|
Post by swan on Apr 30, 2010 3:35:02 GMT -5
I was referring to more contemporary examples and the grey areas in particular. Something like Michelangelo's David (and most religious paintings) has been established as a piece of art for centuries and by today's standards probably doesn't evoke any sexual sensations, and I think the majority of people will simply accept it as art without question. But when this is not the case and it is not clear whether a piece is strictly porn or strictly art, and someone has to decide whether something is art or porn, I think the reasons I talked about earlier will influence them to some degree (again referring to the less art-centric majority). I think there is certainly cases whether something is clearly porn or clearly art, but as you have pointed out there are definitely instances where it is not at all clear, and in those cases it simply depends on how the piece is interpreted. If it speaks to the interpreter on any level other than just a physical, sexual level then it can be considered art, otherwise it is porn. Now take the same woman and pose her unnaturally, not in a way she would act on a day to day basis, still naked, and call it art. How many of you would view that as art? If art is just about showing what's natural and beautiful then showing someone naked as they are in their day to day lives would be more art than unnaturally poseing them for a photo. Art doesn't have to be natural and a good example might be Picasso's Les Demoiselles D'avignon (Totally safe for work, nothing really sexually explicit). The painting displays five unnatural distorted women who are technically naked, but I can't imagine that anyone would consider the painting to be porn (most likely because the women are very clearly unrealistic). Now I know that you're mainly referring to photography and other stuff that depicts real people, but the point is that some stuff is clearly art, while other stuff is clearly porn. The most sexually provocative depictions are likely to be clearly porn, which is what will most likely damage a child's innocence, but it is also fairly easy to keep children away from this stuff. Now the stuff that falls into the grey area is likely to be less damaging, if damaging at all, but it is also worth mentioning that not all art involves nudity, and the art that does can be kept out of the reach of children till they reach a certain age, there's still plenty of art for children to enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by Trey on Apr 30, 2010 6:36:02 GMT -5
Here's something to think about... If I were to take a picture of a woman taking a shower, something that everyone does and call it porn how many of you would see something wrong with it? Now take the same woman and pose her unnaturally, not in a way she would act on a day to day basis, still naked, and call it art. How many of you would view that as art? If art is just about showing what's natural and beautiful then showing someone naked as they are in their day to day lives would be more art than unnaturally poseing them for a photo. If porn is more than just nudity than anything posed unnaturally for the camera is porn. It just seems to me like society will say something is porn or art with no real difference between the two. What really bothers me about this is that art is acceptible for children to see, porn is not but as far as I can tell there's no difference between the two. Go right along with Dan's video and myself as proof this does nothing but confuse children. I basically grew up encouraged to look at nude art while at the same time being taught that porn is wrong but I never see any difference between the two. The only difference I manage to find is that porn never covers any up and art never shows people having sex or masterbateing. But all the nudes inbetween these two extremes are still a mystery to me. Do you really want me to elaborate on what the real difference between nude art and porn is? If you say yes, you haven't watched enough porn to even have an opinion. With this logic, you could say that the discovery channel shows porn all the time because it shows nude paintings from time to time, and it shows animals mating. Here's another work safe difference between nude art and porn. Porn skews reality. Art reflects reality.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Apr 30, 2010 12:43:02 GMT -5
Porn skews reality. Art reflects reality. I've seen plenty of both where the oppisite was true. Piccasso is just one example of art which never reflects reality. The fully clothed women who appear in fashion magizines, on telivision, in movies, and all kinds of public media skew reality more than porn does. These public women in the media have extreme weight loss diets, plastic surgery, tons of make-up, and photo/film editing done to make them look unrealistically hot. No one in the real world looks like that. And these are all fully clothed women. The same could be said for some women in porn but there are porns with REAL women in them not these plastic wind up dolls that appear in the public media.
|
|
|
Post by Joey on Apr 30, 2010 17:09:55 GMT -5
Well nudity is something that society always has and always will see as "bad". I assure you it will never change.
As for Porn vs. Art, I think art puts a person in a sceen that is seen as viewable for all ages. Porn puts a person into an adult situation. The reason people see naked art as more accecptable is because it doesn't show people doing things that an 8 year old should not be exposed to.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Apr 30, 2010 17:16:41 GMT -5
The reason people see naked art as more accecptable is because it doesn't show people doing things that an 8 year old should not be exposed to. Neither does allot of porn. The whole thing just seems very contradicting to me. Porn is bad because people are naked but art that shows the same exact thing is OK.
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Apr 30, 2010 17:20:08 GMT -5
As Trey's definition said at the beginning, I think the difference between Art and Porn is that one is designed to cause sexual arousal, the other one isn't. But in a literal sense I suppose there's very little difference...it's a tricky one.
|
|
|
Post by Trey on Apr 30, 2010 20:08:31 GMT -5
The reason people see naked art as more accecptable is because it doesn't show people doing things that an 8 year old should not be exposed to. Neither does allot of porn. The whole thing just seems very contradicting to me. Porn is bad because people are naked but art that shows the same exact thing is OK. You need to watch some more porn, lol. Porn isn't just about nudity. It's about an unrealistic interaction between two, or even several people.
|
|
|
Post by Joey on Apr 30, 2010 20:32:17 GMT -5
The reason people see naked art as more accecptable is because it doesn't show people doing things that an 8 year old should not be exposed to. Neither does allot of porn. The whole thing just seems very contradicting to me. Porn is bad because people are naked but art that shows the same exact thing is OK. Most paintings arent going to show a guy doing your mom and your sister...but porn does.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Apr 30, 2010 21:57:40 GMT -5
Neither does allot of porn. The whole thing just seems very contradicting to me. Porn is bad because people are naked but art that shows the same exact thing is OK. You need to watch some more porn, lol. Porn isn't just about nudity. It's about an unrealistic interaction between two, or even several people. Some porn is like that and like I said earlier that kind of porn is most definatly just porn. But what I'm talking about is the kinda porn that is just a picture of a naked woman. And I have seen several images all very simular in how the girl is posed, some natural, some not, some made as art, some made as porn, and between it all is where my confusion lies. You're talking about hard core porn. I'm talking about soft core porn. When it is just a naked picture there is little to no difference between porn and art that I can see.
|
|
|
Post by kalaway on Aug 4, 2010 13:41:00 GMT -5
I think a lot of it has to do with worldview. There was a TED talk awhile back where the speaker discussed some of the differences between how Republicans and Democrats think. Openness to experience, experiencing things in new ways, was one of the main items, and he even gave nude art as an example.
The ability to experience nude art as Art rather than 'omg, look boobies and wee-wees' is something that's learned. Usually taught in childhood by parents who encourage their kids to see things not only at face value but with a view for deeper meaning.
So I think based on that worldview where you draw the line will be different. I think anything that directly shows the act of sex is of course porn. I don't know if anybody else has been watching the show "Work of Art" on Bravo. It's similar to Project Runway but for artists. Several of the pieces on there have, imo, been more porn than art. Two of them directly depicting masturbation. That's not art as far as I'm concerned, just trying to be shocking. And being shocking just to be shocking is stupid and immature and beneath true art.
Honestly, I think it's completely possible for something to be both art and porn, depending on how you experience it. I think gallery owners and artists just need to be careful about how open exhibits are that toe the line between art and porn. If it would get an NC-17 rating in a movie, putting it up in the middle of a public square is probably a dumb thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by NormanTheOne on Aug 4, 2010 20:24:53 GMT -5
It is an art because it is beautiful, but I could masturbate to it too. hahaha and watching porn isn't as solo with some societies.
|
|
|
Post by Benyamin on Aug 5, 2010 0:35:00 GMT -5
IMO
porn=oooooohhhh yummy->orgasm art=woooowwwwwww pretty-> glazed eyes
|
|
|
Post by low on Aug 5, 2010 12:28:15 GMT -5
Does anyone remember a Jeff Koons art exhibit from 2 or 3 years ago? Maybe longer--I've lost perception of time. Anyway, it was as pornographic as I'd ever seen art. It was mostly just pics of him having sex with Ilona Staller.
|
|
|
Post by NormanTheOne on Aug 5, 2010 14:00:56 GMT -5
Aren't movies an art? Then porn movies are an art too.
Isn't art an art? Then pornographic pictures are an art too.
|
|
|
Post by redkneehighsocks on Aug 11, 2010 6:20:54 GMT -5
porn = provocative
art = anything else.
face it, the human body ( or any other ) is the most beatiful piece of art ever created. give a big thank you to that sculptor in the sky, who ever it may be. they did a great job.
|
|
|
Post by ironichipstertrash on Aug 11, 2010 19:14:41 GMT -5
everything is art especially the noise i never liked human porn my new obsession is turtle porn its romantic
|
|
|
Post by Enemynarwhal on Aug 15, 2010 15:05:20 GMT -5
Is it always a question of what the artist intended? What I mean is, if I jerked off to a work of art am I turning it into pornography?
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Aug 15, 2010 15:14:56 GMT -5
Pornography's definition began as anything that was considered depraved, disgusting and offensive. Now it's generally applied to sexual images.
But remember, there is a difference between erotica and pornography. Pornography aims not for artistic value, but simply for sexual arousal, while erotica displays scenes of sexuality with the aim for artistic value. Of course, there is a massive blurring of the line between the two.
|
|
|
Post by proud2berepublican on Aug 16, 2010 17:50:38 GMT -5
I think that pornography is only acceptable if both parties are adults and the pornography is of heterosexual interest. I would forbid pornography of any other form.
Art may not contain pornographic content because then it's classified as pornography and regulated under the same regulations as pornography.
|
|
|
Post by James McClelland on Aug 17, 2010 2:19:41 GMT -5
Art is nice, porn is nice, I say why argue?
|
|