23,116
edits
Tobacciana Exposed: Carnal Collectibles: Difference between revisions
Tobacciana Exposed: Carnal Collectibles (view source)
Revision as of 15:49, 14 March 2023
, 1 year agono edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
*Giuseppe Ramazzotti, “Pipe Erotiche,” ''Il Club della Pipa'', October 1970 | *Giuseppe Ramazzotti, “Pipe Erotiche,” ''Il Club della Pipa'', October 1970 | ||
*The Collector’s Academy, ''Tabacco & Eros. Erotic Collectibles for Smokers. Collezionismo Erotico per Fumatori'' (2016); and Tobacco & Eros, Vol. 2 (2017) | *The Collector’s Academy, ''Tabacco & Eros. Erotic Collectibles for Smokers. Collezionismo Erotico per Fumatori'' (2016); and Tobacco & Eros, Vol. 2 (2017) | ||
*Véronique Villemin, ''Eros Secret'' (2006). It contains a chapter illustrating erotic pipes, written | *Véronique Villemin, ''Eros Secret'' (2006). It contains a chapter illustrating erotic pipes, written by Dominque Delalande | ||
by Dominque Delalande | |||
To conclude, erotica is any artistic work that deals substantively with erotically stimulating or sexually arousing subject matter. Pornography can be described as a something creative, but of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire. The distinction between the two is often difficult to identify, if not completely impossible. Who decides what is art and what is porn? Art is in the eye of the beholder … it’s a matter of personal opinion. And pornography? It, too, is in the eye of the beholder. In Jacobellis v. Ohio in 1964, when asked to describe his test for obscenity, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart opined: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material … But I know it when I see it”; essentially, his statement was a non-definition of obscenity. | To conclude, erotica is any artistic work that deals substantively with erotically stimulating or sexually arousing subject matter. Pornography can be described as a something creative, but of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire. The distinction between the two is often difficult to identify, if not completely impossible. Who decides what is art and what is porn? Art is in the eye of the beholder … it’s a matter of personal opinion. And pornography? It, too, is in the eye of the beholder. In Jacobellis v. Ohio in 1964, when asked to describe his test for obscenity, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart opined: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material … But I know it when I see it”; essentially, his statement was a non-definition of obscenity. | ||