Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Friedrich Nietzsche, in his seminal piece, On the Genealogy of Morals: A polemical Tract, proclaimed that Knowledge needs many eyes. In our quest for the elusive concepts of Knowledge and Truth, we will need many eyes. To be exact, 90 pairs of eyes. This blog will provide you with a forum outside the four walls of the classroom to share, comment, critique, and engage critically with the TOK course.
Which TOK aims do you think the course has addressed well so far?
Blog Archive
Labels
- arts (13)
- reason (10)
- human sciences (9)
- essays (8)
- ethics (8)
- mathematics (8)
- TOK aims (6)
- belief (6)
- language (6)
- truth (6)
- ways of knowing (6)
- knowledge (5)
- natural sciences (5)
- sense perception (5)
- TOK WEEKEND (4)
- assessment criteria (4)
- areas of knowledge (3)
- emotion (3)
- explanation (3)
- history (3)
- mind (3)
- presentations (3)
- question of the week (3)
- BLOG IMPROVEMENT (2)
- culture (2)
- invention (2)
- justification (2)
- referencing (2)
- religion (2)
- technology (2)
- IB (1)
- Let's comment on this (1)
- academic honesty (1)
- atheism (1)
- beauty (1)
- causation (1)
- certainty (1)
- confirmation bias (1)
- democracy (1)
- discovery (1)
- ideas (1)
- imagination (1)
- innovation (1)
- intellectual property (1)
- intentionality (1)
- judgement (1)
- knower's perspective (1)
- knowledge issues (1)
- law (1)
- laws of thought (1)
- linguistic determinism (1)
- originality (1)
- prediction (1)
- progress (1)
- reactivity (1)
- real life situations (1)
- right (1)
- scenario (1)
- stereotypes (1)
- truth tests (1)
- values (1)
- wrong (1)
Subscribe To tokathgic.blogspot.com
Comments
Comments
Contributors
- *Dutty winer*
- *FRANTIC*STRIVER*^_^v
- 14ir
- Amanda
- Anna
- Aoise Minjiba
- BBuddha
- BINYAM NEGASH
- Chilot Berassa
- Chris
- Chuchu
- Da Peace
- Dirac "Elridge"
- DnumberoneG
- Exemplary Figure
- Femi
- Fowah
- GET IB
- GIFT M
- Gameli
- Gossip Girl!...shhhh
- Henry Amo Mensah
- Hot Ice
- Jay Kay
- Julian H. Kitching
- K B
- KAMENYA
- Kinkerizer
- LJwella
- Lena Korsah
- Meanie
- Melkamu Tesfaye
- Michael Oduro
- MichaelOsa
- Mr. Bediako
- N.A.
- Puppy
- Rebecca Amenu
- Ricky
- S. Kidane
- Sampomaa
- Sharon
- T
- Teferi
- ThePrez
- Toushiro Hitsugaya
- Unknown
- Vladimir40041756
- YAMAMOTO
- aki
- atmart
- brijette
- chocol8 ch!p
- chopadem
- chopwatyahurd
- cydrina
- dozy
- hMensa
- henok tesfahunegn
- johnbosco
- k'kwor
- kamau_j
- kiztok
- kweku
- maaseku
- mak
- mariama
- mercedez bombardi ma benz
- micheal djan
- mizz r!
- okwase
- pepper
- qpwoeiruty
- runako
- s*N*o*W*y*
- shadrack mensah
- twumwaa
- willie-j
- xOxO
- ~
14 comments:
To answer this question, it is important to again re-visit all the areas of knowledge, ethics in particular...Based on what one considers moral and immoral, your question will have varied answers which may tend to be connected with emotion primarily. i personally do not think it can be considered as art because I have grown learning that pornography is wrong, and therefore try to avoid encounters with it.
I agree with the ethics issue raised by Gossip Girl... Even though it may seem as though there is no criteria for judging a good art piece. During our class discussions though we skirted round the topic, we came to the conclusion or at least the opinion that there is a criterion.
Colour, realism, era of the art, intention of the artist, popularity of the artist as well as the form of the art are all criteria for judging a good art piece.
Now pornography, what was the intent of the "artist?" What convention does he follow and how effectively does he use the medium he has chosen? Personally i believe pornography is not art. It is ethically wrong because it does not please a large majority of soceity. It is a form of expression though, but does it have good intent?
We are, of course, faced with the problem of agreeing on what counts as pornography. It's been said that "pornography is hard to define but I know it when I see it" (attributed to the American judge Potter Stewart by Wikipedia), but that doesn't seem very helpful here.
Also, in some cultural traditions there has been a strong association between the beautiful and the good, suggesting that aesthetic judgements are somehow bound up with moral judgements, thus connecting the arts with ethics.
In other cultural settings, the relationship between the aesthetic and the moral may be more controversial, such as in the work of American photographer Andres Serrano.
Firstly, in reation to a comment passed by yazzie i do not think the issue at hand is if pornography is morally right or wrong. The question is can it be considered as art? In my opinion it can be considered as art. Ask me why.
Why???
Well, there has been an issue that works of art have messages to communicate to us. The same can be said for pornography. in the sense that the porn artist or producer gives an idea of the different positions in which one can use when having. This is a good intention because it helps married couples in their sex life. Also, pornography can disgusting at times and in that case the purpose could be trying to tell us that it does not pay to be a sex maniac or addict. i agree that most of the time this is not the case but through these examples we can agree that the artist can have good intentions.
Also we know that pornography is expressive and also man made, all these being characteristics of the arts and therefore it is quite right to call it an art. For erotica which to some extent falls under pronography, is accepted as art. We have erotic art and literature which both share features with pornography. So why can't accept pornography as an art. In my opinion it has a purpose whether good or bad after not all art is good. For instance there are profane songs which are morally wrong but accepted as art. I'm not sure of the criteria used to decide if something is art or not but then to get up and say it is not art because you have learnt that pornography is morally wrong or because it is not accepted by the majority of the society, is a very wrong and cumbersome claim. After all there have been paintings like La Grande Odalisque that have rejected in the past but then consider still considered as art. So i still think pornography is art and i want someone to convince me that it is not.
I agree with the 'Da Peace' on some points. I don't think moral criteria are relevant here.
I think that pornography satisfies the primary criteria used to define art: intentionality, communication, expressiveness.
Some of Modigiliani's work was considered pornographic when it was first exhibited (and still is by some) as has some of Tracy Emin's work. I will provide links.
I think pornography can be defined as material of a sexual nature intended to titillate those who consume it.
Perhaps we need to be more exacting in our criteria of what constitues art.
Do certain communicative intentions (such as that of pure titillation) discount material from
being considered art?
Perhaps our definition of what constitues art is influenced by our soical mores as much as anything else.
*Sigh* Feels good to be back...
Seeing as Art is not as rigid and clear-cut as Math or the Sciences, we could use the age-old argument of beauty, and therefore art being in the eye of the beholder, and just leave it at that, but Mr. Kitching wouldn't like that very much...
If we go by Puppy's definition of art i.e. “intentionality, communication, expressiveness” then pornography is definitely art...
However, let’s touch on ethics.
If a 5 year old child was photographed performing fellatio on a 50 year old man would you still consider this art?
Would you consider it art if an 80 year old woman was snipped up and her pieces and blood were stuck on some canvas to depict a setting sun (don't ask me how, let your mind do the magic)?
What I'm trying to say is things are linked and such links prevent clear-cut black or white distinction. You've got to consider the grey areas too.
Mr. Kitiching's point about the correlation between goodness and beauty is true. Studies have even shown that one (you!) is more likely to trust an attractive person than a bad-looking person. Therefore in the ideal world we all want shouldn't beauty, art be good, moral then?
The sexual act of regular pornography (i.e. solely adult pornography) is not what is wrong but it is what it represents that raises the argument: Lust, promiscuity, public display of what should be kept behind doors. That is what is wrong, that is why it is not beautiful, that is why it is NOT art.
If you disagree with me, tell me then:
Why can art be universally appreciated, while pornography can only be viewed by people above 21?
Judge Potter Stewart could not define pornography, and I don’t think we can fully define art, but I can tell what art is NOT
Hope I didn't construct any fallacies (it’s 5:11, I just woke up and I'm dog-tired)
This is a hot one.... i agree that ethics, and time play a role in how we appreciate art, but i still don't see why pornography can't be art.
The body in itself is a wonderful piece of art and design, especially the body of a female. If i flipped through a playboy mag, i would be looking, as much as you may deny it, for the most "beautifully" constructed woman, my "perfect" woman, with the "perfect" pose.
I think we are placing pornography in the wrong category of art. Pornography would probably fall under Photography, and not under classic art (by that i mean paintings and the like). Photographs should probably be considered with a different criteria.
To antye's comment about the age restriction, i wouldn't let my child listen to eminem on a regular basis, that doesn't discount what he does (music) as art. Not all art is meant or supposed to be beautiful,a picture of the middle-eastern festival where the men cut themselves (sorry i can't remember the name of the festival) might not be pretty, but that doesn't mean it's not art, there's more to it than just content.
To end this my very long comment which even i probably won't read on a "good" day....We could consider sex as an art form. I don't know why, but two bodies (most preferably of opposite sex and same species!!) intertwined with each other and contorted seems very intriguing and captivating as well. If sex, or porn for that matter wasn't beautiful, people wouldn't patronize it.....think about it....
@ Prez, I shall properly address your post in a bit, your last statement jumped out at me…
“If sex, or porn for that matter wasn't beautiful, people wouldn't patronize it”
Studies have shown that Porn is addictive, as are drugs. Drugs are not beautiful. Porn so largely patronized not because it is beautiful but because patrons are addicted. They’re so hooked on and they don’t know it. Plus they don’t watch porn to analyze the beauty of two human bodies merging and contorting in intricate positions. They don’t watch porn to find it fascinating, they watch it for the raw lust that it begets (or quenches), not thinking ‘oh that’s beautiful, captivating’ but ‘boy, would I like to do that’.
Very interesting points raised though, still trying to frame my counter in my head.
@antye
'Studies have shown that Porn is addictive, as are drugs. Drugs are not beautiful. Porn so largely patronized not because it is beautiful but because patrons are addicted.'
This is a non sequitor (it doesn't follow). Although I accept your point that people may be addicted to pornography rather than attracted to instrinsic artistic qualities (if there are any).
@ Puppy, I'm a little lost as to the point you're making...
Porn is addictive, so are drugs. Both are patronized but not because they're beautiful. Its in reference to Prez's point about porn being patronized for its aesthetic value.
Is this still non sequitor-ish?(Is that some TOK/Philosophy/legal term?)
Is pornography art? That is a hard question to answer especially because pornography like music today is a highly diluted 'art form'. I imagine by saying art form i have concedetrd to the idea that pornography is art.
So yea music is art but not all forms of music can rightly be considered art, likewise not all pornography can be considered art.
I do not believe that the originators of pornography intended it to be the 'thing' that it is now...this is merely belief....
I say this because i think sex is an art in some sense and the beautiful things that people can do to their bodies while they're t it can be quite interesting to watch....also...it really is expressive and intentional.
Also, about culture and ethics and all that, in African society where sex is treated in rather taboo manner naturally pornography will be considered as morally displeasing or wrong or whatever...however take music...hip hop was/is considered by some to be offensive but one can hardly deny that the likes of Shakur and Common really have produced art. i think that art though universal, does have cultural basis. Kind of like Africans and appreciating classical music.... it's just not really us.
So yes, pornography may be considered art but just like we have art and crap...not all pornography may be considered art and perhaps today we have more of the crap than the art but....there perhaps is some art in there...
Hello all,
Just a little comment on what Yazzie is trying to say. I do agree that pornography might not please some members of the society due to their beliefs and therefore not art. However, is there any implications for defining art based on beliefs? Do art works effectively communicate the intentions of the creator?
for the reason that pornography pleases some people and it involves creativity,l think it should be put under the art of making videos,its then just a type of video like action movies, horror movies and others.
Post a Comment