I’d like this thread to bring about a proper round-table discussion among forum users. We’re not going to see any change in the things we care about if we don’t actively discuss them.
It seems silly to even say this, but there seems to be an idea that pornography can somehow be excluded from being classified as an art form and devoid of respective value.
The mere fact that artistic value cannot even be assigned a proper, across-the-board defininition outside of being a tangible thing that someone made should immediately preclude such an assumption, but nonetheless has had the misfortune of guiding the hands of both judicial and legislative decisions.
I firmly believe that pornography IS art, regardless of what it communicates or how it goes about doing it. To differentiate smut from the broader sphere of art because it doesn’t live up to to the tastes or standards of the people is both a bastarsization of the medium as a whole and an underhanded act of censorship.
A great deal of time, money, creativity, and effort goes into creating these films, books, games, drawings, paintings, cartoons, etc by artists. Careful and meticulous attention to the details necessary to arouse and tantalize its intended audience, as well as the wide variety of tastes and adult cultures that sprung up around “degeneracy” ought to be considered, yet the Supreme Court seems to think that such aspects don’t deserve to be appreciated when making that determination, which is one of many fatal flaws in both the Miller Test and the problematic and tyrannical obscenity doctrine.
A dirty magazine which photographs of college-aged women in sexually explicit situations has artistic value because it is these women expressing pure eroticism, the desire to arouse and bring about private, personal indulgence.
A Japanese hentai manga that displays for the viewing pleasure, outrageous or offensive imagery involving fictional characters, regardless of their canonical age, has value in and of itself because it is offensive and is, in actuality, no different than the dirty magazine.
These facts should render the Miller Test null and void, despite the ‘value’ prong being modified in a later decision to bring about a “national standard”, despite not requiring the court to respect such standards.
(pornography depicting real minors is illegal regardless if it has value, so don’t worry about that. we’re not advocating for that)