Porn vs. Art

[Manopolus]

So... You think that if a picture isn't of a whole tree, but focuses instead upon a single leaf, or flower petal, it's a fixation that should not be condoned or participated in? Macrophotography must bug you as much as porn does.

A complete misunderstanding of what I was saying. A fixation on the boob is a distraction from drawing a hand, for instance. I suppose that one could make the boob the only thing which one draws, but the kind of detail involved here would require a closer look than I have (actually, drawing from a photo would be better in this case... or simply taking a photo and not drawing at all). I'm usually a good 10 feet or more away from the model.

Not to mention the fact that this is not what I'm interested in drawing. Actually, I think the fixated view is a bit less interesting when it is out of context. Note that I don't usually draw the whole body, anyway. When talking about the whole, I am talking about all that is contained within the drawing, not the whole body. I do cut parts off at the edge of the paper.

Or is it more that because you don't find the parts of the body that porn focuses on to be beautiful, or the acts that porn focuses on to be beautiful, you can't understand how anyone else possibly could and are dismissing it as a "fixation" to avoid dealing with your own personal demons on the subject? This is not meant as a personal attack. You claim that introspection is important to you. I am merely requesting that you actually apply some of that "introspection" to the claims you are making, since it seems that isn't actually being done. Instead, it appears that the claims being made are projections and externalizations.

Again, you seem to be confusing me for a victorian... which I am not. If I were, I would find it rather disturbing to be in the presence of nudity in the first place. Really the only disturbing part of it to me is that sexuality is a distraction when you are trying to do something other than have sex with the person, and I have that well under control.

The recurring theme in all your posts is that sex is bad. The persistent use of derogatory terms when referencing sex, sexual arousal, and sexuality (like "dysfunctional" and "rearing it's ugly head" and "mentally drooling") really sends the message that you simply have your own personal issues with sex, in general, and you are projecting those issues onto the entire porn industry.

Umm... when did I say sex was bad? It is a distraction. It inhibits coherent thought. Hell, I enjoy sex as much as anyone else... it is just inappropriate in the setting I am describing.

You also insist upon speaking about porn as if you know anything and everything about it, all the while admitting that you avoid the stuff and haven't watched very much. So who exactly are you to make the sorts of judgments you're making? You want to assure me (who's actually been in some porn, mind you), that pornographers would agree with you? That the "best of the best" look for different things than, say, anyone else who watches their works? How exactly would you know any of that? You're making endless assumptions based upon insufficient data; painting with a broad brush, using a genetic fallacy, and appealing to your own authority (inappropriately so) at the same time. It's quite insulting really. Please stop. Stick to the subjects that you do actually have authority in, and stop assuming you know anything about porn beyond your own personal likes and dislikes.

I know a lot about art, and a little about porn. My judgments are based upon what I know about both. What I describe as more professional porn shows a greater degree of sophistication and knowledge about the medium that they are using (like more specific and variant lighting for instance). In the majority of porn I do not see that (perhaps partially because it would be harder to airbrush). What's wrong with what I said here? I am not sure you are understanding me.

Fact of the matter is, different people find different things to be beautiful. You don't find sex beautiful. Fine. You're allowed to have your own hang-ups. But there are a lot of people out there, myself included, who DO find sex to be beautiful. Who find sexual organs to be beautiful. Who find cum shots to be beautiful. Who find the expression of animalistic desire, with the lack of care for "aesthetics" to be beautiful. Who happen to think those things should be celebrated, and appreciated. Porn is one way to do that.

Yeah, ok... I don't find bodily fluids to be particularly interesting... but I'm not exactly fixated on that notion, either. Sexual organs are not excluded from my own work, btw.

I also happen to think that having "less respect" for someone just because they happen to produce porn is a rather pathetic way to act. Especially since you're saying that you have "less respect" for pornographers when engaging in discussion with people who are pornographers or have been involved in some other way in the making of pornography.

My main beef with porn is that the majority of it does not display any sophistication whatsoever in the art of making images. The lighting has a tendency to be simple and bland, the poses emphasize description rather than being arranged in a unique composition, etc. I could go on, but I doubt you would know what I was talking about without showing you specific examples to differentiate between. Of course, I will admit that this is a generalization to a degree. Note the word "majority."

Anyway, apparently you read my post looking for all the things you hate about people that badmouth porn. I don't fit your preexisting prejudice, as far as I can tell. I think that your defensiveness may be coming from the same place that my own can tend to. You don't like people badmouthing porn because you have been involved in it. I have an admitted bias against porn because I don't want people calling my work porn (not that many have, but some people are a bit ignorant).

 

[Manopolus]

What you're describing here is the classic clash between quality and volume. When it comes to photography, you are obviously a quality-minded person. I am the same. But for Walmart, they're interested in getting as many people as possible through their studio as quickly and as cheaply as possible. It's about the number of transactions, not the value of each. Whether one sells a single image for $1,000,000 or one-million images for $1 each, either way one has still made $1M. If all one cares about is the money, the latter approach is generally less risky. Some, however, care about more than just the money and are willing to assume greater risk and produce lower volume.

Yep, a perfect description of the situation, and why I was WAY overqualified for the position, as well. But hey, a guy's gotta eat.

I'm not entirely sure that it applies to porn in the same way, but I don't deny that this could be so. I'm just not familiar enough with the industry to know.

 

[tesscaline]

A complete misunderstanding of what I was saying. A fixation on the boob is a distraction from drawing a hand, for instance. I suppose that one could make the boob the only thing which one draws, but the kind of detail involved here would require a closer look than I have (actually, drawing from a photo would be better in this case... or simply taking a photo and not drawing at all). I'm usually a good 10 feet or more away from the model.

Um. We aren't talking about you, we're talking about porn. You said that the fixation that porn takes upon a single part of the body is something that you cannot condone or participate in. That is what I was responding to. Your argument was such that it could be applied to virtually any art, anywhere. Georgia O'Keeffe's work, for example. Macrophotography, as another example.

Not to mention the fact that this is not what I'm interested in drawing. Actually, I think the fixated view is a bit less interesting when it is out of context. Note that I don't usually draw the whole body, anyway. When talking about the whole, I am talking about all that is contained within the drawing, not the whole body. I do cut parts off at the edge of the paper.

What you do in your own art is not under discussion here. Porn is. If you are not speaking about porn when making your criticisms, I don't really know what your intent is. As said above, nothing I said had anything to do with your art. And your definition of "fixated view" is practically nonsensical now that you've extrapolated upon it.

Again, you seem to be confusing me for a victorian... which I am not. If I were, I would find it rather disturbing to be in the presence of nudity in the first place. Really the only disturbing part of it to me is that sexuality is a distraction when you are trying to do something other than have sex with the person, and I have that well under control.

If you're not a victorian, and don't wish to be perceived as one, perhaps you should stop saying things that fall into that category of belief system.

Umm... when did I say sex was bad? It is a distraction. It inhibits coherant thought. Hell, I enjoy sex as much as anyone else... it is just inappropriate in the setting I am describing.

See, you're doing it again. Sexuality is a distraction? Maybe for you. I don't have a problem with it. Sex inhibits coherent thought? Really? Not for me it doesn't. You're projecting your own personal issues with the subject, and muddling you drawing with assessing the artistic capabilities of porn. The end result? Your arguments come across as something puritanical, lacking in critical thinking.

I know a lot about art, and a little about porn. My judgements are based upon what I know about both. What I describe as more professional porn shows a greater degree of sophistication and knowledge about the medium that they are using (like more specific lighting for instance). In the majority of porn I do not see that. What's wrong with what I said here? I am not sure you are understanding me.

What's wrong with it? What's wrong is that you are taking your own very limited experience with a subject, and applying that very limited experience to the whole of a group. You're also applying your own personal judgements about what makes something "sophisticated" without stopping to think that perhaps you're missing the point entirely.

Yeah, ok... I don't find bodily fluids to be particularly interesting... but I'm not exactly fixated on that notion, either. Sexual organs are not excluded from my own work, btw.

I don't really care about your work. The subject here is pornography and whether or not it is art. You say you agree that it is art, and then you go out of your way to speak of it in ways that insinuate that you don't actually think of it as art. You seem to be missing the point of everything I've said in my post, mainly by applying it to a subject that is NOT under discussion. Your art is not under discussion. How you make your art is not under discussion. Your art is not the end all be all standard for what makes something art. Please, leave your art out of it.

My main beef with porn is that the majority of it does not display any sophistication whatsoever in the art of making images. The lighting has a tendency to be simple, the poses emphasize description rather than being arranged in a unique composition, etc. I could go on, but I doubt you would know what I was talking about without showing you specific examples to differentiate between.

Oh, I know exactly what you're referring to. Remember, I've been in porn. You seem to think, however, that porn should be intended to make some sort of intrigue or mystery when that really isn't the point of most of it. The point of most of it is to be as close to what people want from sex. Because of that, simple lighting is preferable. Poses emphasizing description is exactly what is being aimed for. The gritty nature of things IS a style. A style you don't happen to like, fine. Should I assume you make these same criticisms of documentary films? Because everything you're complaining about in regards to porn could be taken and applied to documentaries.

Some of the most successful porn is porn that has none of what you think should be in there, and is simply a video camera on a tripod in a normally lit bedroom filming two (or more) people having sex. Why? Because it's REAL. It is a depiction of what actually happens, with the intention of evoking the feelings one has when/if those things actually happen to the viewer. The more staged "unique compositions" you have, the less real it is. The more extravagant the lighting, the less real it is. The more postured and elaborate the poses, the less real it is. For porn to be successful, the average viewer has to be able to imagine themselves in the place of one of the actors. The average viewer of mainstream porn (which, I'm assuming is most of what you've seen, given your commentary) doesn't have a very active imagination, and has never tried anything that might even come close to a "unique composition" or a non-simple pose.

Then, there's the business side of it. Porn, like any other product, has to be profitable. The budgets and shoot times don't allow for much in the way of extravagance. All that lighting? Costs money. Those poses and unique compositions? Money and time on top of it. Do you know why so much porn is shot on a video camera and not on film anymore (admittedly, it's all turning to digital as the prices on that drop, but we haven't quite gotten there yet with the majority of the porn industry)? I'll bet you don't. But it has nothing to do with the artistic choice between the two.

So, all your objections to porn come from what? Ignorance. So please. If you want to talk about your field of art, fine. Talk about your field of art -- though, it seems as if discussion of your particular art belongs in another thread, as it's simply not relevant. But do please stop acting as if you know ANYTHING about porn other than your own personal likes and dislikes. You very clearly don't.

 

[Manopolus]

So, all your objections to porn come from what? Ignorance. So please. If you want to talk about your field of art, fine. Talk about your field of art -- though, it seems as if discussion of your particular art belongs in another thread, as it's simply not relevant. But do please stop acting as if you know ANYTHING about porn other than your own personal likes and dislikes. You very clearly don't.

That's funny... your own support of porn is exacly the same as my own objections against it, from the standpoint of an artist. Please note that the thread title is "art vs porn" and the point is to differentiate between the two, or state that there is no difference. I am willing to include porn as an artform, but I also must suggest that it is vastly different from other examples "nude art." I'm not sure what the hostility is about. My posts have been an attempt to do that.

As you very clearly have shown, porn is judged by a different standard than most art. Aesthetics take a back seat to sexuality.... that's exactly what I was saying, and what you confirmed. I find it ironic that you basically said I was right and then proceeded to call me ignorant.

I'm sorry if my word choice has tended to be a bit negative (and I have admitted to having a bias), but you really aren't refuting anything I actually said.

OK, in my attempt to backpedal a bit, I tried to differentiate between porn which is more consistent with art (specifically photographic porn... I don't know much about movie images) and the usual fare. However, this was my way of counteracting my own generalizations... there are examples of that which is called porn which falls in line with my own concept of artistry. Perhaps I was wrong in calling it more "professional," but it does show a greater sophistication with the technical aspects. If that is what you are objecting to, are you saying that you are more in support of my former generalizations?

 

[not daSkeptic]

I'm not entirely sure that it applies to porn in the same way, but I don't deny that this could be so. I'm just not familiar enough with the industry to know.

Why wouldn't it apply the same? A business doesn't cease to be a business just because the product involves sex.

 

[Manopolus]

Why wouldn't it apply the same? A business doesn't cease to be a business just because the product involves sex.

Yeah, Skeptichick just sort of confirmed it too... I have no reason to doubt it.

 

[tesscaline]

That's funny... your own support of porn is exacly the same as my own objections against it, from the standpoint of an artist. Please note that the thread title is "art vs porn" and the point is to differentiate between the two, or state that there is no difference. I am willing to include porn as an artform, but I also must suggest that it is vastly different from other examples "nude art." I'm not sure what the hostility is about. My posts have been an attempt to do that.

The OP of this thread makes the claim that porn is not art, per se. That's what this thread has been about for the past 30 pages and has been addressing -- whether or not porn is art, and why. All art forms are different. If they weren't, we wouldn't need to specify the "form" part of "art form". Sculpture is different from oil is different from watercolor is different from film is different from music and so on.

However, it would seem that some of your posts, based upon how you've responded to posts addressing yours, have had nothing to do with porn but were instead addressing your own personal art form. Which is NOT the subject. You seem to take being corrected as to what the subject at hand is to be hostility. Not sure why that is.

You have also failed to offer any evidence that porn is any different than any other art form (not that I really feel that porn is a separate form in and of itself. It is a genre, not a form. Film, is a form. Sculpture is a form. Oil paint is a form. Poetry is a form. Music is a form).

You keep throwing around the fact that you're an artist as if it means something to the debate at hand. It doesn't. Some of the biggest and best art critics out there have no artistic talent at all. And some of the brightest artists around today have no understanding of art criticism. Continuing to cite yourself as reference for your claims is an appeal to authority -- the fallacious sort.

As you very clearly have shown, porn is judged by a different standard than most art. Aesthetics take a back seat to sexuality.... that's exactly what I was saying, and what you confirmed. I find it ironic that you basically said I was right and then proceeded to call me ignorant.

Except that I haven't said that. You have grossly misinterpreted what was said.

You have taken the word "aesthetic" and butchered and mangled it to mean only what YOU personally find attractive. I happen to subscribe to a broader definition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aesthetic :

aes·thet·ic   [es-thet-ik or, especially Brit., ees-] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
pertaining to a sense of the beautiful or to the science of aesthetics.
2.
having a sense of the beautiful; characterized by a love of beauty.
3.
pertaining to, involving, or concerned with pure emotion and sensation as opposed to pure intellectuality.
–noun
4.
a philosophical theory or idea of what is aesthetically valid at a given time and place: the clean lines, bare surfaces, and sense of space that bespeak the machine-age aesthetic.
5.
aesthetics.
6.
Archaic. the study of the nature of sensation.

Please do tell me where the definition excludes that which goes on in pornography. Or maybe what you mean to say is that pornography ignores what YOU consider to be of aesthetic value? Hmm? Where does that definition of "aesthetic" require fancy lighting, non-simple poses, and "unique composition"? Where does it say that anything that does not have those things is automatically a lesser form of art?

Do you consider Warhol to be a good artist? Respect his work? If so, you're a hypocrite -- how exactly is a soup can on a flat white background more focused on aesthetics than pornography? Personally, I love Warhol. Especially the soup can. He seized upon a visual image that evoked strong emotions of home, and comfort, in it's viewers. Not to mention the whole birth of the pop art movement thing, which was pretty nifty too.

You say you do abstract art. You mean like the display I saw in a gallery once that was a canvas painted in one single solid color? Is that more or less focused upon aesthetics than porn? Sure, it evoked an emotion in me. One of shock and jealousy that I didn't think of the idea sooner so I could get rich slapping house paint across canvases. Not sure that's what the artist was going for... but... *shrug*

Aesthetics are incredibly important in porn. However, what porn views as aesthetically necessary is different than what you seem to think is aesthetically necessary. Aesthetics are, by definition, subjective. What I find aesthetically pleasing is different than what the guy downstairs from me does.

You really don't think that aesthetics are important in porn? Seriously? You don't think it matters what the actors look like? Or what clothes they're wearing (or, rather, taking off)? The angle of the shot so that what the director wants to be seen is actually seen? What manner in which an actress grooms certain regions? Skin condition? Makeup? Hair styles? These are all aesthetic considerations just as much as your "refined lighting" or "unique compositions". Porn must be aesthetically pleasing to the viewer, otherwise it fails to turn them on. Unless you're claiming that the porn industry is so huge because it's managed to succeed in getting people turned on by people and actions that they find disgusting... Which you wouldn't be doing, would you?

I've already explained how some people (more than some really, considering how huge the porn industry is) find sex, and all contained within the subject, to be beautiful.

As far as "pertaining to, involving, or concerned with pure emotion and sensation as opposed to pure intellectuality" goes, I'm really not sure how much closer one can get than to explore the primal urges that drive the human race to procreate -- i.e. sex. Sexual desires are some of the strongest emotions humans have. Pornography films rely on imagery to recreate those emotions in their viewers. This is, to me, exactly what aesthetics is all about. Relying upon a visual stimuli to evoke emotion and sensation, instead of intellectuality.

It really seems like the problem you have with porn has nothing to do with the actual aesthetics, and everything to do with the subject matter. For some reason, you seem to think that sex is not, and cannot be, aesthetically pleasing without some sort of special lighting or posturing or play acting. At least, that's what comes across in your posts. That sex is nasty and ugly and bad and omg porn might be art, but gosh it's really crappy ****. If that's not how you want to come off, then maybe you might want to rethink your choice of words.

 

[Manopolus]

The OP of this thread makes the claim that porn is not art, per se. That's what this thread has been about for the past 30 pages have been addressing -- whether or not porn is art, and why. All art forms are different. If they weren't, we wouldn't need to specify the "form" part of "art form". Sculpture is different from oil is different from watercolor is different from film is different from music and so on.

True enough.

However, it would seem that some of your posts, based upon how you've responded to posts addressing yours, have had nothing to do with porn but were instead addressing your own personal art form. Which is NOT the subject. You seem to take being corrected as to what the subject at hand is to be hostility. Not sure why that is.

I am trying to describe where I am coming from, and why. This is impossible without describing my own history a bit. Since the OP concerns art every bit as much as it does porn, I would say that it is pertinent.

You have also failed to offer any evidence that porn is any different than any other art form (not that I really feel that porn is a separate form in and of itself. It is a genre, not a form. Film, is a form. Sculpture is a form. Oil paint is a form. Poetry is a form. Music is a form).

I seemed to have mentioned that it tends to be rather wanting in technical matters, and degree of sophistication concerning elements and features of design, although not in so many words.

If you want to mince word definitions... Film is a media, oil paint is a media... the others, perhaps you could call a form.

You keep throwing around the fact that you're an artist as if it means something to the debate at hand. It doesn't. Some of the biggest and best art critics out there have no artistic talent at all. And some of the brightest artists around today have no understanding of art criticism. Continuing to cite yourself as reference for your claims is an appeal to authority -- the fallacious sort.

It's not so much an appeal to authority as it is an attempt to show where I am coming from. When have I said that you should just accept what I say on the matter because I'm an artist?

You have taken the word "aesthetic" and butchered and mangled it to mean only what YOU personally find attractive. I happen to subscribe to a broader definition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aesthetic :
Please do tell me where the definition excludes that which goes on in pornography. Or maybe what you mean to say is that pornography ignores what YOU consider to be of aesthetic value? Hmm? Where does that definition of "aesthetic" require fancy lighting, non-simple poses, and "unique composition"? Where does it say that anything that does not have those things is automatically a lesser form of art?

Again, I am talking about the displayed technical expertise and design considerations here. I'm sorry if it confuses you.

Do you consider Warhol to be a good artist? Respect his work? If so, you're a hypocrite -- how exactly is a soup can on a flat white background more focused on aesthetics than pornography? Personally, I love Warhol. Especially the soup can. He seized upon a visual image that evoked strong emotions of home, and comfort, in it's viewers. Not to mention the whole birth of the pop art movement thing, which was pretty nifty too.

You say you do abstract art. You mean like the display I saw in a gallery once that was a canvas painted in one single solid color? Is that more or less focused upon aesthetics than porn? Sure, it evoked an emotion in me. One of shock and jealousy that I didn't think of the idea sooner so I could get rich slapping house paint across canvases. Not sure that's what the artist was going for... but... *shrug*

Much of modern art -- from Picasso to Kiefer and onwards, has been involved in breaking the rules we are taught in academia, and saying something about art itself in doing so. I really don't think that this is the intent in porn. The perspective I am applying is a more traditional one because I don't think that porn is trying to make a statement about the nature of art... and because such things are particularly important in commercial art (as opposed to your examples of fine art). It might be interesting to note that Warhol's works are considered a protest of differentiating between the two.

Aesthetics are incredibly important in porn. However, what porn views as aesthetically necessary is different than what you seem to think is aesthetically necessary. Aesthetics are, by definition, subjective. What I find aesthetically pleasing is different than what the guy downstairs from me does.

Yes, there are some exceptions where pornographers actually do appear to have some knowledge of such things. However, I had not noticed that it has anything to do with whether it inspires an erection or not. Hence, a notably different basis for judgement.

It really seems like the problem you have with porn has nothing to do with the actual aesthetics, and everything to do with the subject matter. For some reason, you seem to think that sex is not, and cannot be, aesthetically pleasing without some sort of special lighting or posturing or play acting. At least, that's what comes across in your posts. That sex is nasty and ugly and bad and omg porn might be art, but gosh it's really crappy ****. If that's not how you want to come off, then maybe you might want to rethink your choice of words.

Nope. I've already admitted that it probably has something to do with the similarities to some of my own work (particularly more softcore stuff). I tend to emphasize the differences as a result. I'm actually quite liberal sexually... although I don't tend to mix sex and business.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Much of modern art -- from Picasso to Kiefer and onwards, has been involved in breaking the rules we are taught in academia, and saying something about art itself in doing so. I really don't think that this is the intent in porn.

It is certainly not the intent of much porn (perhaps even most). Commercial viability is often the only concern. It's not intended to be art any more than a portrait taken at Walmart. It's intended to sell.

 

[tesscaline]

True enough.

I am trying to describe where I am coming from, and why. This is impossible without describing my own history a bit. Since the OP concerns art every bit as much as it does porn, I would say that it is pertinent.

Not when you take something you've said about porn, and when called on it, turn around and try to say that you were only talking about how you personally create "art".

I seemed to have mentioned that it tends to be rather wanting in technical matters, and degree of sophistication concerning elements and features of design, although not in so many words.

Whether or not someone adheres to the rote elements of design does not make a specific genre of art less of an art.

If you want to mince word definitions... Film is a media, oil paint is a media... the others, perhaps you could call a form.

Film is both a medium and a form. Film (celluloid) is a medium. A film, as in, a movie, is a form. Painting is a form, whether it be oil or otherwise, yes, oil paint is a medium. Nothing can be A media, as media is the plural of medium.

It's not so much an appeal to authority as it is an attempt to show where I am coming from. When have I said that you should just accept what I say on the matter because I'm an artist?

It becomes an appeal to authority when you keep saying "as an artist" as justification for your statements, which is exactly what you've been doing. "Speaking as an artist, X is the truth", "X is the case, as an artist", "so-and-so would agree with me, as an artist" -- these are all appeals to authority. They're subtle, but they're most definitely there.

Again, I am talking about the displayed technical expertise and design considerations here. I'm sorry if it confuses you.

You seem to be the one confused. I have already pointed out that the particular aesthetics involved in pornography are different than the aesthetics in some other genres. This is no different than other genres of art, i.e. dadaism vs. impressionism or expressionism. All genres of art value different sorts of aesthetics, as well as the results of those aesthetics. You keep arguing that porn is held to some different standard than "the rest of art" while failing to understand that every art genre is held to it's own set of standards, and this has pretty much always been the case. Not to mention that the "technical standards" that you're attempting to hold pornography to don't even really apply to the medium it primarily uses. The principles that apply to still art don't all carry over to film. And on top of that, you're arguing that lack of technical skill by particular artists degrades the level of respect deserved by an entire genre. So, because there are a bunch of unskilled people out there creating crappy abstract art, all abstract art deserves less respect than say, impressionist paintings? Come on. Stop with the logical fallacies already. Especially the logical fallacy of insufficient sample size. Which you are still continuing to use by insisting upon commenting upon porn as a whole while admittedly having watched little of it, and even admittedly avoiding it! You really have NO room to comment upon porn as a whole if you have that little experience with even watching it, let alone it's production.

Much of modern art -- from Picasso to Kiefer and onwards, has been involved in breaking the rules we are taught in academia, and saying something about art itself in doing so. I really don't think that this is the intent in porn. The perspective I am applying is a more traditional one because I don't think that porn is trying to make a statement about the nature of art... and because such things are particularly important in commercial art (as opposed to your examples of fine art). It might be interesting to note that Warhol's works are considered a protest of differentiating between the two.

And here you are differentiating anyway...

This really is a No True Scotsman fallacy here. Porn isn't respectable art because... It breaks academic rules without commenting on the nature of art itself? What does something have to "say something about" before you consider it valid? Is it possible that porn is commenting on something else entirely that you haven't even thought of? Porn isn't respectable art because... It's been commercialized? But you seem to respect industrial design well enough to link a design elements wiki page at me, and you create fine art yourself -- something that everyone and their dog has posters of on their office cubical wall these days. How much money is someone allowed to make off a piece of art before it's too commercialized for you to respect? How much "technical skill" must someone have before they can be respected as an artist? Hm?

Yes, there are some exceptions where pornographers actually do appear to have some knowledge of such things. However, I had not noticed that it has anything to do with whether it inspires an erection or not. Hence, a notably different basis for judgement.

See, this is where you come off as thinking badly about sex. What, exactly, is wrong with wanting to inspire an erection? Do you disagree that sexual desire is an emotion? Because you really talk about it as if it's a bad thing for people to want to give other people erections.

Nope. I've already admitted that it probably has something to do with the similarities to some of my own work (particularly more softcore stuff). I tend to emphasize the differences as a result. I'm actually quite liberal sexually... although I don't tend to mix sex and business.

I'm sorry, but your comments here really lend to an entirely different conclusion. Everything you're complaining about about porn really stems from the subject matter, and has nothing to do with the actual "art" of it. You seem to be offended by porn in some way. The idea that your own work could possibly be mistaken for porn offends you as well. And yet, you can come up with no objection to porn that cannot be made about any other form or genre of art. What other conclusion could someone possibly come to other than that you have some sort of personal issue with sex and/or sexual arousal? I'm not attempting to personalize the discussion here, I'm just saying what your claims and statements say to me -- mainly that they have nothing to do with porn itself, and everything to do with you instead.

 

[John Albert]

A fixation on the boob is a distraction from drawing a hand, for instance.

Case in point:

Seriously though, the old "it's not art" argument is a cop-out. Just because you have a moral or aesthetic objection to explicit portrayals of human sexuality, that doesn't give you the authority to appoint yourself the universal arbiter of what works should be deemed "art" or "not art."

Of course pornography is art. It is a human representation of reality intended to evoke an emotional and/or intellectual response, which is the very definition of art. Pornography is art created with the specific intent of evoking sexual thoughts and feelings, just as art might be created to evoke any other ideas and/or emotions in the spectrum of human experience.

If it was created with the deliberate intention of evoking an emotional response from other humans, then it is art by definition.

Instead of arguing over what is or isn't art, the more important and pertinent question ought to be, is it good art or bad art?

At the risk of being deemed some kind of wretched, immoral porn-hound, I will even posit that there is indeed good pornography as well as bad. However, the main aesthetic problem with porn is the same problem we see in other popular media like pop music, sitcoms, comic books and romance novels. All those art forms have in common a very high ratio of crap to quality; lots of derivative, cliched garbage in relation to innovative and compelling material.

Furthermore, pornography is an extremely lucrative business with an outrageously high demand. High market demand and low production overhead (in the absence of a monopoly) equals a high profit potential and a wide variety of products. Because human sexuality is varied and complex, porn naturally caters to a diversity of tastes and niche markets. For economic reasons, the vast majority of pornography is extremely formulaic, calculated to appeal to the broadest, most banal of tastes. Given all these market conditions, it shouldn't be surprising that there's a metric ****-ton of extremely low-quality, really bad stuff out there.

That being said, I'm not prepared to start delving into the relative qualities of good and bad porn on this forum.

 

[tesscaline]

Case in point:
http://www.museumofbadart.org/coll6/image11.jpg

Seriously though, the old "it's not art" argument is a cop-out. Just because you have a moral or aesthetic objection to explicit portrayals of human sexuality, that doesn't give you the authority to appoint yourself the universal arbiter of what works should be deemed "art" or "not art."

Of course pornography is art. It is a human representation of reality intended to evoke an emotional and/or intellectual response, which is the very definition of art. Pornography is art created with the specific intent of evoking sexual thoughts and feelings, just as art might be created to evoke any other ideas and/or emotions in the spectrum of human experience.

If it was created with the deliberate intention of evoking an emotional response from other humans, then it is art by definition.

Instead of arguing over what is or isn't art, the more important and pertinent question ought to be, is it good art or bad art?

At the risk of being deemed some kind of wretched, immoral porn-hound, I will even posit that there is indeed good pornography as well as bad. However, the main aesthetic problem with porn is the same problem we see in other popular media like pop music, sitcoms, comic books and romance novels. All those art forms have in common a very high ratio of crap to quality; lots of derivative, cliched garbage in relation to innovative and compelling material.

Furthermore, pornography is an extremely lucrative business with an outrageously high demand. High market demand and low production overhead (in the absence of a monopoly) equals a high profit potential and a wide variety of products. Because human sexuality is varied and complex, porn naturally caters to a diversity of tastes and niche markets. For economic reasons, the vast majority of pornography is extremely formulaic, calculated to appeal to the broadest, most banal of tastes. Given all these market conditions, it shouldn't be surprising that there's a metric ****-ton of extremely low-quality, really bad stuff out there.

That being said, I'm not prepared to start delving into the relative qualities of good and bad porn on this forum.

Thank you!

I'm not really willing to delve into the whole "good or bad" argument either, as such things are so entirely subjective that it's rather pointless to discuss them.

 

[John Albert]

I don't happen to like Rihanna's music or Oliver Stone's movies, but I'm not about to sit here and argue that they're not art.

 

[Manopolus]

Not when you take something you've said about porn, and when called on it, turn around and try to say that you were only talking about how you personally create "art"...

You are reading a lot more into it than what I am actually posting... I see no point in continuing the argument as such, particularly since we don't seem to disagree nearly so much as you claim. Our main point of contention seems to be the exact nature of what I am saying, not its actual content.

 

[not daSkeptic]

You are reading a lot more into it than what I am actually posting...

I read it that way too, quite honestly.

 

[Belz...]

Seriously though, the old "it's not art" argument is a cop-out. Just because you have a moral or aesthetic objection to explicit portrayals of human sexuality, that doesn't give you the authority to appoint yourself the universal arbiter of what works should be deemed "art" or "not art."

Of course pornography is art. It is a human representation of reality intended to evoke an emotional and/or intellectual response, which is the very definition of art. Pornography is art created with the specific intent of evoking sexual thoughts and feelings, just as art might be created to evoke any other ideas and/or emotions in the spectrum of human experience.

If it was created with the deliberate intention of evoking an emotional response from other humans, then it is art by definition.

Instead of arguing over what is or isn't art, the more important and pertinent question ought to be, is it good art or bad art?

At the risk of being deemed some kind of wretched, immoral porn-hound, I will even posit that there is indeed good pornography as well as bad. However, the main aesthetic problem with porn is the same problem we see in other popular media like pop music, sitcoms, comic books and romance novels. All those art forms have in common a very high ratio of crap to quality; lots of derivative, cliched garbage in relation to innovative and compelling material.

Furthermore, pornography is an extremely lucrative business with an outrageously high demand. High market demand and low production overhead (in the absence of a monopoly) equals a high profit potential and a wide variety of products. Because human sexuality is varied and complex, porn naturally caters to a diversity of tastes and niche markets. For economic reasons, the vast majority of pornography is extremely formulaic, calculated to appeal to the broadest, most banal of tastes. Given all these market conditions, it shouldn't be surprising that there's a metric ****-ton of extremely low-quality, really bad stuff out there.

That being said, I'm not prepared to start delving into the relative qualities of good and bad porn on this forum.

Why didn't you simply post this as #2, right after the OP ? That way we could've avoided 30 pages of Southwind.

 

[dann]

Wikipedia appears to have a similar definition of art:

Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art

It isn't true, however. If it were, a massage chair would be art, and trying to scare somebody would be art.

Hegel's definition of art is the "sensuous appearance of the idea", which, by the way, is why you often have to make an effort to understand it:

Sagten wir nun, die Schönheit sei Idee, so ist Schönheit und Wahrheit einerseits dasselbe. Das Schöne nämlich muß wahr an sich selbst sein. Näher aber unterscheidet sich ebensosehr das Wahre von dem Schönen. Wahr nämlich ist die Idee, wie sie als Idee ihrem Ansich und allgemeinen Prinzip nach ist und als solches gedacht wird. Dann ist nicht ihre sinnliche und äußere Existenz, sondern in dieser nur die allgemeine Idee für das Denken. Doch die Idee soll sich auch äußerlich realisieren und bestimmte vorhandene Existenz als natürliche und geistige Objektivität gewinnen. Das Wahre, das als solches ist, existiert auch. Indem es nun in diesem seinem äußerlichen Dasein unmittelbar für das Bewußtsein ist und der Begriff unmittelbar in Einheit bleibt mit seiner äußeren Erscheinung, ist die Idee nicht nur wahr, sondern schön. Das Schöne bestimmt sich dadurch als das sinnliche Scheinen der Idee. Denn das Sinnliche und Objektive überhaupt bewahrt in der Schönheit keine Selbständigkeit in sich, sondern hat die Unmittelbarkeit seines Seins aufzugeben, da dies Sein nur Dasein und Objektivität des Begriffs und als eine Realität gesetzt ist, die den Begriff als in Einheit mit seiner Objektivität und deshalb in diesem objektiven Dasein, das nur als Scheinen des Begriffs gilt, die Idee selber zur Darstellung bringt.

I haven't been able to find an English translation, but it comes very close to Alexander Pope's "something, whose truth (!) convinced at sight we find".
Truth, however, doesn't appear to be essential to porn. Only because the whole genre is so obviously fake does the adamant interest in genuine cum shots exist: the need of proof that at least that part is real is responsible for the revival of coitus interruptus in the day and age of efficient contraception.

 

[JFrankA]

Wikipedia appears to have a similar definition of art:

It isn't true, however. If it were, a massage chair would be art, and trying to scare somebody would be art.

Hegel's definition of art is the "sensuous appearance of the idea", which, by the way, is why you often have to make an effort to understand it:

I haven't been able to find an English translation, but it comes very close to Alexander Pope's "something, whose truth (!) convinced at sight we find".
Truth, however, doesn't appear to be essential to porn. Only because the whole genre is so obviously fake does the adamant interest in genuine cum shots exist: the need of proof that at least that part is real is responsible for the revival of coitus interruptus in the day and age of efficient contraception.

DANN!!!! YOU'RE HERE!!!! OMG I was wondering when you'd show up!!!! Wow!

*Gives you a big hug*

By the way, that statement is a load of rubbish. Because if I took your statement to be right, then you are saying that people who perform magic isn't doing art either. Magic is lieing, deception and misdirection. So if you are going to say that porn isn't art because doesn't contain truth, then you are saying that magic performance isn't art either.

Oh, how about regular movies? Star Wars or Indiana Jones can't be considered art either. Wait. Wait. I'm not done! I can go on and on about television shows.

I was in the museum of arts in Boston several years ago, and one artist had a plastic bag duck taped to a broken two by four. Is that truth? Who duct tapes plastic bags to wood? Is that art?

....I can continue...

But I will end with this: people have sex. And there's a whole section of porn called, coincidentally, "reality porn". That is, real people who have real sex without all the right lighting, make up, perfect bodies, scripted lines, expensive cameras or even editing and film people having sex.

By your statement, isn't that truth and therefore art?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

And porn CAN be artistic (i.e. art, though Southwind will disagree).

No, no. He would not disagree. His argument is that porn indeed can be artistic, but that it can't be porn per se.

 

[John Albert]

Wikipedia appears to have a similar definition of art:

It isn't true, however. If it were, a massage chair would be art, and trying to scare somebody would be art.

Design is the application of artistic sensibilities to the creation of functional objects. A massage chair could be "art," just as a Greek amphora could be considered "just a jug."

As for trying to scare somebody, if you're talking about an actor in a play or on a movie screen or a performer in a haunted house, then that activity would fall squarely into the category of the performance arts. Same goes for stage magicians or individuals performing street theater or "culture-jamming" episodes.

Hegel's definition of art is the "sensuous appearance of the idea", which, by the way, is why you often have to make an effort to understand it:

I haven't been able to find an English translation, but it comes very close to Alexander Pope's "something, whose truth (!) convinced at sight we find".
Truth, however, doesn't appear to be essential to porn.

In order to answer the question, we need a clear, concise, and objective definition of what constitutes art. If you want to get all philosophical about this, we're never going to reach an answer. Philosophy is concerned with wrangling over indefinite and elusive ideas, not the solution of real problems.

To say something like "the sensuous appearance of the idea" may sound poetic, but far too vague and subjective to be useful. Some guys might argue that there's nothing more sensuous than the histrionics of their favorite porn starlet's orgasm. Your Alexander Pope quotation is similarly vague and magical in nature, and quite wrong to boot. Taken literally, Pope's "art" would effectively exclude any form of fantasy, expressionism or non-objective art. By Pope's definition, technological advances in the arts would have resulted in an historical progression of incresingly 'better' art, and technical genres such as hyper-realism, film journalism and crime photography would have rendered all previous art obsolete.

Only because the whole genre is so obviously fake does the adamant interest in genuine cum shots exist: the need of proof that at least that part is real is responsible for the revival of coitus interruptus in the day and age of efficient contraception.

Assuming cum shots exist solely as proof of authenticity is rather presumptuous. Cum shots aren't necessary -- or even extant -- in all porn. They don't exist in soft-core porn, or in some S&M porn, and they only occasionally exist in female-masturbation porn, among other genres.

I submit that art cannot be defined by the content of its subject matter, but solely by its creator's intent to evoke a response from the viewer/audience. If it is created with the intention of evoking an intellectual and/or emotional response, then it's art. Once you get to the point of considering the contents of a work of art, you've embarked upon the act of critique, by which point you necessarily have acknowledged it as "art." One does not critique things that are not art.