Cross-cultural Perceptions

Considering the lack of a universal, or even a clear definition of "art" in any culture makes it likely that there has to be an endless variety of different or competing conceptions of it. Although it is in our culture as American's to determine individualism, and therefore would make sense for American's to insist these differences, there is a universal trend as to what tends to be aesthetically pleasing, and what is not. But this is not a constant truth. Different cultures will conceptualize art differently based on differences in lifestyles, values, access to materials, and historic context. These differences create some distinctions as to what is and is not art based on cultural perception.
For example, what one culture creates as necessity, may be seen by another as having artistic intent. An example would be Egyptian hieroglyphics which to foreigners often look like intricate designs and symbols up for aesthetic contemplation where as ancient Egyptians may have looked at them as commonly as you read this sentence. At the same time, our perception of a urinal in an exhibition being art because it is "out of context" may seem obscure to someone from a third world country who has never seen indoor plumbing and therefore cannot see the difference between the Fountain exhibit and the actual restroom down the hall.
In this way, perceptions of art are dependent upon underlying factors both culturally and individually. There seems to be a basic cross-cultural understanding which humans share which allows us to generally recognize art, however it is not constant. Differences in culture can play a large role in this recognition.

Question:

Does the lack of a universal definition of art allow for art to be subjective? In other words, can something be art to me, but not to someone else?

Response to Tania

What do adults gain from art?

As such a general question I could easily say that depending on their perspective, people could gain everything as much as nothing from art, but I feel like that is a cop-out. I should first note that the best definition I can come up with to describe art in a general sense (not specific to any one form) would be that it is the result of a humans attempt to document expression or emotion. If this is true then I think that adults use art just as children, as an outlet. I wouldn't however go as far to describe art as being necessarily an outlet which is socially acceptable. Although this is true in many cases where various art forms are widely praised and generally any artistic initiative is seen as positive but there are many pieces of art which are said to be obscene or morally wrong such as back in October 2007 Costa Rican artist Guillermo Habacuc Vargas supposedly captured a stray dog and chained it in a gallery without food and water with a sign on the back wall made of dog biscuits stating “Eres Lo Que Lees” (”You Are What You Read”).

This is an interesting case in art for two reasons. First, there was a huge backlash when word of this art project was released and thousands of people who heard about the story through primarily internet sources, they began flooding facebook groups and blogs with petitions to stop the exhibition. Like we see in this case, people do not see all art as being worth the symbolism which the artist is trying to express. Second, after the initial buzz of this exhibition, skeptics began to search for the story's origins and were not able to find a clear source. It is still debated as to whether or not the exhibition ever actually took place. This shows the ease at which people can sometimes be swayed by art just as easily as mass media.

With this being said, I would say that the creation of art would likely have positive effects on the artist (creator/performer/etc) for it's creative outlet qualities. As far as the effect art has on the experiencer, I would have to say that getting a glimpse of another's point of view, no matter how you interpret it, will more often than not benefit you rather than have adverse effects.

Question:

What do you think about the influence that mass media has on some art (such as 'mainstream' genres)?

What factor do you think differentiates "pornography" and "erotica?"

I think that the main difference between pornography and erotica is that generally, pornography has the primary purpose of causing sexual arousal where erotica tends to primarily function first as art or literature which falls into a genre of sexual themes or qualities. Although there could be pornography out there that has artistic qualities, pornography speaks to the primary intent of the piece to cause the audience to become sexually aroused. Erotica may also cause the audience to become sexually aroused but I think this correlates more to the fact that erotica contains sexual themes and qualities.

I equate it with someone taking photographs to document a party in comparison to someone who considers themselves a photographer. Where pornography has the clear intent of documenting a moment for the sake of sexual arousal, erotica focuses more on motive, scene-setting, and developing a mood to evoke sexual contemplation which sometimes comes with arousal.

I don't think that there can be a clear distinction between erotica and pornography because it is dependent on what the audience is getting out of the content. What is pornography to one person could be considered erotica to another and vice versa.

Question:
With this being said about erotica and pornography, do you think the lack of motive in pornography is grounds to consider it not as art?

Response to Betsy's question on morality

Do you think most people's decisions are based in their morality?

I would have to say yes, I do think that most people make decisions based on their personal morality. What I can't say, is how exactly this morality is formed on a person to person basis. Possibly there could be a mixture of biology and environmental factors. This question also reminds me of the chicken and the egg dilemma. There has been much dispute whether or not violent (or immoral) pornography causes violence in people. I would think that this is not the case but rather that people who are violent (or socially considered immoral beliefs) are more likely to view violent pornography.
People are tied heavily to their moral beliefs, we can see it in politics. Although politics are designed to make decisions on behalf of the people as a whole, politicians are constantly basing decisions off of their personal morals. People cannot help but base decisions on morality, it is the core of our conscience. Of course not all decisions are based on morality, it is all within context, but I think that through the arts people put their morality to the test consistently to prepare for real-life decision making.

Question:

What do you make of violent role-play pornography and erotica where the participants are not actually being harmed but violent scenarios are depicted through fantasy? Is this harmful to human development?