened to). I am not suggesting a direct causal link between the statue we refer to and such behaviour, but merely a connection between such statues and general levels of decency, and a link between general levels of decency and increasingly prevalent indecency.