RE: Maybe erotic cartoons are not art after all (part 1) [2008-08-20 21:20:36]
Before I begin I will present a little bit of background on myself with relation to this site. I am male, 24, and a citizen of the United States if anyone is interested. I discovered this site sometime within this calendar year if I remember correctly. While I do not visit frequently I do so regularly. This is the first time Iíve noticed the blog. I apologize for any insult this may mean but there is a wide verity of material on this site and while I may have found some of the highlights I have certainly not viewed all of the material much less scoured all of the links on the site. But I did find the blog eventfully. As for the material there is some material I think is fantastic while there is some that I consider a waste of time for me to view it.
Andy, you say that ďOne purpose of art is to make people think, talk and write.Ē I am of the opinion that art is something that eludes definitions for it is different things for different people. Art has certainly served many desperate purposes and it continues to do so. The purpose art serves varies from individual to individual and is likely different for each one. I think that it is a foolish to hold that the purpose you have in creating and/or viewing the art on this site to be universal. From my perspective I doubt this was your intent but with the one in a half thousand visitors per day viewing the site I think you probably thought there must be someone who shares the same purpose so why hasnít that someone responded?
My guess is that a portion of your viewership does agree with you and the art on this site motivates them to think, to talk, and to write but chose to do so in a different forum. I consider myself one of these people and I will get to the reasons why I donít chose a public forum frequented by strangers a bit later. You frustration over few validating or even contradicting your opinions on erotic art betrays that you put your own values on art contingent upon the opinions of others. Otherwise you would be content to give your opinion and let it be out there for others to do with or not to do with as they please. You may not even decide to go that far.
As Iíve already stated, art has different meanings for each individual and each individualís opinions on art are perfectly valid. I am sure there are plenty of people who consider erotic cartoons art and plenty of people who do not and it is foolish to think that this will ever change as long as people remain human. At present in the society I live in the belief that erotic cartoons are not art may be the ďmainstreamĒ position but that means little other then what is corporately sponsored. Erotic art is certainly corporately sponsored but in limit forums: mainly advertising. Why it isnít sponsored to a large degree outside that one medium is a valid question.
There are plenty of cultures and groups who actively support erotic art, including erotic cartoons. Erotic art is quite alive and well and is in fact flourishing. It isnít in peopleís faces the same way mainstream cinema is thus people have to search for it but it can very rapidly be found. The internet has a great amount of erotic art, there are communities dedicated to erotic art outside of the internet, there are museums featuring erotic art in New York City and elsewhere, and there is plenty else dealing with erotic art in a positive way. Unlike other times in human history, erotic art may not be accepted by the mainstream culture most places in the world but this means little. There is certainly a healthy appreciation of erotic art, cartoons included, amongst humanity
About the author: norsenerd
Rate this article
Agree | Disagree | Undecided
Rating: Agree: 193 (77.5%) Disagree: 30 (12.0%) Undecided: 26 (10.4%)