(Sally Mann)
It's a noun.
A Google search results in this: printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.
I'm not sure how the determination is made as to the intention of an image. Do they use the moment of creation, knowledge of the life or beliefs of the photographer, or is it the image's effect on the viewer? How can we know if a given viewer possesses any aesthetic faculties? A person like that might perceive the intention of all things as being erotic, even if they are incapable of those sensations themselves. Do they measure a physical reaction? I had believed that erotic stimulation was emotional. Do they mean feelings that are openly displayed?
Again, the terms used to define seem intentionally confusing and contradictory.
Define - intention, also a noun: a thing intended; an aim or plan. Or, in medicine: the healing of a wound.
That clears things up, if you were curious about photography's intentions. As long as your desire to heal a wound is aesthetic and not erotic then you should be fine.
When an artist like Sally Mann takes pictures of her own children then we can safely assume that any effect they have is entirely within the viewer. Who would ascribe erotic intentions to a mother looking at and photographing her daughters, right? So, Sally Mann's intention exists wholly within the pornographic viewer, I guess. You should only experience the emotions of the aesthetic. If you look at these images as being sexual and not sensual then you begin to understand what is meant by the definition.
The only monster in any room is always you.
We know a mother is always pure, almost virginal.
I'm preparing a loosely legal, mostly social, argument for a friend. I'm trying to find a safe, responsible way to discuss Hugh Hefner with people under 30. Or, was it Howard Hughes? I forget.
Whichever one objectified, then died - that one.
A Google search results in this: printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.
I'm not sure how the determination is made as to the intention of an image. Do they use the moment of creation, knowledge of the life or beliefs of the photographer, or is it the image's effect on the viewer? How can we know if a given viewer possesses any aesthetic faculties? A person like that might perceive the intention of all things as being erotic, even if they are incapable of those sensations themselves. Do they measure a physical reaction? I had believed that erotic stimulation was emotional. Do they mean feelings that are openly displayed?
Again, the terms used to define seem intentionally confusing and contradictory.
Define - intention, also a noun: a thing intended; an aim or plan. Or, in medicine: the healing of a wound.
That clears things up, if you were curious about photography's intentions. As long as your desire to heal a wound is aesthetic and not erotic then you should be fine.
When an artist like Sally Mann takes pictures of her own children then we can safely assume that any effect they have is entirely within the viewer. Who would ascribe erotic intentions to a mother looking at and photographing her daughters, right? So, Sally Mann's intention exists wholly within the pornographic viewer, I guess. You should only experience the emotions of the aesthetic. If you look at these images as being sexual and not sensual then you begin to understand what is meant by the definition.
The only monster in any room is always you.
We know a mother is always pure, almost virginal.
I'm preparing a loosely legal, mostly social, argument for a friend. I'm trying to find a safe, responsible way to discuss Hugh Hefner with people under 30. Or, was it Howard Hughes? I forget.
Whichever one objectified, then died - that one.
(Sally Mann)
.
