BYU's stance on nude art - "Self Censorship"

[anatess2]

Just now, Carborendum said:

Respectfully, I don't believe that is what he would say.  If he really is as gifted as you say, and he understands my question, I believe he will say something else.

As you wish.  Let's ask him when he gets home.

[anatess2]

Duplicate.

Mormonhub is acting up again. 

 

Edited August 24, 2017 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Isn't that what you're doing by saying it is 100% technical?

WARNING: LOGICAL FALLACY.

Let me explain it more clearly. Using emotion IS a technique.

[Vort]

BYU's stance on nude art: Legs close together, hands in a shielding position.

[The Folk Prophet]

An additional thought on the art-requires-emotion thought:

Proof positive that emotion is not required for emotional expression may easily be seen in the likes of Ted Bundy and other sociopaths of varying degrees. The plain fact is that some people are very, very good at faking emotion even though they may not feel it. So it is with art. You don't have to feel it to be really, really good at pretending like you feel it. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

An additional thought on the art-requires-emotion thought:

Proof positive that emotion is not required for emotional expression may easily be seen in the likes of Ted Bundy and other sociopaths of varying degrees. The plain fact is that some people are very, very good at faking emotion even though they may not feel it. So it is with art. You don't have to feel it to be really, really good at pretending like you feel it. 

Well, that makes a great argument for your position if we're talking about sociopaths.  But most of us aren't sociopaths.  Myself excluded.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Carborendum said:

Well, that makes a great argument for your position if we're talking about sociopaths.  But most of us aren't sociopaths.  Myself excluded.

Point missed! Seriously? You're pulling the leftist "I'm-going-to-take-your-example-literally" thing?

It's an example to make a point. It is not the point.

I'm not talking about sociopaths except as an example of faking emotion?

Who else might be good at faking emotions? Hmm? Actors? Story tellers? Public speakers? Artists?

Hmmmmm?

Think man!

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

  But most of us aren't sociopaths.  Myself excluded.

That's awesome. lol 

[Guest]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

Point missed! Seriously? You're pulling the leftist "I'm-going-to-take-your-example-literally" thing?

It's an example to make a point. It is not the point.

I'm not talking about sociopaths except as an example of faking emotion?

Who else might be good at faking emotions? Hmm? Actors? Story tellers? Public speakers? Artists?

Hmmmmm?

Think man!

No, I got the point entirely.  But my position about it is obviously different than yours.

I believe that ANYONE who is good at FAKING emotions THAT WELL is a sociopath.  Actors and politicians included.  If you think artists FAKE the emotions that well, then to me you're saying they are sociopaths.  And if they are indeed doing so, I'd agree.

As a public speaker and a singer I can tell you that I "call up" the emotion.  But to fake it is another matter.  No, I'm not picking at straws or playing the semantic game.  I believe that is an important distinction to make when you're making statements like "emotion is a technique".

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

No, I got the point entirely.  But my position about it is obviously different than yours.

I believe that ANYONE who is good at FAKING emotions THAT WELL is a sociopath.  Actors and politicians included.  If you think artists FAKE the emotions that well, then to me you're saying they are sociopaths.  And if they are indeed doing so, I'd agree.

As a public speaker and a singer I can tell you that I "call up" the emotion.  But to fake it is another matter.  No, I'm not picking at straws or playing the semantic game.  I believe that is an important distinction to make when you're making statements like "emotion is a technique".

 

Hmm.

 

so·ci·o·path

[ˈsōsēōˌpaTH]

 

NOUN

1. a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

[Guest MormonGator]

People (myself included) throw around the term "sociopath" and "narcissist" much too easily. Both terms are highly loaded and none of us here have the qualifications to properly use those labels.

[Guest]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

 

Hmm.

 

so·ci·o·path

[ˈsōsēōˌpaTH]

 

NOUN

1. a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

Sounds like many actors and politicians to me... for that matter, many "moody" artists as well.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Carborendum said:

Sounds like many actors and politicians to me... for that matter, many "moody" artists as well.

Do you realize how potentially offense such a statement might be to some?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Do you realize how potentially offense such a statement might be to some?

Well, maybe I'm a sociopath.

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Well, maybe I'm a sociopath.

Either way, it is clearly nonsense to say that someone who's good at faking emotion must be a sociopath. Take an actor. It is a craft. The script calls for you to yell in anger and you so you tighten up your face and yell, letting some spittle fly. Doesn't mean you do or don't care about another person, the world, the play, or anything. It's just yelling -- mimicking the act of raising your voice, letting control over your saliva containment go a bit, and straining the muscles in your face so as to alter it's appearance and maybe even turn a bit red. Has no bearing whatsoever on whether you feel something. It's an act. It has no bearing on your concern for others -- except perhaps someone's entertainment -- even then...it may be just a job in some cases and what you care about is eating.

Your conclusions in this matter are somewhat fallacious.

Edited August 24, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Either way, it is clearly nonsense to say that someone who's good at faking emotion must be a sociopath. Take an actor. It is a craft.

So, do you disagree with my take or did you not read it?  I spoke of "calling up" an emotion vs. "faking" an emotion.

[BT]

How did we get so far from the topic of this forum? I posted something yesterday that I believe was passed over. I only read the first few posts of this forum and decided to respond. I did not realize it had veered so far off topic. Is there any more interest in "BYU's Stance on Nude Art and Self-Censorship"? Just curious. I need to turn off notifications if there is no more interest.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, do you disagree with my take or did you not read it?  I spoke of "calling up" an emotion vs. "faking" an emotion.

My understanding is that you believe that calling up an emotion is superior to faking it when it comes to creating art. If so, I do not agree -- or think one or the other have any bearing on the creation of art.

[SilentOne]

17 hours ago, anatess2 said:

My son achieves that expression through various techniques - so, I don't really know technique well enough to be able to identify them in piano playing, but the easiest one to identify is the dynamics a pianist can produce through the loudness/softness of touch - from mezzopiano (very soft) to mezzoforte (very loud).

Not really important to the discussion, but inaccuracies can really bother me and my quick scan over the rest of the thread didn't show this, so a quick correction. From quiet to loud:

pianissimo < piano < mezzo piano < mezzo forte < forte < fortissimo

That strong aversion lead to a couple uncomfortable incidents in the past when some strange guy on the bus would mention my boyfriend in passing and I felt compelled to inform said guy, who I never wanted to see again, that I had no boyfriend.

[SilentOne]

13 hours ago, MormonGator said:

People (myself included) throw around the term "sociopath" and "narcissist" much too easily. Both terms are highly loaded and none of us here have the qualifications to properly use those labels.

How do you know I'm not a highly qualified psychiatrist?

10 hours ago, BT said:

How did we get so far from the topic of this forum?

Natural flow of conversation.

10 hours ago, BT said:

I posted something yesterday that I believe was passed over. I only read the first few posts of this forum and decided to respond. I did not realize it had veered so far off topic. Is there any more interest in "BYU's Stance on Nude Art and Self-Censorship"? Just curious. I need to turn off notifications if there is no more interest.

I'd still be interested if the conversation turned back that way. I'll have to go back and look for said post and see if I have anything to say. But not tonight because I've been procrastinating the hour of my slumber for much too long.

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎8‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 8:21 AM, anatess2 said:

In the movie, Schindler's List, naked actors werre shown on screen re-enacting the humiliation the Jews experienced in concentration camps.

Do you think that was pornographic?

Personally...yes...I do.  However, I'm not going to judge anyone in that regard other than myself.  I have never watched Schindler's list because of that...despite having many people urge me to watch it and even one particular Stake President having a screening of it at the Stake building.

Does that make me a fanatic...maybe.  I try to avoid many things in media though.  I heard this in conference once that if we would not feel comfortable letting our little children watch something, it is probably inappropriate for us...regardless of rating.  I remember that often.

What I expect of myself is not necessarily what any of you need or even should adhere to.  For me personally, I would consider that pornographic though.  I don't need to see a reenactment of the story of David and Bathsheba to understand what went on there...

Just like I don't need to see a bloody and gory retelling of the story of Diana and then the slaughter of the city and all it's details to realize the evils done and the story and what it is telling us.

To each their own though.

[JohnsonJones]

The above said, art is something that is different for each person.  One can see what the artist intended, but at the same time have a piece of art say something entirely different to them.  I have no problem with BYU's censorship in regards to art pieces, there are other locations you can go to see the full exhibit on those rare circumstances when BYU does so of a popular artist at their museum. 

What may be art to one, may still be considered art by another but also considered pornographic, whilst others feel nothing at all in regards to it being art.  In many ways, it is in the eye of the beholder.

[Guest]

13 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

My understanding is that you believe that calling up an emotion is superior to faking it when it comes to creating art. If so, I do not agree -- or think one or the other have any bearing on the creation of art.

Nothing to do with superior or inferior in the creation of art.

It is an honest use of emotion as opposed to faking it.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Nothing to do with superior or inferior in the creation of art.

It is an honest use of emotion as opposed to faking it.

Well I suppose I have no idea what your ultimate point is in this conversation then.

[The Folk Prophet]

On 8/23/2017 at 3:46 PM, Carborendum said:

You make some good arguments.  As a result, I'll have to modify my position.

1) I believe that in any worthy endeavor, we tend to put forth an inferior product if we're not emotionally involved in the project.
2) Yes, if you were to compare a technically savvy individual with little to no emotion vs an emotionally involved person with little technical training, the former would probably put forth a superior product.
3) If you compare the most technically savvy individual who has absolutely no emotional involvement vs the pretty well technically trained individual with a tremendous degree of emotional involvement (not to the point of becoming irrational about it) the latter latter would produce a superior product.
4) I believe it takes does take a minimum of technical talent and still pass of something as a superior product -- hence today's record industry.  The Beatles, Taylor Swift...  So many one hit wonders.
5) But, yes, the bottom line is that it is technically possible to put forth an acceptable work of art when only using our technical and logical faculties without our emotional involvement.  And at the same time the person with absolute emotional commitment without any technical ability or knowledge will not be able to produce much of anything (savants excluded).

 

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Nothing to do with superior or inferior in the creation of art.

Please explain yourself.