I believe that some art works are forge-able and others are not. This depends solely on the type of work the art is, for example a painting may be forged but a piece of music may not. Paintings can be seen as to be finished when the original artist finishes painting, after this the act of creating the artwork is complete. Therefore if another artist paints the same thing, exactly identical to the original, it is said to be forged. By looking at these 2 paintings side by side, they may appear to be identical, and even a professional artist may not be able to tell which is the original and which has been forged.
This makes it hard to argue that one is real and the other forged, as we may be unable to tell the difference between the 2 pieces until some one informs us as to which was painted by whom. Because they may look identical to an observer, does this mean that they are both as aesthetically pleasing as each other? Or is that dependent in who has painted it and why? I believe that the aesthetic value within a painting or sculpture is not only to do with what happens when one simply looks at it but also what a person feels or experiences while looking at the painting.
Another factor may be what the original artist wanted to portray in this piece of art. The fundamental thing to consider in determining forgery is “intent to deceive”. So for example a layman attempting to pass one of his paintings off as a Picasso, is deliberately deceiving as he is claiming to be something he is not. In contrast an orchestra performing apiece by Beethoven is not forgery as it was written to be performed and they are not claiming that it is an original piece, they are simply performing the piece Beethoven composed.
Taking music as an example of an artwork that cannot be forged, we look at the issue of composer and the actual performance. Is the artwork complete after a composer finishes writing the score for a particular piece? This cannot be true as then the piece will never have been performed or heard by an audience. In this sense we can described it as being a 2 stage art work. We may describe paintings and other artworks similar to these such as sculptures and even buildings autographic, if any duplication of them is said to be a fake. Thus we may describe music as allographic and therefore cannot be forged.
To discuss this question we must first look at a definition of sex. This may be difficult as sex can refer to a number of things, especially if we are talking about sexual activity rather than sex in general. In the traditional sense of the word, sex is described as penile-vaginal intercourse (PVI) between a heterosexual male and female partner. This view has been widely criticized over the past number of years by many philosophers. This view is very heteronormative and therefore excludes all other forms as sex, such as oral or anal sex, which many would describe as a type of sexual activity.
Sex in the broader sense of the term would include acts such as oral and anal sex, although these acts may only involve one partner’s sexual organs. The difference between these forms of sex and PVI sex can mainly be seen through the significance that people place on them. For example many heterosexual couples may engage in non-penetrative sex as an alternative to PVI to avoid pregnancy or preserve their virginity, also they might use these forms of sexual activity before having “full sex”. This shows the different significance that is placed on many different types of sex.
I believe that sex is not strictly for heterosexual couples engaging in penetrative sex, but can also include a variety of other forms of sexual activity. This then includes forms of sex for homosexual couples and also masturbation. ?Masturbation can also be classed as sexual activity even though it only involves one participant. Masturbation may be penetrative or non penetrative and may involve objects such as sex toys. This does not seem to fall under the same category of sex but can definitely be classed as a sexual activity and therefore does involve genitalia.
If I compare sex to a painting I can illustrate my point further. For a painting to fundamentally be a painting there must be paint involved, without having paint it simply becomes another form of artwork, similarly, sex that doesn’t involve genitalia becomes a different act all together. People may argue things like fetishes or kinks can be sex, but even tho these acts do not involve direct contact of genitalia, they still involve arousal which in turn involves the reproductive organs. ?Due to the points I have discussed, I support the conclusion that in humans, sex is an activity, which necessarily involves genitalia.
