Art and not porn? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

levite · 06-10-2008, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocon1

there is no point (unless someone is willing to make a logical point, be my guest) except to take naked pictures of an underage girl. There is a statement "You cannot censor me, I am an artiste".

Mainstream art. What is that? Stuff that does not cross the line into illegal and reprehensible activities? You run around with a camera and claim to be an artist, but here is the beauty of the internet. You can always find a few thousand people to agree with you on the internet, and it makes you believe that you are right. Sharing an opinion with a few other people across the globe does not make you right.

As far as the studio, when someone specifically arranges to have naked child in a place designed to take pictures and then takes them with the specific mindset of producing such pictures, then it becomes a situation.

This is not a family album where someone has some pictures taken in the family and not for public display. This artist put these pictures out in the public domain for commercial sale. Studios sell art. Therefore it is commercial.

One other thing, in an earlier post you state that you would protect this because it is something that has not been seen before. It has been seen before, and that is why many people are vehemently opposed to it. And yes, you can have good photography skills and be a creep with a camera. Hitler wanted to be an artist and architect.

So we trust the judgement of these parents? Not for me. I think they made a bad choice. Just like parents who buy their kids pot or alcohol because they would rather have them drink or do drugs at home. Or take the case of the Mormons marrying off their teen daughters to be raped into the church. That was also parental decisions taking place in Texas.

Kids often think they they are ready to make adult decisions, when they are really not. It is up to the parents, and to a smaller extent society to help them. A kid at thirteen is not ready to decide if they should be photographed nude. And the parents failed to look out for their child. Maybe the parents should be under investigation for child welfare neglect and endangerment.

So, if I understand you correctly, if a photojournalist takes a photo of a naked child suffering the cruelty of war, it is acceptable, even though the photojournalist was well-paid for the photograph. But if an artist takes a photo of a naked teenager suffering nothing but the usual miseries of adolescence, in a nice safe studio, that constitutes reprehensible commercial exploitation of children.

It sounds to me like you're saying that there is no possible way for anyone under the age of 18 to be nude in a photograph for any reasons but titillation and sexual exploitation. Any artist taking such a photo, it sounds like you're saying, cannot call the picture art, because too many people would find the photo offensive or distasteful-- or, alternatively, sexually stimulating. Which, to me, sounds as though you're saying that in order to be art-- at least, the sort of art that deserves protection and toleration by a free society-- there can be no themes that would offend the mores of the conservative majority of society, or unduly provoke sexual reaction in anyone at all.

This seems not only an unreasonably narrow definition of art, but also historically unrealistic. Much of the greatest art reflects the willingness of artists to push boundaries, to express things that the majority of their society are not expressing, or are not expressing in the same way as the artists in question. Many great paintings and drawings were considered inappropriate-- works by El Greco, Gustave Dore, Paul Gaugin, Paul Rubens, Matthias Grunewald, and Hieronymous Bosch, among others-- many innovations of style or theme considered in poor taste-- surrealism, dadaism, impressionism, expressionism, symbolism, mannerism...even some neoclassicist works. I am by no means saying the photographs in question here are or ever will be masterworks on the scale of the kinds of works I've just mentioned; but my point is that one never knows what will end up being "good" or "real" art.

I said before, and I'm happy saying again, I am not the biggest fan of these photographs, although I do think they are decent work, interesting, and not sexual. But even if I thought them verging on tasteless, I would still wish to err on the side of artistic freedom and tolerance. I just don't believe art should be ruled by the mores of the masses. And I cannot help but note that, as the art in question appears to be decidedly not to your tastes, you feel comfortable comparing the photographer to Hitler. That seems...a bit extreme.

And while the photographer in question seems to have gone to some lengths to ensure that there was no deception or compulsion forcing his young subjects to do anything they do not wish to do, including securing parental approval for all works, you maintain that "a kid at thirteen is not ready to decide if they should be photographed nude." This seems like a fairly gross generalization. Some kids, no doubt are not. Some kids might be or might not be. Some kids would clearly be ready for such a decision. To simply include all the world's adolescents in one wave of the hand seems like an unreasonably rigid definition to me. And you dismiss the parental approval just as universally as "bad parenting." But isn't it more precise to say that it's a parenting choice you don't personally approve of, and that you would not make? You compare it to parents who prefer to let their kids experiment with alcohol or marijuana in controlled situations, rather than on the proverbial streets, which you clearly also consider reprehensible-- and yet many might say otherwise. I myself would consider doing so, and I have known many whose parents did just that for them, and they turned out to be healthy adults, productive members of society with neither addictions nor repressive attitudes about experimentation or pleasure.

Art, like parenting, is done differently by different people, experienced differently, appreciated differently. Different ways can have value. With all due respect, it seems to me that, in general, and within certain parameters, rather than classifying parenting as "good" or "bad," by universalizing the measures of one's own preferences, it is more productive to do for one's own children what one's conscience dictates, and presume that other parents are doing the same with their children. And rather than censoring artistic endeavors we find distasteful, one might simply decide to view and purchase the art that is to one's own tastes, and ignore what is not. In that way, one need not encounter art one finds disagreeable, and yet artists are not subjected to prosecution for pushing the boundaries of art.

I'm sorry if I have spoken firmly-- I don't wish to give offense-- but as an artist, and a supporter of artistic communities, and a friend of many artists, I feel quite strongly that the government has no business deciding what is and is not art, to say nothing of deciding what sort of art can or cannot be shown publicly, or whether unpopular artists deserve imprisonment or not.

Blasphemy · 06-10-2008, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrFriendly

Point taken, however, those pictures are illegal because some poor child likely had those pictures taken against their will, or were 'groomed', or taken advantage of in some way.

Again, Henson went to great lengths to make sure no one was taken advantage of. He asked the young teenagers if they'd like to feature in the shots, explaining what was involved. He asked the parents before he asked the young teenagers. The teenagers involved in this incident and in past works have come out in his defense saying they felt completely safe and comfortable the whole time.

I understand he wanted best conditions and did the "right thing" by the children/family. But it's still illegal.

I guess if this is allowed, I'm allowed to go around tagging on people's walls in the name of Art. I'm not doing it for the purpose of destroying people's buildings. But in the name of Art.

I just think this will put a very wrong message to all the pedos out there, he got away with taking pictures of a yongue girl naked, why can't they?

Aslong as there are crazy people who like under age children, we have to be careful.

euhhhh

pocon1 · 06-10-2008, 11:02 AM

nothing to say

levite · 06-10-2008, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocon1

levite,

I appreciate the fact that you perceive yourself as an artist. This is not pushing the boundaries of art. This is about photographing young people and exploiting the shock value of it. What unique message is there inherent in these pictures that could not be adequately illustrated by someone who is an adult? The body is beautiful, I get it. but the vast majority of society has decreed that children do not need to be photographed nude. As far as whether the photos are tasteless or not. I downloaded a copy of John Water's Pink Flamingos. That is tasteless. But John knew not to feature children in his movie. He understood the difference between pushing boundaries and crossing the line.

I stand by my comments on parenting. Giving permission to have your children photographed naked or supplying your children with drugs or alcohol is bad parenting. One of the reasons why there are so many fucked up people out there.

With respect, I just disagree that this is about shock value.

The first thing that leapt out at me when I saw the photos was the sense of vulnerability, the sense of intermingled nervousness, excitement, and tentativeness, conveyed not just by the expressions on the girl's face, but by her nakedness, by the lighting, the play of shadows. I thought it was really a rather evocative visceral reminder of how it felt to be that age. The same photo of a girl ten years older might have made me remember how it felt to be 23 or 24 or whatever, but that's a different feeling. Plus, a naked 23 or 24 year old girl would be much harder for me not to view with a strong element of sexuality or eroticism. But these photos did not at all strike me as erotic, and it really took me a few moments of looking at them with the mindset of trying to recognize controversial material in order to perceive how they could be viewed as erotic or sexualized.

You say that this is not pushing the boundaries of art, but then you go right on to say that the majority of society has decreed that children "do not need to be photographed nude." But like I was saying before, part of how art pushes the boundaries is to do or portray or show things that the majority of society has decreed that we not talk about or see or acknowledge in some way. Photographs of nude children might not strike us as radical innovation, but it is clearly challenging the accepted viewpoint, and many visual artists would tell you that part of what they seek is to try and shake people out of their normal viewpoints, to see different things.

In all fairness, I think whether the photos are tasteless or not, it is not apt to compare them to a John Waters movie, despite the fact that he himself proudly touts the movies as tasteless. His brand of tasteless is very different from what one might call these photos: his brand is definitely designed intentionally to offend and maybe even shock the sensibilities, but I'm really not sure that shock and offense are what this photographer was going for. There's a big difference between intentional shock and offense and intentionally challenging social viewpoints.

As for parenting, I'm not denying that letting your kids be photographed naked, or allowing them to take a drug, or giving them alcohol, might sometimes be bad parenting. I'm only saying that it depends on the context and situation-- the people involved, the where and the how and the why. Sometimes it might be bad parenting. Sometimes it might just be parenting you don't agree with. One could also say that being universally and inflexibly strict with kids in the matter of nudity, art, sexuality, intoxicants, and so forth might not make them less fucked up, it might just fuck them up in different ways. Sure, I've known people whose parents were too permissive, and they ended up with tons of issues. But I've known just as many whose parents were too rigid and puritanical, and they ended up with just as many issues.

In the end, I'm not suggesting that you raise your kids more permissively. I would never be so presumptuous-- I think you should raise your kids as seems best to you. I'm just suggesting that there might be other ways that work, that involve different philosophies, and have a different resulting trade-off of psychoemotional preparations. Not better, not worse. Just different.

I just think in general, more freedom of expression benefits society, and so does more flexibility about what we will and will not tolerate in the ways people raise their families.

MrFriendly · 06-11-2008, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blasphemy

I understand he wanted best conditions and did the "right thing" by the children/family. But it's still illegal.

I guess if this is allowed, I'm allowed to go around tagging on people's walls in the name of Art. I'm not doing it for the purpose of destroying people's buildings. But in the name of Art.

I just think this will put a very wrong message to all the pedos out there, he got away with taking pictures of a yongue girl naked, why can't they?

Aslong as there are crazy people who like under age children, we have to be careful.

euhhhh

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree

I will point out, however, that it has now been proven that Henson broke no law in Australia. The intent of the photos played a huge part in that.

And levite, props man, it's not often I come across someone who can argue something with passion, patience, AND respect over something the they feel quite strongly about.

mixedmedia · 06-11-2008, 02:56 AM

No to mention there is nothing particularly new or groundbreaking about this work.

lotsofmagnets · 06-11-2008, 08:16 AM

hence the need for the controversy so it gets coverage

MSD · 06-12-2008, 09:14 PM

If those were adult female models in the photos, I would find them arousing. This leans me toward thinking that the intent was to cause controversy (I don't think the artist intends to make money off of child porn consumers.) I think that a responsible artist, were the exhibit not intended almost entirely to cause controversy, would have refrained from taking or exhibiting these pictures because without that controversy, they lack anything but the most basic artistic merit.

MrFriendly · 06-13-2008, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSD

If those were adult female models in the photos, I would find them arousing. This leans me toward thinking that the intent was to cause controversy (I don't think the artist intends to make money off of child porn consumers.) I think that a responsible artist, were the exhibit not intended almost entirely to cause controversy, would have refrained from taking or exhibiting these pictures because without that controversy, they lack anything but the most basic artistic merit.

And again, Henson has been doing similar work for 30 years and no one said a thing. I really do not think that he intended to cause controversy.

lotsofmagnets · 06-13-2008, 02:20 AM

perhaps it took 30 years to get the controversy he wanted...

MrFriendly · 06-13-2008, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lotsofmagnets

perhaps it took 30 years to get the controversy he wanted...

You know on that point, I might just concede. That certainly is a way one could look at it.

tisonlyi · 06-16-2008, 03:51 AM

The erotic nature of anything is entirely subjective.

I'd say the only people who need to worry about 'erotic' pictures of young people which seem quite unerotic(?) to many are... those who find them erotic or potentially erotic i.e."I can see how that is erotic in this or any context" such as, say... The New South Wales police and those who are hand-wringing over these pictures.

Why is it that they think these pictures are erotic? Is it because they themselves find the images disturbingly erotic on some level?

Nudity !(necessarily)= Erotic

Humanity and its obsessive prurience...

[As a complete and potentially offensive aside, I'd love to see some research with those who are extreme in opposition to 'art' or non-sexual imagery of children (like perhaps indulging in reductio ad Hitlerum) in the same vein as that conducted with vehement anti-homosexuals vis-a-vis gay pornography (demonstrating in many cases that the more strongly anti-homosexual the chap, the more physically aroused he was by the images - to the point of tumescence while professing disgust) ]

mixedmedia · 06-16-2008, 03:58 AM

It's actually worse than that, I'm afraid. It seems to me (from this and other discussions I've been involved in here) that not only nudity, but also human physical beauty is necessarily erotic, as well.

And I think it belies a real hypocrisy, in that those who are obviously seeing sex everywhere are the first ones to wag the finger...even when they are misunderstanding the intent of what they see.

tisonlyi · 06-16-2008, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

And I think it belies a real hypocrisy, in that those who are obviously seeing sex everywhere are the first ones to wag the finger...even when they are misunderstanding the intent of what they see.

Look! Naughty bits! Rude! Dirty! Disgusting! SEX!

Oh Noes! Unclean thoughts!

MUST ERADICATE STIMULUS WHICH LEADS ME TO IMPURITY!

pocon1 · 06-16-2008, 11:50 AM

nothing to say

mixedmedia · 06-16-2008, 12:01 PM

No. You haven't effectively described why they are pornography. I think the burden lies with you. I can say they are not porn because I don't find that they promote the children in a sexual way. I would like to hear why seeing a child nude is unequivocally erotic.

spindles · 06-16-2008, 05:57 PM

I did a bit of digging on the ABC website (Government owned broadcaster). I was trying to find a TV interview/panel I caught bits of about this subject, but came across this instead:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2253908.htm

The journalist comes right to the point of WHY Henson's work (whether pictures of clouds or children) *does* have artistic merit and also discusses it in terms of older art vs current day art.
She also mentions that he has had huge shows at Australia's largest galleries in the past without a whimper.

The entire piece is quoted below.

Quote:

In 1856 when the Rev Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (AKA Lewis Carroll) began to take photographs of beautiful children, including Alice Liddell and her sisters, he was working well within his educated bourgeois Victorian sensibility.

The invention of the camera encouraged both gentlemen (and lad) amateurs and professionals to try to capture the essence of childhood innocence. The new medium was based on capturing light through shade, and through such ambiguities as an artfully placed robe, imply more than was seen.

So Carroll's children, as with other images of children in Victorian photography, are innocent, yet sensual, seeing no shame in their bodies. In the context of the Judeo-Christian creation myth, they share the sensibility of Adam and Eve before the Fall. Carroll's work is some of the most beautiful in this genre, yet in recent years he has often been called a paedophile.

A few years ago, the Melbourne artist Polixeni Papapetrou began photographing her daughter, Olympia, and her friends in the guise of Alice, basing images on Tenniel's drawings and Carroll's photographs. They are both a tribute to the Victorian tradition of photography with props and the way children enter the world of fancy dress with so much relish. Yet, as with Carroll, some have called these images pornography.

Which leads to Bill Henson, and the current controversy over his exhibition at Roslyn Oxley Gallery, closed by the NSW police after Hetty Johnston, from Bravehearts called it pornography.

The response to this in the arts community is stunned disbelief. Bill Henson's oeuvre has displayed a consistent sensibility over many years. His photographs are incredibly beautiful, based on shade, dark and the sensuality of shadow.

This is true whether the image is a cloud filled night sky or angst driven adolescents. I think it is reasonable to assume that the attraction of images of the adolescent body, half formed, is that it looks both back to the innocence of childhood towards the experience of adult life. It is therefore simultaneously both hopeful and fearful.

Henson's blue toned shadows evoke that time so well. He's not alone in this fascination. The time of transition is a continuing theme of literature, music, and in other art forms.

One of the artists I think of in relation to Henson is Edvard Munch's Puberty of 1894. Here the young girl clutches her body to herself, fearful of the future, her shadow painted so that it almost appears to confront her.

Henson does not confine himself to this projection of future angst. In his Paris Opera project there is the interaction between vulnerable youth, and even more vulnerable old age.

Perhaps one of the reasons why Henson's work is attracting so much attention is that they are photographs, not paintings. There is still in some circles an assumption that photographers 'shoot' what is there, rather than compose. In Henson's case his models are not only very precisely placed and lit, he then works and reworks the same images, so that repetitions and remodellings emerge from the shadows.

In some of his past exhibitions, including his magnificent shadow filled installation at the 1995 Venice Biennale the giant sheets of photographic paper were slashed, revealing the white surface beneath, showing the vulnerability of the surface.

The question which arises for me, is why the fuss? This artist's work has been in the public domain for many years. His 2005 retrospective at the Art Gallery of New South Wales and the National Gallery of Victoria attracted a huge crowd, and no police or protestors.

The last time an Australian artist was gaoled for obscenity was 1965 when magistrate Gerry Locke took offence at Mike Brown's Mary Lou, the last time the Vice Squad marched into a gallery was in 1982 when Juan Davila's Stupid as a Painter attracted the attention of the religious right.

That was stopped when Neville Wran, as Premier of NSW, told them to take a reality check.

So what has happened? Times have changed. In times past puberty was accepted as the age of consent, the indication that the child had become the adult. Shakespeare’s Juliet is 14, therefore old enough to marry and to die.

Modern western society has extended its lifespan and in doing so has extended the concept of childhood dependency and adolescence. Our age of consent is 16, considerably greater than it was a century ago.

In addition those crimes which were once both committed and resolved in private are now terribly public. Incest, child abuse, paedophilia, are now out in the open. Ministers of the Crown cannot hide behind the privilege and (rightly) go to gaol.

Years after Freud claimed his women patients, often victims of incest, had fantasies of sexual relations with their fathers, the voices of victims are being heard at last.

It is also the case that those whose world is crime and public health see the need to be vigilant, while artists see the need to explore the visual. Two of my children(criminology student and nursing student) are opposed to Bill Henson’s work, based on the invitation card I received to the private view.

So this may also be a generation gap, where old time libertarians such as myself are more relaxed about visual fiction while our juniors who grew up with the certain knowledge of Paris Hilton posing as a role model are understandably cautious.

But the pendulum can swing too far. Yesterday's innocence is today's evidence of intent to corrupt. In a world drenched in advertising, society is so used to the concept of subtext that all possible imputations are drawn from an image, and become evidence for the prosecution.

It is possible that a paedophile will get some kind of pleasure from Henson’s work, but this does not make it paedophilia.

Some time ago a television program showed an innocent scene of children playing in a river, and then the voice over of a paedophile made it innocent no more.

The trouble with eliminating all the dark shadows from art or literature is that it does not work. In 19th century Victoria, stuck in church where they were forced to listen to long sermons, the Lindsay children found sensual pleasure in reading various parts of the Old Testament. Human imagination is a powerful tool.

Far better to have open art, open debate.

tisonlyi · 06-17-2008, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

No. You haven't effectively described why they are pornography. I think the burden lies with you. I can say they are not porn because I don't find that they promote the children in a sexual way. I would like to hear why seeing a child nude is unequivocally erotic.

QFT

What was the definition I heard from the US Supreme Court? Pornography is any act which causes sexual thought without artistic merit. (?)

So, it follows that if the images are said to be pornographic, then they must cause sexual thought in the judge.

I don't find these images causing me sexual thoughts.

06-10-2008, 11:02 AM	#43 (permalink)
pocon1 Banned	nothing to say Last edited by pocon1; 07-06-2008 at 10:44 AM..

06-11-2008, 02:56 AM	#46 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	No to mention there is nothing particularly new or groundbreaking about this work. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

06-11-2008, 08:16 AM	#47 (permalink)
lotsofmagnets Upright Location: reykjavík, iceland	hence the need for the controversy so it gets coverage __________________ mother nature made the aeroplane, and the submarine sandwich, with the steady hands and dead eye of a remarkable sculptor. she shed her mountain turning training wheels, for the convenience of the moving sidewalk, that delivers the magnetic monkey children through the mouth of impossible calendar clock, into the devil's manhole cauldron. physics of a bicycle, isn't it remarkable?

06-13-2008, 02:20 AM	#50 (permalink)
lotsofmagnets Upright Location: reykjavík, iceland	perhaps it took 30 years to get the controversy he wanted... __________________ mother nature made the aeroplane, and the submarine sandwich, with the steady hands and dead eye of a remarkable sculptor. she shed her mountain turning training wheels, for the convenience of the moving sidewalk, that delivers the magnetic monkey children through the mouth of impossible calendar clock, into the devil's manhole cauldron. physics of a bicycle, isn't it remarkable?

06-16-2008, 03:51 AM	#52 (permalink)
tisonlyi Nothing	The erotic nature of anything is entirely subjective. I'd say the only people who need to worry about 'erotic' pictures of young people which seem quite unerotic(?) to many are... those who find them erotic or potentially erotic i.e."I can see how that is erotic in this or any context" such as, say... The New South Wales police and those who are hand-wringing over these pictures. Why is it that they think these pictures are erotic? Is it because they themselves find the images disturbingly erotic on some level? Nudity !(necessarily)= Erotic Humanity and its obsessive prurience... [As a complete and potentially offensive aside, I'd love to see some research with those who are extreme in opposition to 'art' or non-sexual imagery of children (like perhaps indulging in reductio ad Hitlerum) in the same vein as that conducted with vehement anti-homosexuals vis-a-vis gay pornography (demonstrating in many cases that the more strongly anti-homosexual the chap, the more physically aroused he was by the images - to the point of tumescence while professing disgust) ] __________________ "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

06-12-2008, 09:14 PM	#48 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	If those were adult female models in the photos, I would find them arousing. This leans me toward thinking that the intent was to cause controversy (I don't think the artist intends to make money off of child porn consumers.) I think that a responsible artist, were the exhibit not intended almost entirely to cause controversy, would have refrained from taking or exhibiting these pictures because without that controversy, they lack anything but the most basic artistic merit.

06-16-2008, 03:58 AM	#53 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	It's actually worse than that, I'm afraid. It seems to me (from this and other discussions I've been involved in here) that not only nudity, but also human physical beauty is necessarily erotic, as well. And I think it belies a real hypocrisy, in that those who are obviously seeing sex everywhere are the first ones to wag the finger...even when they are misunderstanding the intent of what they see. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce Last edited by mixedmedia; 06-16-2008 at 03:59 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

06-16-2008, 11:50 AM	#55 (permalink)
pocon1 Banned	nothing to say Last edited by pocon1; 07-06-2008 at 10:45 AM..

06-16-2008, 12:01 PM	#56 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	No. You haven't effectively described why they are pornography. I think the burden lies with you. I can say they are not porn because I don't find that they promote the children in a sexual way. I would like to hear why seeing a child nude is unequivocally erotic. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce