NationStates Jolt Archive

Has anyone else heard about the new (well he's been working on it for 16 years) piece by acclaimed writer Alan Moore? He wrote "V for Vendetta", "Watchmen", "From Hell" and "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" amongst others.

The new graphic novel by Mr Moore is called "Lost Girls" and is a heavily pornographic work, in which famous characters from 19th and 20th century all have extensive sexual adventures. The primary characters being "Alice in Wonderland's" Alice, "The Wizard of Oz"'s Dorothy and "Peter Pan"'s Wendy.

Apparently it features extensive scenes of homosexuality, orgies, fisting, golden showers, pedastry and incest amongst other things. Pretty much ever connection you can imagine is made, up to and including Peter Pan himself having sex with both John and Michael.

Here's a link to a review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=24140

In your opinion, is this really art? Or just the delusional ravings of a dried up insane drug addict?

Personally? I don't know, but it sounds a little dodgy.

Still, better on the page than in the streets I always say.

In your opinion, is this really art? Or just the delusional ravings of a dried up insane drug addict?
Sounds like he's run out of ideas so has decided to write something as shocking as possible to get some attention. Pretty pathetic really.

Meh, it's not my place to decide what is or isn't art. It does seem deviant and pornographic, but I'm not in favor of censorship.

How creepy...ew.

'K. Art can be porn. In fact the tradition of pornographic art goes back as far as civilization.

So yes, this is art.

What you should be asking yourself is not whether or not this is art though, but whether or not it is good or bad. Simple really.

sounds like porn to me

im not interested in porn featuring beloved characters from children's literature but i can see that it might have a niche.

I agree with Ashmoria........it's porn, not really appealing porn either, I suppose there are some people who would find it interesting, but I don't wanna think about those people.

I agree with Ashmoria........it's porn, not really appealing porn either, I suppose there are some people who would find it interesting, but I don't wanna think about those people.

Doesn't mean it's not art though.

Doesn't mean it's not art though.
I don't think porn can be art, nor do I think art can be pornographic.

Doesn't mean it's not art though.
that depends on how its done eh?

im not going to read it to find out.

porn is considered to be that which has the pupose of sexual stimulation. if thats all it is, its porn not art. if it also has deeper meanings and vision, its also art. the more its purpose and meaning is away from sexual stimulation, the more it is art and not porn.

the distinction is only important politically. if something is ART, then its edifying and we should all be exposed to it. if something is PORN, then it is degrading and we should be protected from accidental exposure to it (and children should be kept totally away from it). i would certainly not want this series sold on the shelves of my local barnes and noble ( like i have a local bookstore!) along side the mangas and the batman comic books. its not appropriate for children.

I don't think porn can be art, nor do I think art can be pornographic.
Know it when you see it, yesh?
Well, if the Supremes can't figure it out, how can us simple NSGs?

Know it when you see it, yesh?
Well, if the Supremes can't figure it out, how can us simple NSGs?
because I am more intelligent than most?:p

because I am more intelligent than most?:p
Aye, that you are, lassie, but schmarterer than members of the US Supreme Court? :fluffle:

Aye, that you are, lassie, but schmarterer than members of the US Supreme Court? :fluffle:
the supreme court has to make a political decision that affects everyone in the united states in all situations at all times.

smunkee has to make a personal decision that affects herself and her family.

its a whole different kind of smart.

I don't think porn can be art, nor do I think art can be pornographic.
Aww... that's cute.

Think about it, pieces such as (art photographs ahead, NSFW probably) this (http://www.julieharrisphotography.com/people2/nudes/images/1_christa-nude.jpg) or this (http://www.julieharrisphotography.com/people2/nudes/images/1_nude-woman.jpg) are tastefully done and artistic. But if someone masturbates to them, suddenly they're porn. I think it was said best in whichever Supreme Court decision it was that gave the power to regulate pornography to the States that the Justice could not define porn, but knew it when he saw it. In one person's eyes, something that another would consider art is porn.

Know it when you see it, yesh?
Well, if the Supremes can't figure it out, how can us simple NSGs?
Wow, that was totally posted while I was typing. Great minds think alike.

that depends on how its done eh?

im not going to read it to find out.

porn is considered to be that which has the pupose of sexual stimulation. if thats all it is, its porn not art. if it also has deeper meanings and vision, its also art. the more its purpose and meaning is away from sexual stimulation, the more it is art and not porn.

the distinction is only important politically. if something is ART, then its edifying and we should all be exposed to it. if something is PORN, then it is degrading and we should be protected from accidental exposure to it (and children should be kept totally away from it). i would certainly not want this series sold on the shelves of my local barnes and noble ( like i have a local bookstore!) along side the mangas and the batman comic books. its not appropriate for children.

Why does art have to be edifying? I don't think that is a requirement for something to be art.

I'm not sure that porn has to necessarily be degrading either.

Whether or not children should be allowed to buy it is a seperate matter. I had assumed that, given the subject matter, it was intended for adults anyway.

While we are at it, are we going to start removing many of the greek pots from the british museum? Many of those are pornographic.

I don't think porn can be art, nor do I think art can be pornographic.

So art can't be sexually stimulating?

So art can't be sexually stimulating?
anything can be sexually stimulating.

I think if the main purpose is sexual stimulation that it's main purpose is sexual stimulation.

Aww... that's cute.

Think about it, pieces such as (art photographs ahead, NSFW probably) this (http://www.julieharrisphotography.com/people2/nudes/images/1_christa-nude.jpg) or this (http://www.julieharrisphotography.com/people2/nudes/images/1_nude-woman.jpg) are tastefully done and artistic. But if someone masturbates to them, suddenly they're porn. I think it was said best in whichever Supreme Court decision it was that gave the power to regulate pornography to the States that the Justice could not define porn, but knew it when he saw it. In one person's eyes, something that another would consider art is porn.
if your definition of porn is "something someone masturbates to" then my shoes are pornographic.

if your definition of porn is "something someone masturbates to" then my shoes are pornographic.
Oooo! Photos of shoes please? Oops, no, that would be pr0n wouldn't it? :(

Jeez, you people ought to try reading 'Naked Lunch' end-to-end. Makes this seem like... dare I say it, a comic book. I read the review article, and it seems like perfectly legitimate adult fare to me.

If'n you don't want to read it, no-one's forcing you to do so at gunpoint, folks. As to the dismissive comment earlier that the author has "run out of ideas so has decided to write something as shocking as possible to get some attention", I would refer instead to a far better example of just that sort of expression:

http://www.wingercomics.com/files/blog/coulter_godless.jpg

Oooo! Photos of shoes please? Oops, no, that would be pr0n wouldn't it? :(
you would have to ask Kasp, although he may need to know if you intend to masturbate or not, before he can decide.

you would have to ask Kasp, although he may need to know if you intend to masturbate or not, before he can decide.
LOLZ!

Jeez, you people ought to try reading 'Naked Lunch' end-to-end. Makes this seem like... dare I say it, a comic book. I read the review article, and it seems like perfectly legitimate adult fare to me.

If'n you don't want to read it, no-one's forcing you to do so at gunpoint, folks. As to the dismissive comment earlier that the author has "run out of ideas so has decided to write something as shocking as possible to get some attention", I would refer instead to a far better example of just that sort of expression:

http://www.wingercomics.com/files/blog/coulter_godless.jpg
Tsk, tsk! One cannot "run out of ideas" if one has never had any to begin with :p

anything can be sexually stimulating.

I think if the main purpose is sexual stimulation that it's main purpose is sexual stimulation.

Which still doesn't stop it from being art.

Why does art have to be edifying? I don't think that is a requirement for something to be art.

I'm not sure that porn has to necessarily be degrading either.

Whether or not children should be allowed to buy it is a seperate matter. I had assumed that, given the subject matter, it was intended for adults anyway.

While we are at it, are we going to start removing many of the greek pots from the british museum? Many of those are pornographic.
i was speaking politically. edify and degrade are common public justifications for allowing or not allowing certain works to be displayed or banned.

to be art rather than porn, decor, design or information it has to speak to you. the deeper and more complex that experience, the more artistic it is.

porn speaks on only one level, sexual stimulation. the more else it does the less it qualifies as just porn. there are many books with sexually explicit scenes that dont qualfiy as porn because of the content of the rest of the book, for example. there are those whose only purpose is to get you off, thats porn.

yeah some of that anciet greek and roman pottery is pornographic. they are kept on display for their historic value. i dont know what you say to your kid when he looks closely at one and asks "mommy, what are those people doing?"

Which still doesn't stop it from being art.
in my mind it does.

If the main purpose of food is to be eaten then it is food, if it's main purpose is to be looked at (like the cakes I make for the county fair) then it is art.

If the main purpose of the book is sexual stimulation then it is porn, if it has other purposes and the sexual stimulation is a side product then it could be art.

anything can be sexually stimulating.

I think if the main purpose is sexual stimulation that it's main purpose is sexual stimulation.
Yeah, but where do you draw the line? I mean, the general opinion of society is that there shouldn't be hardcore DVDA on primetime TV, but I don't think anyone would object to showing a picture of Michaelangelo's David on primetime TV. But where's the middle ground? How do you determine whether something's main purpose is sexual stimulation or art?

Yeah, but where do you draw the line? I mean, the general opinion of society is that there shouldn't be hardcore DVDA on primetime TV, but I don't think anyone would object to showing a picture of Michaelangelo's David on primetime TV. But where's the middle ground? How do you determine whether something's main purpose is sexual stimulation or art?
it's purely subjective I would suppose. There is no point in trying to please everyone, there is a middle ground in trying to appeal to the majority.

If'n you don't want to read it, no-one's forcing you to do so at gunpoint, folks. As to the dismissive comment earlier that the author has "run out of ideas so has decided to write something as shocking as possible to get some attention", I would refer instead to a far better example of just that sort of expression:

who said anything else?

does declaring a work to be pornographic mean that it must be banned?

all i want is that i not be accidentally exposed to porn and that children be kept away from it as much as is practically possible.

if your definition of porn is "something someone masturbates to" then my shoes are pornographic.
Well, it's not my definition, because I honestly don't have one. And what the hell kind of shoes do you wear? I'd change footwear, personally.

Well, it's not my definition, because I honestly don't have one. And what the hell kind of shoes do you wear? I'd change footwear, personally.
I wear shoes, there are people who have shoe fetishes, I know someone who offered me $300 for my shoes, so that he would have them for his own pleasure.

who said anything else?

does declaring a work to be pornographic mean that it must be banned?

all i want is that i not be accidentally exposed to porn and that children be kept away from it as much as is practically possible.
Hmm.. . I'm feeling particularly perverse today ;)
If I intentionally expose you to porn, then it's not an accident! Is that okay?

(I know, that's not what you meant. I'm a bad person :( )

Well, art is subjective.

But if it has artistic meaning to someone, it is most definitely art.

all i want is that i not be accidentally exposed to porn and that children be kept away from it as much as is practically possible.
Then a) don't expose yourself to it, and b) keep your children away from it as much as is practically possible.

Just mind you don't go round trying to keep your children away from it as much as is practically possible to the extent that adults cannot easily or legitimately acquire it in the manner of their choosing.

I wear shoes, there are people who have shoe fetishes, I know someone who offered me $300 for my shoes, so that he would have them for his own pleasure.
How much were the shoes to begin with? I know the fashionable ones can be quite 'spensive . . .

Then a) don't expose yourself to it, and b) keep your children away from it as much as is practically possible.

Just mind you don't go round trying to keep your children away from it as much as is practically possible to the extent that adults cannot easily or legitimately acquire it in the manner of their choosing.
how easy should adults be able to aquire it? is it okay if it's in an adult book store? how bout if they sell it on the internet?

I don't think Ashmoria wants it locked in a closet guarded by Yeti and only handed out with a super secret password.

How much were the shoes to begin with? I know the fashionable ones can be quite 'spensive . . .
$100, not too bad of a profit. The value was that a woman (and possibly me personally) had been wearing them.

I don't think porn can be art, nor do I think art can be pornographic.
Nonsense, art is just any form of cultural expression. Pornography is just 'sexually explicit' material. 'Sexually explicit' is a very subjective term, it depends entirely upon your social attitudes and values. Therefore for something to be deemed as 'sexually explicit' there must be a value judgement of some sort. This value judgement is completely seperate from, and entirely irrelevant to, the status of art as cultural expression.

I wear shoes, there are people who have shoe fetishes, I know someone who offered me $300 for my shoes, so that he would have them for his own pleasure.
There was a guy in my dorm last year who bought my old marching band shoes for $60. It was kinda creepy.

Anyways, I digress. If we use the standards you mentioned earlier, I think this Graphic Novel would count as art, because its primary purpose is not for sexual arousal.

Then a) don't expose yourself to it, and b) keep your children away from it as much as is practically possible.

Just mind you don't go round trying to keep your children away from it as much as is practically possible to the extent that adults cannot easily or legitimately acquire it in the manner of their choosing.
i already said what my requirements were.

i dont want to see it in the comic book aisle of my local bookstore.

i doubt that any reputable bookseller would put this series in their store at all, let alone in the comic section but if it were put there without realizing what it is i might well bring it to the attention of the manager.

if an adult cant figure out a way to buy his fix of alice in wonderland porn, then i guess he will just have to go without. it doesnt belong in places frequented by children.

in my mind it does.

If the main purpose of food is to be eaten then it is food, if it's main purpose is to be looked at (like the cakes I make for the county fair) then it is art.

If the main purpose of the book is sexual stimulation then it is porn, if it has other purposes and the sexual stimulation is a side product then it could be art.

Notice I didn't say all porn is art. I just said art can be pornographic.

But something can have as its main purpose sexual stimulation and still be art. Doubly so since you cannot define art by its purpose. After all, many things main purpose is to be looked at, and they still don't qualify as art. Like road signs, or streakers.

how easy should adults be able to aquire it? is it okay if it's in an adult book store? how bout if they sell it on the internet?

I don't think Ashmoria wants it locked in a closet guarded by Yeti and only handed out with a super secret password.
Eh, my dad is a fairly solid libertarian, and he raised me laissez-faire. The end result is that I found porn on the internet at 8, started smoking cigarettes at 13, alcohol & pot at 14, graduated with a 3.6 GPA from high school, 1280 SAT (old style), and now I'm in college doing pretty well for myself. I don't put too much weight into the theory that protecting your children will make them better adults.

Now, on the question "Is porn art?" I would say yes. In two senses of the word. Porn which is created purely for the purpose of arousal and making money is art not in the sense that an artist created it, but in the sense that it is a creative product of our culture, just like advertising, and hollywood 'formula films'. The second sense is in the occasional case in which porn is produced by a artist which attempts to communicate an aspect of their culture, specifically the sex culture of their society. Just like Landscape painters communicate the environment in which their society is based.

how easy should adults be able to aquire it? is it okay if it's in an adult book store? how bout if they sell it on the internet?

I don't think Ashmoria wants it locked in a closet guarded by Yeti and only handed out with a super secret password.
Not speaking of Ashmoria here, but you'd be surprised the lengths to which the... how to phrase this... the more aggressively maternal types out there will go to make pornography unobtainable.

In the 80s and 90s, in the area I live in, a great deal of time and energy went into campaigns to 'brown bag' and ultimately to remove pornography from convenience store magazine shelves - even though the pornographic magazines themselves were already stored 5.5 feet off the ground, on extra-deep shelves that revealed only the titles - titles of magazines that did not feature sexually explicit covers in any event. But none of that was enough, apparently - and for a while, it looked as though the only legitimate way to procure legitimate pornography locally would be to mail-order it.

And that's what I'm talking about when I say, "Just mind you don't go round trying to keep your children away from it as much as is practically possible to the extent that adults cannot easily or legitimately acquire it in the manner of their choosing."

Eh, my dad is a fairly solid libertarian, and he raised me laissez-faire. The end result is that I found porn on the internet at 8, started smoking cigarettes at 13, alcohol & pot at 14, graduated with a 3.6 GPA from high school, 1280 SAT (old style), and now I'm in college doing pretty well for myself. I don't put too much weight into the theory that protecting your children will make them better adults.
Oh yeah? Well, just wait until you're a 40-year-old unemployed janitor and go on a killing spree with a weed-whacker! That'll show 'em!

*is smug*

*definitely needs a nap*

Eh, my dad is a fairly solid libertarian, and he raised me laissez-faire. The end result is that I found porn on the internet at 8, started smoking cigarettes at 13, alcohol & pot at 14, graduated with a 3.6 GPA from high school, 1280 SAT (old style), and now I'm in college doing pretty well for myself. I don't put too much weight into the theory that protecting your children will make them better adults.
I was addicted to hard drugs at 11, got a 4.0 in highschool and a 32 on my ACT, what's your point?

I,being a responsible adult, don't sit my kids down in front of hardcore porn.

I could care less what consenting adults do, I was asked if the novel about Peter Pan and pedophilia was porn, I say it is.

Hmm.. . I'm feeling particularly perverse today ;)
If I intentionally expose you to porn, then it's not an accident! Is that okay?

(I know, that's not what you meant. I'm a bad person :( )
oooooo replying to an admitted pervert, how exciting!

NO

the accident or intent would be on MY part not on yours. not that im too delicate to be exposed to nasty books and pictures but i would much rather pick the time myself and not have to deal with standing in the aisle with the man drooling over the peterpan/michael slash comic.

Not speaking of Ashmoria here, but you'd be surprised the lengths to which the... how to phrase this... the more aggressively maternal types out there will go to make pornography unobtainable.

In the 80s and 90s, in the area I live in, a great deal of time and energy went into campaigns to 'brown bag' and ultimately to remove pornography from convenience store magazine shelves - even though the pornographic magazines themselves were already stored 5.5 feet off the ground, on extra-deep shelves that revealed only the titles - titles of magazines that did not feature sexually explicit covers in any event. But none of that was enough, apparently - and for a while, it looked as though the only legitimate way to procure legitimate pornography locally would be to mail-order it.

And that's what I'm talking about when I say, "Just mind you don't go round trying to keep your children away from it as much as is practically possible to the extent that adults cannot easily or legitimately acquire it in the manner of their choosing."

You forgot to mention that the same convenience stores were still allowed to display women's magazines with very revealing cover photography and explicit article titles in plain sight for all to see. :rolleyes:

porn speaks on only one level, sexual stimulation. the more else it does the less it qualifies as just porn. there are many books with sexually explicit scenes that dont qualfiy as porn because of the content of the rest of the book, for example. there are those whose only purpose is to get you off, thats porn.

It depends upon who's reading them tho', doesn't it. I'll bet there are some people who read those bookd that don't qualify as porn for the sole purpose of getting off. Is it porn in one person's hands, and art in another?

I'll grant that some porn is not art. It's just people screwing on video tape, but that doesn't mean that some porn isn't art either.

I think what matters is if there is artistic intent behind it. Is it constructed with some overall design or ethos behind it.

After that, the only thing that matters is whether it is good or bad. And probably it's most often bad.

Regardless, the book in question most likely qualifies as art.

yeah some of that anciet greek and roman pottery is pornographic. they are kept on display for their historic value. i dont know what you say to your kid when he looks closely at one and asks "mommy, what are those people doing?"

They are kept for more than just their historic value. Many people prize greek pottery for its artistic merit. Don't get all John Ashcroft.

oooooo replying to an admitted pervert, how exciting!

NO

the accident or intent would be on MY part not on yours. not that im too delicate to be exposed to nasty books and pictures but i would much rather pick the time myself and not have to deal with standing in the aisle with the man drooling over the peterpan/michael slash comic.
Does feeling perverse make me a pervert? How exciting! ;)

I know, I misinterpreted your post, intentionally, and freely admitted such.

And I don't drool in public :(

I was addicted to hard drugs at 11, got a 4.0 in highschool and a 32 on my ACT, what's your point?

I,being a responsible adult, don't sit my kids down in front of hardcore porn.

I could care less what consenting adults do, I was asked if the novel about Peter Pan and pedophilia was porn, I say it is.
Well, fair enough. Don't let your kids see it. That's your right and responsibility as a parent. I don't think anyone will argue with you on that. At least you seem to be one of the good ones. You're actually concerned with the rights of the adults around you.

Not speaking of Ashmoria here, but you'd be surprised the lengths to which the... how to phrase this... the more aggressively maternal types out there will go to make pornography unobtainable.

In the 80s and 90s, in the area I live in, a great deal of time and energy went into campaigns to 'brown bag' and ultimately to remove pornography from convenience store magazine shelves - even though the pornographic magazines themselves were already stored 5.5 feet off the ground, on extra-deep shelves that revealed only the titles - titles of magazines that did not feature sexually explicit covers in any event. But none of that was enough, apparently - and for a while, it looked as though the only legitimate way to procure legitimate pornography locally would be to mail-order it.

And that's what I'm talking about when I say, "Just mind you don't go round trying to keep your children away from it as much as is practically possible to the extent that adults cannot easily or legitimately acquire it in the manner of their choosing."

those people were lying eh? they were using children as the excuse for banning pornography. they werent so much wanting "no bare breasts at childrens eye level" as to keep anyone from being able to buy or sell porn.

then came the internet. suck to be them eh?

Oh yeah? Well, just wait until you're a 40-year-old unemployed janitor and go on a killing spree with a weed-whacker! That'll show 'em!

*is smug*

*definitely needs a nap*
Hey now, a man can only be pushed so far before resorting to garden tools.

Haha. I think the funniest part about that post is "unemployed janitor".

don't get all John Ashcroft.
OMG is THAT where Ashmoria got her name? :eek:

Hey now, a man can only be pushed so far before resorting to garden tools.

Haha. I think the funniest part about that post is "unemployed janitor".
Glad you took it as the insanity prawnboy post it was intended as. Not art, but not pr0n either ;)

those people were lying eh? they were using children as the excuse for banning pornography. they werent so much wanting "no bare breasts at childrens eye level" as to keep anyone from being able to buy or sell porn.

then came the internet. suck to be them eh?
It was a multi-pronged series of attacks on personal freedoms. I forgot to mention the follow-up, trying to force the courts to rule that all pornography constitutes a form of 'violence' on women - thus resulting in a nation-wide ban.

Real sweethearts, eh? Certainly diminished (in my mind, anyway) any warm responses to calls to "think of the children" from that time forward.

And yeah, sucks to be them alright.

Does feeling perverse make me a pervert? How exciting! ;)

I know, I misinterpreted your post, intentionally, and freely admitted such.

And I don't drool in public :(
it seemed like a definitional thing to me

after all these days its pretty hard to define perversion and perverts. (outside of those creeps who sit in their cars near schoolbus stops and jerk off to the sight of small children getting off the bus) in our permissive society, what IS perverse? for most people a pervert is someone who does sexual things that they dont do or dont get to do. if we limit it to things that are currently out of the norm, you are prettymuch left with just the most abusive, non-consentual kinds of sex.

yeah i know thats not the perverse you were talking about but it is an interesting question, isnt it?

OMG is THAT where Ashmoria got her name? :eek:
lol

now thats just MEAN!

dont make me have to claim that i have an extensive collection of nudie pics of john ashcroft. ill go there if i have to.

lol

now thats just MEAN!

dont make me have to claim that i have an extensive collection of nudie pics of john ashcroft. ill go there if i have to.
Oooo!~ Will you share them?

Okay, NOW I feel like a pervert :eek:

I can't really make a decision there unless I've seen the piece of work. :D

Can't really be any worse than what one can find in the endless tubes of teh interweb regarding pron!

That's an interesting point. I guess this probably won't be sold at the typical comic book store, I imagine it'll mainly be available via the internet.

Seriously though, 16 years? That's a just crazy amount of time to write a porno. There's gotta be some artistic merit in it. I refuse to believe that Alan Moore, the dude who made "Top Ten" and "Promethea", would really JUST make porn. Whilst I haven't read it yet, I'm banking on there being a lot more emotional subtext.

For the curious, here's an interview with the author himself: http://www.avclub.com/content/node/51180/1

'K. Art can be porn. In fact the tradition of pornographic art goes back as far as civilization.

So yes, this is art.

What you should be asking yourself is not whether or not this is art though, but whether or not it is good or bad. Simple really.
Agreed it is a creative piece

it is art

Weather it is good or bad art is another topic compleatly

Meh. Art... I hate that word. I really do. We use it to condemn creative (and uncreative) work, and we keep trying to close the definition to include only OUR defintion of art. Not only is this close-minded, it also makes the actual creation of any art more difficult by making critics all that more vicious and dogmatic.

Art is expression, simple as that. As long as a peice of work is designed to express something (even lust) it is art. It may be disgusting, it may be objectionable, it may be pretentious, mindless, or valueless, but it is still art.

If the work is only supposed to make money by playing on people's perversion, it may not be art, but it may also be art, while still making money by playing on people's perversion.

Does it matter? It's expression. If people enjoy it, let them enjoy it. "Art" is a rather subjective category anyway.

As for "perversion," that is a meaningless term when applied to human sexual behavior, beyond perhaps "sexual activity I don't like."

Has anyone else heard about the new (well he's been working on it for 16 years) piece by acclaimed writer Alan Moore? He wrote "V for Vendetta", "Watchmen", "From Hell" and "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" amongst others.

The new graphic novel by Mr Moore is called "Lost Girls" and is a heavily pornographic work, in which famous characters from 19th and 20th century all have extensive sexual adventures. The primary characters being "Alice in Wonderland's" Alice, "The Wizard of Oz"'s Dorothy and "Peter Pan"'s Wendy.

Apparently it features extensive scenes of homosexuality, orgies, fisting, golden showers, pedastry and incest amongst other things. Pretty much ever connection you can imagine is made, up to and including Peter Pan himself having sex with both John and Michael.

Here's a link to a review: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=24140

In your opinion, is this really art? Or just the delusional ravings of a dried up insane drug addict?

Personally? I don't know, but it sounds a little dodgy.

Still, better on the page than in the streets I always say.
This isn't the first time pornography of this type has been made. At least of Alice in Wonderland, anyway. Anyone who's ever taken even a step into the world of Japanese doujinshi knows about some of their more...tasteless...ones, such as "Alice in Sexland."

Still, this is most certainly...induced by SOMETHING, at least, though what I honestly have no idea.

Sounds like he's run out of ideas so has decided to write something as shocking as possible to get some attention. Pretty pathetic really.
I doubt Alan Moore could ever run out of ideas.
Have you read any of his works? That man fits more ideas into a single page than most writers use in an entire book.

Considering the sexual overtones of 'From Hell' and his other, more 'adult' work (expecially his collections of poems and writings) I'm not surprised he's doing this to the Victorian classics. He's been showing more and more over the past few years an interest (almost an obsession) about Victorian England.

Many of those classic writings were full of repressed sexuality (thus reflecting the times), and I'd wager that is what he's exploring.

Lewis Carroll, for instance, was almost definitely a paedo. Check out some of his 'artistic' photographs of Alice (and other young girls) if you don't believe me.
Here's one:
http://graphics.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2004/05/18/1084887315_3356.jpg
Even by todays standards it's pretty damn suggestive.

And consider the story of Peter Pan - a boy who refuses to grow up and wants to play with children forever. Not particularly difficult to extrapolate that into the idea of a man who wants to pretend to be a boy and play with children forever. Look at how Michael Jackson is called the 'Peter Pan of Pop'.


I think that, like the rest of his writings, it'll be a very interesting set of work.

Alan Moore's a total legend, but I'd like to hear his explanation of it.

Alan Moore's a total legend, but I'd like to hear his explanation of it. Wish granted: http://www.avclub.com/content/node/51180/1

In your opinion, is this really art? Or just the delusional ravings of a dried up insane drug addict?


Can you back this up? Or link to the info that made you post that?

Cheers!

'K. Art can be porn.

So my Alex James Hidell videos are art?


Who knew?

Can you back this up? Or link to the info that made you post that?

Cheers! Lol, I don't personally think that Alan Moore is a dried up drug addict, being as I am a huge fan of most of his stuff. But I could certainly understand how some people might think that.

1) He hasn't produced a lot of content recently
2) He frequently makes references to sustained drug use
3) The dude is crazy
4) Making a three volume pornographic story about fictional 19th century characters could be seen as insanity, or at the very least perversity. Alternatively, you could see it as Alan Moore hitting his creative limit and desperately seeking to maintain his original creative edge by being "shocking".

Porn=/=Art?
i don't know but paedofile porn definitely isn't art.

Lol, I don't personally think that Alan Moore is a dried up drug addict, being as I am a huge fan of most of his stuff. But I could certainly understand how some people might think that.

1) He hasn't produced a lot of content recently
2) He frequently makes references to sustained drug use
3) The dude is crazy
4) Making a three volume pornographic story about fictional 19th century characters could be seen as insanity, or at the very least perversity. Alternatively, you could see it as Alan Moore hitting his creative limit and desperately seeking to maintain his original creative edge by being "shocking".
Except, if you read the interview someone else posted, you would find that he's been working on this story for 16 years now. Which invalidates your premise that he's run out of ideas and is just trying to shock.
Also, he mentions in the same interview that he's been busy over the past 18 months writing a new novel, which is going to be a very hefty tome, weighing in at 1500 pages.
Also, if yu know anything about the man and his foibles, you would know he goes through periods of actively distaining the comics industry. After Watchmen, he barely produced anything for several years.

And he makes reference to drug use? So what? Whether he uses or not shouldn't detract from his work, which should stand on it's own merits.

As for being crazy...yeah, I'll give you that.

I don't think porn can be art, nor do I think art can be pornographic.
What about Michaelango's David? I definitely see some penis there.
http://www.tickitaly.com/galleries/michelangelo1.jpg

An awful lot of classical art features nudity.

Lol, I don't personally think that Alan Moore is a dried up drug addict, being as I am a huge fan of most of his stuff. But I could certainly understand how some people might think that.

1) He hasn't produced a lot of content recently
2) He frequently makes references to sustained drug use
3) The dude is crazy
4) Making a three volume pornographic story about fictional 19th century characters could be seen as insanity, or at the very least perversity. Alternatively, you could see it as Alan Moore hitting his creative limit and desperately seeking to maintain his original creative edge by being "shocking".

Thats cool:) I was not sure if you were joking or not...but I have to admit that I have not heard anyone call him a drug addled looser...but then thats probably coz most of the people I talk to about Moore are sensible and also fans...not saying you are not sensible of course...I was just slightly taken aback LOL

I am also a great Moore fan...I loved Halo Jones...along with a host of his other work...

Having read that link and the review I think I will buy it.

Lewis Carroll, for instance, was almost definitely a paedo. Check out some of his 'artistic' photographs of Alice (and other young girls) if you don't believe me.

I don't believe you. And I'm disgusted by your assertion.

I'll definitely be picking up a copy of this.

Why does art have to be edifying? I don't think that is a requirement for something to be art.

I'm not sure that porn has to necessarily be degrading either.

Whether or not children should be allowed to buy it is a seperate matter. I had assumed that, given the subject matter, it was intended for adults anyway.

While we are at it, are we going to start removing many of the greek pots from the british museum? Many of those are pornographic.
I tend to agree with you on this, mostly. IMHO, it's entirely possible for something to be both pornographic ( i.e. appealing primarily to sexual interest ) and artistic. As a matter of fact, I've seen quite a number of things which could fall into both categories, including live shows. The human body is a beautiful thing and sex between two ( or more, if that's your thing ) people can be poetic and beautiful as well; a type of "performance art," if you will.

However, most porn is just that ... porn. It has no artistic value whatsoever, IMHO. And it certainly should not be available to children.

I don't believe you. And I'm disgusted by your assertion.

Well, then don't. But it's a pretty established fact, supported by more than just those photographs.

I'll definitely be picking up a copy of this.

I hope I'll be able to get my hands on it, it sounds like interesting fun. :D

We're assuming here that comic books are art in the first place.
This ISN'T David's Michelangelo for crying out loud, it's just slightly seedy porno for teenage fingersmiths instead of middle-aged executives. Like Razzle's younger brother.

We're assuming here that comic books are art in the first place.
And no, nine out of ten comics aren't.

I happne to collect art comic books... there are plenty of those around, belive me.

I happne to collect art comic books... there are plenty of those around, belive me.

yeah sorry, i inconsiderately changed my post to something a bit more relevant. apologies.