In classifying things as art, the thought is to differentiate that which is and is not. However, I wonder how much of this classification is driven by fear. It sounds almost absurd to think that some of the distinctions one makes in choosing what is to be taken as art, an emotion would be taken into consideration. Although, since we are not only rational beings but also emotional ones, it stands to reason that at times judgments may be clouded by person's or a society's emotions. I bring this up in regards to our latest chapter. In the first article by Kieran, he briefly touches on the notion that society may be reluctant to view pornography as art because of the connection it would have with morality. So my question is this: does the classification of something being art in turn validate that which is being depicted? We've all seen paintings of wars, and in light of this example, the previous question does not seem to fit. However, in the case of pornography in relation to the previous question as well as to the notion of fear;society may fear that it is somehow saying that what is being done is valid, since it is art.

Take for instance the Marque de Sade's 120 days of Sodomy, there are some rather disturbing acts that take place in book. If this is considered erotica or pornography and also art, does it means that the what happens in the book is also art? Could fear in this instance, of what that could possibly mean for our moral values, be a factor in its consideration of art?



Text from the translation of the book found on
http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/120Days/

This is part of day fifteen.



"Do you want to shit?" he asks.

"No, Monsieur."

"Well, I do, I’ve something copious to get rid of, if you’re interested in the pertinent facts; so prepare yourself to satisfy this particular need of mine . . . take off your skirts."

They are removed.

"Lie down upon that sofa. Raise your thighs."

Lucile settles herself, the old notary arranges and poses her so that her wide--flung legs display her cunt to the fullest advantage, in which open and prominent position it may be readily employed as a chamber pot. So to use it was his heavenly intention; in order that the container respond more perfectly to what is to be demanded of it, he begins by widening it as much as possible, devoting both hands and all his strength to the task. He takes his place, pushes, a turd lands in the sanctuary Cupid himself would not have disdained having for a temple. He turns around, eyes his work, and with his fingers presses and thrusts the filthy excrement into the vagina and largely out of sight; he establishes himself astride Lucile once again, and ejects a second, then a third stool, and each is succeeded by the same ceremony of burial. Finally, having deposited his last turd, he inserts and tamps it down with such brutal zeal that the little one utters a cry, and by means of this disagreeable operation perhaps loses the precious flower

Are the categories or classifications of "works of art" as they currently exist, sufficient or insufficient? Do they invite or discourage art


I think that the mere existence of a class such as ours shows that there is something in the classifications of what are works of art that maybe is not insufficient, but lacks some refinement. In order to identify "works of art" one must define art. Although, there are definitions out there as to what art might be, since they are not universal definitions, they thus place various works into "works of art".
I very much doubt that the purpose of these definitions, is to in any way discourage art, they are rather attempting to understand art's nature. The more one understands something the better one is able to appreciate aspects of it that are worth appreciating. Understandably,although the theory of what something's ideal purpose and its actual effect might sometimes differ, its seems that in the case of art this does not apply. Since there is not a universal definition, if one creates something which one wants others to considered art, one must simply present reasoning as to why it is art and chances are that more than a few others will also take it to be art.The discouragement of art, does not come from the classification of what it is but from whether or not, what it is has any value. For instance schools with small budgets deciding that the best things to take money way from are the art's program, therefore showing that in the eyes of their school system the value of arts is not comparable to something else.

One hears that there is a rise in appreciation of the arts, but is this really true? In our country will it ever be the case that more schools rally harder to keep their art programs or will they always be the first to go?