Art verus porn

[shadowfax]

Where is the thin line between porn and the artistic use of nudity and erotic imagery?

Is this form of an art but an alternative for those who don't want to associate with pornography but seek a more socially acceptable alternative to stimulate their fantasies? Or is there a real artistic component which is independent of the erotic undertones which such art may convey? Or are both so interconnected that there is no point in trying to separate them?

It is often said that one of the main vices of pornography is that it is degrading to women. Is the same true of artistic nudity?

[Boba,Obi Wan,Jango]

Ummm. :jawdrop:
well porn is,well,different.

Matt hades::paw::coffee:

[Jammin]

I prefer porn, definitely!

Oops...

Sorry...

Thought this was a poll!

:bounce:

[Boba,Obi Wan,Jango]

hehehehehe :bounce:

Matt hades::paw::coffee:

[Johnny D]

i think this is specifically true concerning anime.

[JB2unique]

The human body should be appreciated by all means. Nudity, in sexual situations or not for me is art.

[shadowfax]

The human body should be appreciated by all means. Nudity, in sexual situations or not for me is art.

Just because it is pleasant to behold, is it art?
After the arrival of my pay cheque, my bank statement is pleasant to behold (a situation which unfortunately doesn't last very long). But I wouldn't venture to call it art.

[Johnny D]

the subject should not determine if something is art or not. The manner in which it is portrayed determines its purpose and category.

[Jammin]

the subject should not determine if something is art or not. The manner in which it is portrayed determines its purpose and category.

Indeed. An unmade bed in a bedroom is a mess, in an art gallery it wins the Turner prize!

The context is everything.

Also, porn conjures up the idea of exploitation, art does not.

It is often said that one of the main vices of pornography is that it is degrading to women. Is the same true of artistic nudity?

I don't think so. Art usually displays female nudity in terms of its form and beauty, whereas porn displays it in terms of gratification to men. In this case, the intent determines the classification.

[shadowfax]

I don't think so. Art usually displays female nudity in terms of its form and beauty, whereas porn displays it in terms of gratification to men. In this case, the intent determines the classification.

I tend to agree.
But does this answer the question or is it a circular argument?

How de we know that nude art is not a special form of 'very soft porn' that is more socially acceptable, and that the argument of celebrating and upholding beauty is just part of the structure to uphold that. After all, promoting beauty is a difficult criterium to define and even more difficult to judge against because it is so totally subjective.

Mind you, I'm not saying I think that art is porn. I think this type of art is okay. But I'm playing the devil's advocate in trying to find out whether the difference is as clear as we think.

There is definitely some overlap between the two, and there are cases which, depending on how liberal you are, you would judge one way or the other.

[inked]

I am afraid that the attribution of "intent to gratification of men" is an inadequate designation of pornography, for it fails to include non-heterosexual exploitations both male and female. But that is a side issue.

Pornography is famously described in America by a judicial statement - "I may not be able to define it, but I know pornography when I see it." I cannot recall the occasion or author right now.

I think that given my concept of the role of art (see Art and Society thread), one can distinguish between art, "soft" porn and "hardcore" porn. But we are also talking in terms of various cultural understandings of acceptable depiction. Under general Western civilization conventions, depiction of the nude is not intrinsically pornographic even if offends social sensibility. In Islamic cultures, exposure of the ankle may merit an execution.

Historically in Western Civilization, particularly after the ascendency of Christianity, art included nudity in ways that respected the body. The denigration of art in the past 2 centuries can roughly be traced to the cultural embrasure of the mechanistic-deterministic view of humanity. The descent from the view of the body as the vessel of the spirit to merely the accident of random atomic interactions without meaning or purpose to the depiction of the depravities of which some are capable is not really surprising.
It reflects visually the underlying nilhilism of the philosophical miliue. Pornography is a visual representation of the descent from valuing humanity to using humanity for self-gratification. In this case pornography mimics life; since there is no intrinsic worth in the random arrangement of atoms that has a person's form, the ascription to it of the status of merely an object for the gratification of the stronger at the expense of the weaker is a reality. Think of it as the debunking of the worth of the human and pornography its visual representation.

Art is that which elevates; pornograhy degrades. Art may not always be beautiful; pornography may not always be ugly. What is needed is discernment. I do not think it necessary that pornography masquerading as art need be subsidized by government. And I think the line can be clearly drawn. You, too, know the difference when you see it!

[Jammin]

I do agree that the perspective of the viewer is important and also that this is subjective. One man's art is another man's porn etc.

Also the social attitudes of the day, a persons moral and religious standpoints are contributory. I'm thinking specfically about the type of scenes you can see on television nowadays that 20-30 years ago would be unheard of and also, in the UK at least, the defacing of advertising posters displaying bare flesh by some religious groups that find it offensive.

[SandMan]

Art is nice, porn is better.

LONG LIVE THE PORN!!!!!

[Camech]

Once certain bodily muscles/orifices are expanded to a size beyond which is realistically possible, it becomes porn.

[Mike of Quantum Muse]

I think that given my concept of the role of art (see Art and Society thread), one can distinguish between art, "soft" porn and "hardcore" porn. But we are also talking in terms of various cultural understandings of acceptable depiction. Under general Western civilization conventions, depiction of the nude is not intrinsically pornographic even if offends social sensibility. In Islamic cultures, exposure of the ankle may merit an execution.

It is in the "offending of social sensibilities" that we often get the "is it art or porn?" argument.

Art is that which elevates; pornograhy degrades. Art may not always be beautiful; pornography may not always be ugly. What is needed is discernment. I do not think it necessary that pornography masquerading as art need be subsidized by government. And I think the line can be clearly drawn. You, too, know the difference when you see it!

I disagree. Not all art elevates. Some intentionally does not.

And the line is drawn in radically different places by different groups. I can't see my Baptist in laws not seeing Ruben's "Persues Freeing Andromeda" as porn, but it's also clearly Art. And pornography, if you look at the look in Perseus' eyes. He's resucing her from a monster, but his intentions for her are no less clear than were the monster's, and less nutritionally necessary. And her expression is the most artistic combination of coy and lewd than I have ever seen captured on canvas. The painting is more sexaully suggestive than anything in Playboy.

But it's Rubens and he's brilliant.

The current Sin City, the, movie and even more so the comic, has been called both art and porn, with justification. It's clearly a very stylized, "artistic" rendering of images, but they are not uplifting, and can easily be lumped into porn. Does that make Frank Miller not an artist? Or Robert Rodriguez?

I say they are artists, but since they are selling their aret like good Capitalists and not relying oin govt money, they can avoid the whole art/porn argument.

I dodge the issue by believing, as a good Libertarian, that no art should be subsidized by the government. The governments job is to protect us while we make art, not pay us to do it.

[RobRoy]

Once certain bodily muscles/orifices are expanded to a size beyond which is realistically possible, it becomes porn.

So then something labeled "barely legal" wherein the . . . actresses are of smaller measurements would be considered art?

Interesting.

[Camech]

It was actually an inside joke. It refers to a story a friend of mine told me, but in the spirit of a PG-rated board, I can't share it.

[RobRoy]

It was actually an inside joke. It refers to a story a friend of mine told me, but in the spirit of a PG-rated board, I can't share it.

Fair enough. Then I take it your argument was not intended to be taken seriously.