Susan Butcher wrote:
Bad religious art has a greasy luminous quality not unlike pornographic art.
i sincerely hope this doesn't include my portrait of elvis on black velvet
Susan Butcher wrote:
Bad religious art has a greasy luminous quality not unlike pornographic art.
redrabid wrote:Well it depends: Do you think Elvis is God?
redrabid wrote:What can I say other than that jacket is your belief's porn. Wear it with proud.

Susan Butcher wrote:Look it up in your Funk and Wagnalls! Seriously, maybe pornography can be defined as writing or art intended as substitute for sex. If so, then religious art has a similar function as a substitute for religious experience.

Susan Butcher wrote:Fair enough. "Obscenity" is a judgement. "Pornography" is a genre.
okeedoe wrote:How do you define intelectual pornography or intellectual masturbation ?Intellectual pornography can be very seductive to quasi intellectuals because it brings a fast but alas only temporary relievement for a frustrated ego. What about obdurate, compulsive quasi intellectual pornographing and masturbation as an inadequate self-treatment of suppressded, non satisfied or wounded ego ?
Could we think of a quasi intellectualism as the arch mother of some of the poor genres and manifestations of pop culture?
Of course I'm not referring to anyone of you in particular.It was just an attempt of (quasi intellectual) thinking.
Return to Jefferson Airplane Discussions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests