It is currently Tue Nov 20, 2018 12:19 pm


Romans & Art

Works that stir the soul
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

Wade Hampton III

  • Posts: 1608
  • Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:40 pm
  • Location: Pontiac, SC

Romans & Art

PostMon Jul 02, 2018 4:19 am

Wade Hampton III wrote:Can Pornography Be An Art Form?

[delete porn images]
Not at WB forum, thanks.
Offline
User avatar

Wade Hampton III

  • Posts: 1608
  • Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:40 pm
  • Location: Pontiac, SC

Re: Romans & Art

PostTue Jul 03, 2018 2:41 am

Civilizations

What Is Art (Good for)? #109

Tuesday, July 3, 08:00 pm on SCETV

Duration: 0:56:46

Description: Survey the history of art, from antiquity to the present,
on a global scale. Programs reveal the role art and creative imagination
have played in forging humanity, and introduce viewers to works of beauty,
ingenuity and illumination across cultures.

Wade says, "Hope I am not sticking my neck out here, but this is a freebee,
without subscribing to Jew-owned cable-TV. I have no idea of the content...
...just posting...."
55781.jpg
Who Were They
55781.jpg (68.84 KiB) Viewed 896 times
Offline
User avatar

Wade Hampton III

  • Posts: 1608
  • Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:40 pm
  • Location: Pontiac, SC

Re: Romans & Art

PostTue Jul 03, 2018 5:04 pm

Nude paintings, obscene sculptures and gods having sex with animals:
Pompeii's treasure trove of erotic artefacts which prudish scholars
kept locked up!

Erotic paintings and sculptures were part of everyday life in Pompeii,
but when the artefacts were rediscovered they were kept out of sight.
Items were placed in 'Gabinetto Segreto' and hidden until 2000!

Explicit: This statue of Pan having sex with a goat is one of the obscene
statues in the 'Gabinetto Segreto'

By HUGO GYE
PUBLISHED: 12:19 EDT, 30 September 2013
UPDATED: 13:19 EDT, 30 September 2013

When the treasures of Pompeii were unearthed in the 18th century,
you might imagine that archaeologists would have been keen to show
off their finds, which revolutionised modern understanding of the
Roman world. But one part of the collection was hidden away for
nearly 200 years - the erotic art which was a central part of everyday
life as it adorned the houses of local citizens. And even now, the
sexually explicit material with embarrassed its discoverers is kept
in a so-called 'secret cabinet' separate from the rest of the material
discovered in Pompeii and neighbouring Herculaneum.

Graphic: Paintings from Pompeii like this caused huge embarrassment
when they were discovered by archaeologists in the 18th and 19th
centuries.

The material exhibited in the Gabinetto Segreto in Naples is an extraordinary
witness to the role that erotica played in the life of the Romans, as preserved
by the eruption of Mt Vesuvius in 79 AD. Frescoes considered to be great
works of art frequently contain depictions of naked men and women, while
nude statues are also commonplace. Even more shocking from the modern
point of view are phallic symbols which could be seen all around the cities,
including penis-shaped oil lamps and wind chimes thought to bring good luck.
Perhaps the best-known item in the Gabinetto Segreto is a statue of the god
Pan having sex with a goat, which was featured in an exhibition on Pompeii
in the British Museum earlier this year. Pompeii was first excavated in the
1748, but it was not until the following century that the findings were
catalogued and taken to museums. The extraordinary trove of erotica was
a great embarrassment to scholars of the Victorian era, when public depictions
of sex were entirely taboo. King Francis I visited the collection in 1819 - and
he was so scandalised that he ordered the sexually explicit items to be locked
away in a separate museum which could be accessed only by scholars. The
material was described in a French catalogue which circulated around Europe,
despite the best efforts of the authorities to suppress it, and attracted the
attention of young aristocrats embarking on the 'Grand Tour.'

Beautiful: But extraordinary works of art were condemned as obscene by
19th-century scholars.

However, the offending objects were bricked off from women and young people,
while explicit frescoes could only be glimpsed through metal shutters. It was
not until 2000 that the Gabinetto Segreto was fully opened to the public - it
now forms part of the Naples National Archaeological Museum. Naples is not
the only museum to have hosted a 'secret' collection of obscene antiquities -
the British Museum once held all sexually explicit items in a 'Secretum' closed
to the general public.

Share or comment on this article: Nude paintings, obscene sculptures and gods
having sex with animals: Pompeii's explicit artefacts which were kept secret by
the prudish scholars of 19th-century Europe.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... s-obscene-
sculptures-gods-having-sex-animals-Pompeiis-explicit-artefacts-kept-secret-prudish-

scholars-19th-century-Europe.html

Wade says, "I wonder what Ben Klassen, who wrote glowingly of the Roman
world, would have said about this issue..."

:o
Offline
User avatar

Wade Hampton III

  • Posts: 1608
  • Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:40 pm
  • Location: Pontiac, SC

Re: Romans & Art

PostWed Jul 04, 2018 9:35 pm

Wade Hampton III wrote:
Wade Hampton III wrote:Not at WB forum, thanks.


This issue has really tweaked my interest. How far back in antiquity
can "porn" cease being such, and simply be "art?" How about the art
in the caves of Grotte de Lascaux, which I understand date back to the
late Plestocene? See link below:

https://www.google.com/search?q=ancient ... ce&client=
firefox-b-1&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=
0ahUKEwjrubvs4obcAhWT3oMKHbgZBMcQsAQIcQ&biw=1600&bih=763

I did find one nude (male - unfortunately - as I am opinioned that there
is not all that much to the male physique). Perhaps there are some of
these early folks doing the "nasty?" I do not know, but if so, why
should they be banned? The "religious right" likes to talk about
"family values." Well, how are you going to have families without
coitus? Even artificial insemination as a technology is still in its
infancy and not dependable as a method of human reproduction.

I would like very much to see the Christian monopoly on this issue
broken. Why shouldn't WB be the place to do it? Inquiring minds
want to know!
55867.jpg
Riddler
55867.jpg (61.77 KiB) Viewed 819 times
Offline
User avatar

Wade Hampton III

  • Posts: 1608
  • Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:40 pm
  • Location: Pontiac, SC

Re: Romans & Art

PostThu Jul 05, 2018 3:09 pm

From Usenet....

Porn has been around since the Paleolithic period, and yes, it was conducted on cave
walls. In addition to woolly mammoths, engraved images of nude women and crude vulvae
(think Pac-Man meets ice cream cone), and doggy-style drawings exist as early as
10,000 BCE. Granted, some of them look like they’ve been drawn by sexually precocious
first-graders, but hey, we can’t all be Vincent van Ho.

:shock:
Offline
User avatar

Wade Hampton III

  • Posts: 1608
  • Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:40 pm
  • Location: Pontiac, SC

Re: Romans & Art

PostFri Jul 06, 2018 2:34 am

Wade says, "What I've learned in the last day or so:
Contrary to what I have been told by leaders on 'The
Religious Right,' Jews did not 'create' or 'invent'
porn. They merely took over what has been here all
along....porn being as old as humanity itself. I
also suspect it will also be around for as long as
there are Caucasians. I trust no clowns will come
forward and try to tell me the ancient Romans wern't
Caucasians."

Jews no more invented porn than does a tick invent
blood from its host. According to Hans Schmidt, Jews
never invented ANYTHING, and I am convinced he is
telling the truth.

It helps to know what one is talking about, no matter
what the issue. Here are some helpful starters:

por·nog·ra·phy:

Printed or visual material containing the explicit
description or display of sexual organs or activity,
intended to stimulate sexual excitement.

erotica:

Erotic literature or art.

Wade says, "Where does one end and the other begin?"

Potter Stewart:

....was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of
the United States, who ruled...

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds
of material I understand to be embraced within that
shorthand description [hard-core pornography]; and
perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so.
But I know it when I see it..."

Now that is helpful, isn't it (sarcasism intended)!

What I found downright amazing is the fact that the
webmasters of this site saw fit to delete the images
of the porn(?)/erotica(?) from the 2000-year-old
Pompeii excavation site! Surely they do not think
readers of this site will suddenly be compelled to
have sex with a goat or other animals! In fact,
some of the female forms are - in my opinion -
reminiscent of the art of NS Germany

Wade concludes, "I do not being lied to..either by
Jews or members of 'The Religious Right!' If there
were such a place as a burning hell, I would without
hesitation relegate all of them there."
55904.jpg
No Christians No Jews
55904.jpg (38.71 KiB) Viewed 773 times
Offline
User avatar

White Man 1

  • Posts: 405
  • Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 2:35 pm
  • Location: Knoxville

Re: Romans & Art

PostFri Jul 06, 2018 6:15 am

https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigatio ... -it-a.html

Movie Day at the Supreme Court or "I Know It When I See It": A History of the Definition of Obscenity
What is "obscene" under U.S. law has plagued our courts for the last fifty years. Many people don't realize that in our society, which trumpets free speech, that there are many restrictions on speech, including restrictions on adult or sexual images and words - or "obscene" materials.

Other forms of unprotected or regulated speech include: speech which creates a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action; speech which contains narrowly predefined "fighting words"; written or spoken untruths (libel, slander, fraud) which may be punished by civil suit; speech which is false or deceptive advertising; speech which threatens others; and speech with restrictions justified because the government can demonstrate a "narrowly tailored" "compelling interest".

"Obscene" speech is "unprotected" speech as ruled by the Supreme Court. "Unprotected speech," means speech that does not enjoy First Amendment protection and may even be criminal to express.

In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced... [b]ut I know it when I see it ..."

This quote, and the intent behind it, is well known as summarizing the irony and difficulty in trying to define obscenity. For at least fifty years, the Supreme Court has been struggling with defining what speech is "obscene".

It is surprising that the difficulty in defining obscenity in our history did not fully begin until the mid-1900s. Supreme Court Justice Brennan, who served from 1956 to 1990, who was one of the great, and often liberal, legal minds of the 20th century, attempted repeatedly to define obscenity. The task was much more daunting than he had anticipated.

Background

The book The Brethren, by Watergate reporter Bob Woodward, outlines the behind-the-scenes battles of the Supreme Court during the 1960's and 1970's and provides an interesting background to the obscenity cases decided during that period. The most important case during that time was Miller v. California, which still defines obscenity today.

The Brethren describes Supreme Court "movie day" – when the law clerks and the Justices sat down to eat popcorn and see the porn films for the cases awaiting decisions. Justice Hugo Black, who served from 1937 to 1971, always refused Movie Day by saying "if I want to go see that film, I should pay my money." Justice Black and Justice William Douglas, who served from 1939 to 1975, at the time were the only two Justices who believed that speech should be entirely free of restrictions.

According to The Brethren, the law clerks that drafted the Justices' opinions created the following short hand for how their bosses decided if material was obscene:

Justice Byron White's Definition: "no erect penises, no intercourse, no oral or anal sodomy. For White, no erections and no insertions equaled no obscenity."

Justice Brennan's Definition, The Limp Dick Test: "no erections. He was willing to accept penetration as long as the pictures passed what his clerks referred to as the 'limp dick' standard. Oral sex was tolerable if there was no erection."

Justice Stewart's Definition, The Casablanca Test: "... I know it [obscenity/pornography] when I see it." In Casablanca, as a Navy lieutenant in World War II and watch officer for his ship, Stewart had seen his men bring back locally produced pornography. He knew the difference between that hardest of hard core and much of what came to the Court. He called it his 'Casablanca Test'."

These were the opinions of the more liberal Justices.

The First Definition

In 1957, Brennan crafted the first Supreme Court legal definition of obscenity in the case of Roth v. United States. Although indirectly addressed in the law to this point, Roth's formal legal holding on pornography was a case of first impression for the US Supreme Court. Brennan held that the First Amendment did not protect obscene materials.

The definition of obscenity set forth in Roth was:

Speech which "... to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest" and which is "utterly without redeeming social importance..."
By 1964, lower courts had misapplied the Roth standard resulting in many cases for Court review. Thus, the Court tried to clarify this standard by adding another requirement for obscenity in later opinions – that the material goes "substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation." The Court also clarified that the "community" referred to in the definition was as the national, not local, community. This clarification resulted in a more liberal definition of obscenity going forward.

The Second and Current Definition

The tide turned more conservatively on free speech and sex when two liberal elements – Chief Justice Earl Warren, an Eisenhower appointee, resigned in 1969 and Black, a Roosevelt appointee, resigned in 1971. President Nixon appointed two replacements, Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justice William Rehnquist, along with two other appointees Justice Harry Blackmum and Justice Lewis Powell. With the arrival of Rehnquist and Burger, the Court opinions on obscenity became more conservative.

In the summer of 1973, the Court decided a group of pornography/obscenity cases that set the standards for the future of pornography. In his Dissent in one of these cases, Justice Brennan wearily admitted:

"Our experience since Roth requires us not only to abandon the effort to pick out obscene materials on a case-by-case basis, but also to reconsider a fundamental postulate of Roth: that there exists a definable class of sexually oriented expression that may be suppressed by the Federal and State Governments. Assuming that such a class of expression does in fact exist, I am forced to conclude that the concept of 'obscenity' cannot be defined with sufficient specificity and clarity to provide fair notice to persons who create and distribute sexually oriented materials, to prevent substantial erosion of protected speech as a byproduct of the attempt to suppress unprotected speech, and to avoid very costly institutional harms."
Unfortunately, this realization came too late and without support from the majority of the Court.

Thus, in 1973, in Miller v. California, Justice Burger announced the second definition of obscenity - the majority position of the Court, and the definition, which, more or less, is still in effect today. It is as follows:

(a) whether the 'average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,

(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and

(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
This holding specifically replaced the old test and also held that community standards could be local rather than national. This change swung the pendulum back toward a more conservative definition of "obscenity" by local, some times rural communities.

As many had complained that these rulings were so vague that they were impossible to comply by those trying to obey the law, the Court set forth examples of what was "hard core", or that which the Court considered obscene and illegal. The Court's list of illegal acts was as follows:

"(a) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated.

(b) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals."
Clarifications and Today's Definition

Since Miller, the Court has clarified and explained aspects of the Miller standard:

Jurors are to apply the standards of the area "from which he comes for making the required" decision as the "community standards" for obscenity;

"[A]ppeals to the prurient interest" means that which appeals to "shameful or morbid interests" in sex, but not that which incites normal lust and includes materials designed for and primarily disseminated to a deviant sexual group (for example, sadists) which appeals to the prurient interests of that group;

"[A]verage person" includes both sensitive and insensitive adult persons, but does not include children;

Serious artistic, political, or scientific value, using a national standard, is required for a finding that something is not obscene and a finding of some artistic, political or scientific value does not preclude a finding that a work is obscene.
Additionally the Court has created a sort of middle category of materials – "indecent" materials that are protected speech. Indecent materials are defined as those which show "nonconformance with accepted standards of morality." After reviewing the above, most persons, including lawyers, remain confused about what is and is not legally permissible.

The Definition of Child Pornography

In New York v. Ferber in 1982, the Court held that "the States are entitled to greater leeway in the regulation of pornographic depictions of children" because:

"It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State's interest in 'safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor' is 'compelling'" and therefore that narrowly tailored government interests may restrict such speech as stated in the initial definitions of restricted speech above.

"The distribution of photographs and films depicting sexual activity by juveniles is intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children in at least two ways. First the materials produced are a permanent record of the children's participation and the harm to the child is exacerbated by their circulation. Second, the distribution network for child pornography must be closed if the production of material which requires the sexual exploitation of children is to be effectively controlled."

"The advertising and selling of child pornography provide an economic motive for and are thus an integral part of the production of such materials, an activity illegal through the Nation."

"The value of permitting live performances and photographic reproductions of children engaged in lewd sexual conduct is exceedingly modest, if not de minimis."

"Recognizing and classifying child pornography as a category of material outside the protection of the First Amendment is not incompatible with our earlier decisions"
The Court then declared a more conservative Miller standard applicable for child pornography:

"A trier of fact need not find that the material appeals to the prurient interest of the average person; it is not required that sexual conduct portrayed be done so in a patently offensive manner; and the material at issue need not be considered as a whole."
Conclusion

What persons in the sex industry typically fail to understand is how conservative the legal standards for pornography are and how vulnerable to prosecution they truly are due to these vagaries. One reading of the personal obscenity tests of the liberal justices of the past makes that clear.

What the Miller test outlines is the outer most limits on banning sexual speech. Thus, nearly all legislation at the both state and federal level, simply copies the Miller test into its language since substitution of even a single word can result in the law being held unconstitutional. The result is that application of the Miller test – what "prurient", "patently offensive", or having "social, artistic or scientific value" is, and what the local standard are for such decisions - rests squarely in the hands of the juries of each state. In the end, the Court concluded that this decision was one that must be made by each state, not the Supreme Court.
Offline
User avatar

Wade Hampton III

  • Posts: 1608
  • Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:40 pm
  • Location: Pontiac, SC

Re: Romans & Art

PostFri Jul 06, 2018 12:21 pm

Fascinating. Glad to see that there is at least one person out there not afraid to tippie-toe
around this issue. That having been said, what is the thrust of applying these standards on
ancient civilizations, or Pleistocene cave-dwellers?

:?:
Offline
User avatar

Will Williams

  • Posts: 1831
  • Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:22 am

Re: Romans & Art

PostSat Jul 07, 2018 10:12 am

Wade Hampton III wrote:
Wade Hampton III wrote:
Wade Hampton III wrote:Not at WB forum, thanks.


This issue has really tweaked my interest. How far back in antiquity
can "porn" cease being such, and simply be "art?" How about the art
in the caves of Grotte de Lascaux, which I understand date back to the
late Plestocene?

That's far enough back, I suppose. Those Plestocene folks didn't have much else to do in those caves back then but have sex and scrawl images of that and of their hunting of animals for food on walls

I would like very much to see the Christian monopoly on this issue
broken. Why shouldn't WB be the place to do it? Inquiring minds
want to know!

We will break the Christian monopoly on Aryan minds by exposing it for what it is, and isn't, without promoting pornography, particularly with with images of homosexual sex -- like you posted and I removed -- no matter how ancient.

Wade says, "I wonder what Ben Klassen, who wrote glowingly of the Roman
world, would have said about this issue..."

Here's what BK had to say, mostly about the unsuitability of the Semitic creed for Aryans, with hardly any mention of pornography and homos:
http://www.daemuk.ch/ebooks/nature-s-et ... -ebook.pdf
Offline
User avatar

Wade Hampton III

  • Posts: 1608
  • Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:40 pm
  • Location: Pontiac, SC

Re: Romans & Art

PostSat Jul 07, 2018 3:05 pm

Will Williams wrote:We will break the Christian monopoly on Aryan minds by exposing it for what it is, and isn't, without promoting pornography, particularly with with images of homosexual sex -- like you posted and I removed -- no matter how ancient.


Here are links to the images I posted. I do not see any male homosexual activity in
any of them:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/ ... 34x500.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/ ... 34x582.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/ ... 34x614.jpg

Male homosexuality was prevalent in ancient Sparta, and quite probably in ancient Rome
as well. However, and once again, I do not see any of this type of activity in any
of the images. I hope I am wrong about this, but what I suspect may be going on here,
is a carryover from the Christianized era of the NA during the Gliebe-Walker years....
all the more reason to rejoice in their absence!
Next

Return to Art and Music

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron