I really can’t take you seriously if you think Donatello’s David doesn’t have artistic value. Sorry.
And I can’t take you seriously if you can’t define artistic value. Especially since your entire argument is based on the presumption that all judges do share your definition of “artistic”, despite having a possibly lax education in the liberal arts due to focusing on legal stuff. Heck, what if I were a judge? And not a sellout suckup who disregards the law in favor of popular opinion, but one that would actually face up to the facts and declare art history books to be child porn and the ownership thereof as a felony?
I gave you numerous different parts of the whole, which you didn’t take the least bit seriously in answering, and made an inane conclusion that you didn’t actually believe. I find simply waving your hands and saying “We can’t define art!” like a black turtleneck wearing pompous art grad student to be simplistic and silly. You’re not even trying to engage in an actual debate.
Yes, there is some subjectivity in the determination of whether something has artistic, literary, or scientific value. So is “reasonable”, determining someone’s intent, and whether or not someone suffers from extreme emotional distress. Yet it’s only one thing that you whine about having the judicial system determine.
Apparently so.
I was dead serious in my answers - those few that had any applicability at all to a statue of that type (standing, nude, little surrounding context). I am of the considered opinion that the purpose in creating David was appreciation of the nude male form. It was (in my opinion) a callback to the classical greek nudes who were -guess what- all about exactly the same thing. The artist doesn’t give a crap about Appollo or David or any of that; it’s all about the marvel that is the human body. I’m reasonably confident that various art scholars would agree with me too.
Regardless. My point was that your numerous different parts don’t add up to a whole - you’re just waving your hands, you turtleneck-wearing person, you. And if you’re going to rely on laws being applied in a consistent manner, you need a definition that any judges who happen not to have doctorates in art history can understand and apply.
You know what? I’m calling BS. Determining intent is not completely subjective, and determining whether somebody is suffering from emotional distress is not completely subjective. There are methods by which one can assess this which are not wholly derived from subjective opinion. And if such data is lacking, the judge is not allowed to say “Okay, he only jaywalked, but I think that he actually intended to murder the guy across the street. To the gas chamber!”.
Only with this art stuff is it completely subjective. It’s not comparable to the other things you mention - if you want to compare it to anything, compare it to the people who decided to ban Huck Finn as obscenity. If you can judge, they can judge and it’s equally legitimate, right?
In your answers, you added things like “lovingly”, that the focus is on his crotch, and rather than admitting it is widely regarded as art, that it is the topic of discussions, and that it elicits feelings in gay pedophiles. If I asked you, completely devoid of this thread, whether you thought Donatello’s David had artistic value, I’d be shocked if you said no. I’d also consider you trolling.
Well shit, there goes DNA evidence, insanity defenses, and anything else that may engage expert testimony, because judges’ couldn’t possibly understand or apply them either.
And just as I gave you just a smattering of things that could be considered in determining the value of something, you can get a smattering of things that let you determine someone’s intent. You use other evidence to help you reach the conclusion, which is what judges and juries have always done.
Or compare it to a guy who decides that it’s reasonable to shoot a couple of black teenagers at night in self defense. God knows if you can come up with examples of the “reasonableness” standard being wrongfully applied, why then we gotta get rid of the reasonableness standard.
Be shocked - in real life my answer would be either “No” or “What’s ‘artistic value’?” I’ve taken too many art history and appreciation classes to think there’s any objective definition of what is art - there simply isn’t. It’s in the eye of the beholder. Deal with it.
And the focus of that statue is the nude body, specifically the crotch, which attention is drawn to by both its placement smack in the center of the piece, the pose, the fact that there is clothing at the ‘perimeter’ (top and bottom) bracketing it, and of course the central-body nudity which highlights the area through its novelty. And that’s not even noting the expliclit known fact that the admiration of the ideal human body has been the whole point of nudes since Greek times. So yeah, Anybody who claims that the central nude body is not the focus of the piece is shoveling shit.
There is an explicit difference between there being objective evidence that is informed by expert opinions of it, and judges pulling unsubstantiated opinions straight from their own butts. Your failure to recognize/admit this annihilates your position and your credibility.
Except that the list of things you gave defining “artistic” don’t apply favorably to David, either - except “this is old and has been studied in literary journals”.
This is kind of like saying “To tell whether a car is a volvo, check whether is has four wheels and a busted side mirror. If so, it’s a volvo, otherwise no.” Your criteria don’t match up very well with your resulting set. (Especially since I’ve got lots of anime with fine artistic value that I’m quite certain would get me arrested in Sweden. And no, I don’t jack to them. But the point is that your criteria are made up and not the real ones used.)
Please do compare it with that. 'Cause it sounds like you would have the judge say, “based on my dumbass baseless opinon, this is meant to be pedophilia and has no value/the dude just wanted to kill innocent black people, and thus the harshest penalty should be levied. While my friend’s velvet poster of Rape of the Sabine Woman that he jacks to every night is art.”
It would be a more interesting debate if you could articulate the attributes that makes Donatello’s David child nudity legitimate and what makes cartoon nudity illegitimate.
Ok, Donatello’s work is acceptable.
Mange Cartoon nudity is not acceptable (or on the fringes).
We start with that.
What attributes do we need to transfer from Donatello’s work to cartoons to legitimize them in your eyes?
Donatello’s work was most likely based on a real child. Therefore, if cartoonists used real naked children as models, would that make the manga more legitimate?
Donatello himself was homosexual. Therefore, if the manga cartoonist was gay, would that make his work more acceptable?
Donatello’s statue is brown in color. If the manga cartoonist etched the drawings in a solid block of brown chocolate, would that make it acceptable?
Donatello’s work is 600 years old. Ok, we do seem to have a impossible gap for manga to duplicate. However, I think there’s a technique where you can rub mayonnaise on the paper and bake it in the oven for a few minutes. It will give the look of antique maps – a nice deep yellowish tint to the paper. At least it now looks old. Would that make it acceptable?
Exactly what would make cartoon nudity acceptable? There’s got to be something because we’ve already determined that Donatello’s David is acceptable. Provide guidance as to what it is.
Again, I’m interested in what attributes you believe will legitimize cartoon nudity. Please don’t pass this off as, “well the judges in Sweden can determine that.” We can’t debate with the Swedish judge at the moment. You’ll have to stand in form him. Please share your opinion and let’s debate it!
Even more interesting debate would be one where you didn’t use strawmen. Barring some kind of disgusting context, I don’t find nudity, even of underaged children, whether cartoon or real, to be illegitimate. Just as mentioned earlier, I would not find the bath pictures of that couple’s kids to be illegitimate. If you have some kind of evidence to contradict the article in the OP that it involved the depiction of children engaged in sexual contact and instead was just a nude young person posing ala Donatello’s David, by all means feel free to correct me. As I’ve said, I’m not exactly comfortable making a final determination without actually seeing the items.
Maybe you should find someone who thinks that manga cartoon nudity is not acceptable. Then you have your debate with them.
Sexual contact? Is it as simple as that? You mean that if we search the entire globe over the last 30,000 years from cave drawings to today, we’re not going to find any depictions of under-18 humans engaged in sexual contact that’s “acceptable” as art by scholars or tourists?
I could’ve sworn there were depictions and icons of sexual coupling positions painted on rocks in Sweden or South America. I can’t remember which.
Hmmm… google…
Does this mean we can agree that there is a difference between nudity and sexual conduct? Have you abandoned that strawman now?
And no, it’s not as simple as that. I’ve explained the determinations to be made, and given just a few things that can help with that determination. If you are still having problems understanding the multitude of things I’ve pointed out, I suggest you reread my posts.
No, I don’t mean that at all. That’s another one of your strawmen.
If it will save you time, I’m simply point out that finding it won’t make a lick of difference. As I’ve explained multiple times, the determinations have to be made on a case by case basis. Providing an example of a depiction of minors having sexual contact that does have artistic value will not suddenly make every single other example of a depiction of minors having sexual contact have artistic value. But knock yourself out.
I don’t think it’s a strawman… I don’t see much of a distinction.
I’m trying to narrow down and really get to the heart of this concept of “artistic value” that’s not related to the age of the work.
Does this piece that explictly shows fondling have “artistic value”? Why?
(Interestingly enough, this ancient art looks more realistic than some of the manga with unnatural bulging frog eyes I’ve seen.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oxford_Pederasty.jpg
Do any of the girls in these explicit paintings look underage? Does it matter? Why or why not? Does it have “artistic value”? Why?
Please articulate the differentiating factors.
Share with us this “case-by-case” filter that you’re using. Give us insights.
Not art. Artistic value. And I get your point that you think there is no such thing. I disagree.
Once again, you completely miss the point. The judges and juries will hear evidence, whether in the form of expert testimony or about the specific item, to answer some of the questions I gave you in describing what goes in the determination of artistic value.
It should have been blatantly obvious that my list was not exhaustive, nor even applicable to one particular type of art. I kinda told you that up front. Hell, many of the questions had nothing to do with sculpting.
If you want to debate whether or not Donatello’s David has artistic value, have at it … with someone else. I’m pretty comfortable with my position that things like the creator of the piece, the piece’s role in his career, the nude/sexual conduct difference, the wide acceptance of it, it’s influence on subsequent works, it’s beauty and a plethora of other things (which I’m not going to continue to list) help establish it as having artistic value. And I’d be amazed if you found any judge to disagree with me.
And again, the point escapes you. Once again, finding an example where a standard (whether lack of artistic value or reasonableness) is wrongly applied does not nullify that standard.
You don’t see much distinction between nudity and sexual conduct? Putting aside the frustration that belief could have on your love life for a moment, I will point out that I think a vast majority of the world would disagree with you.
[quote=Ruminator]
I know. That’s what I’ve spent the last page explaining, with numerous examples. If you still don’t get it, I really can’t help you. I’m not going to explain it a fifth time.
In cartoon art depictions? Not really. Some bits of paint can be slapped on a canvas to look like a flower … or a horse… or fornication. It’s just paint or ink.
Try explaining by using the links to paintings I provided as teaching tools. You gave a laundry list of attributes but no example guidance of how to apply them.
I study artificial intelligence machine learning and your “rules” are too vague. Nobody could build a computer filter that approved the Greek pottery and Édouard-Henri Avril but disapproved of the cartoon manga. Unless the one rule was the original date of the work. Computers can filter based on a calendar rule pretty easily.
Fair enough. If you see no difference between sexual conduct and nudity, I fear the chasm between us will be insurmountable. You have, however, convinced me that I’m wasting my time. Best of luck.
Paraphrasing me accurately would be, “see no difference in sexual conduct and nudity in cartoon art” but go ahead and leave out the relevant context bits if making my comment look unsophisticated gives you a sense of intellectual superiority. 
… with what?
There is a certain amount of … basic understanding and reasonableness … to have a meaningful debate with someone. When you first were first asking about the difference between Donatello’s David (which, by the by, isn’t cartoon art) and anime nudity, I had assumed you were being serious, so I gave you an honest answer. Now you’re backtracking and trying to say you only meant no difference between nudity and sexual conduct in cartoon art.
It’s more about how you have approached this issue. If you refuse to acknowledge that there is a huge difference between sexual conduct and simple nudity, whether in cartoon art or other types of depictions, there is simply no point in my wasting further time with you.
I was being serious.
I’m not backtracking. I didn’t realize the manga art had sexual contact until you pointed it out that the news article mentioned it.
But… now that I know that extra factoid about the manga art, it doesn’t change the substance of the comparison (whether comparing to David or Greek pottery.) I’m being serious.
The Greek pottery has sexual contact. It sits in a respectable museum. The manga art does not (to my knowledge). So… what’s the diff?
If I am being prosecuted because a fictitious character I drew is of indeterminate age, the solution is for me to simply draw an ID that proves the character is of legal age. How could the court refuse such proof?