Illegal Art

Does anyone on debate.org have some thoughts on illegal art?

Specifically access to obscene, offensive, and disturbing material for those who wish to view it be it for personal, or educational reasons.

What policy is out there in terms of the preservation and access for "educational purposes"?

Just call it pornography.

And I don't see any reason to make it as a whole illegal. No one is being coerced into this. However, there are specific cases such as child porn in which the person in the picture did not participate in the picture voluntarily, and therefore such cases are illegal. Perhaps the great thing about the internet is all of the domestic tyranny of intellectual property rights and triangular intervention are un-enforcable.

This one is tricky. Kind of the "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it" statement. Viewing child porn for academic purposes is very dangerous ground. Honestly, I don't know how one goes about studying such an issue without legal authorities being involved. Good topic, I will look into "illegal art" and see what I can find, hopefully avoiding any watch lists in the process. Sorry I cannot be more help.

Illegal Art:

http://microscopiq.com...

Also, I think a lot of art is SUPPOSED to be offensive. I support the modern art that many people "don't get" or just think it pointless. I don't really understand the question, admittedly. Anyway, in the case of child porn, you obviously cannot create child porn and call it art as you would be doing something illegal. Similarly, you cannot murder someone and call it art, as that would be illegal. Perhaps drawing it, photographing it, writing about it, etc. -- that would be legal. Instead, artists might find more 'appropriate' ways of depicting such heinous things as child porn. For instance, using symbolism of some sort. Or just ask s0m31john for his anime porn where pre-pubescent Asian cartoons help guys get off.

At 9/2/2009 5:49:58 PM, wjmelements wrote:
... However, there are specific cases such as child porn in which the person in the picture did not participate in the picture voluntarily, ...

What about non-recorded art ... that is, art that is fiction (whether some text-porn, drawn art, etc.) depicting pedophilia, where there is no actual child being photographed, its all fiction and fantasy?

At 9/2/2009 5:49:58 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Just call it pornography.

Not all illegal art is pornography, and not all pornography is illegal. Therefore, "just calling it pornography" would be a misnomer, and a gross one at that.

At 10/1/2009 5:30:34 PM, corinnesunshine wrote:

At 9/2/2009 5:49:58 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Just call it pornography.

Not all illegal art is pornography, and not all pornography is illegal. Therefore, "just calling it pornography" would be a misnomer, and a gross one at that.

This person had already made a debate on this. It was clear he was talking about pornography.
See: http://www.Debate.org...

At 10/1/2009 5:36:50 PM, Nags wrote:

At 10/1/2009 5:30:34 PM, corinnesunshine wrote:

At 9/2/2009 5:49:58 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Just call it pornography.

Not all illegal art is pornography, and not all pornography is illegal. Therefore, "just calling it pornography" would be a misnomer, and a gross one at that.

This person had already made a debate on this. It was clear he was talking about pornography.
See: http://www.Debate.org...

I might point out that it was the con side that defined "illegal art" as pornography.

Simply put, other art forms such as public installation, graffiti, and assemblies (such as Alan Kaprow's Happenings) should be considered as much as pornography.

Agree entirely with Corinne.