Eh? I can't just accept that it's an "I know it when I see it" thing. Er, I can, actually... but still think this kind if info is potentially useful to me as an artist, whether I end up flouting it or not :-p
In working on a collection of fine art nude paintings (some semi-covered, some totally nude), I've become curious about where different people draw that line. So... do tell.
I know it when I see it.... ^_^;;;;; :p
It would depend on who is making the shots/editing/artwork and their intention in doing so. I define porn as something designed to arouse humans and stimulate their sexual imagination...
Check the pick tumblr links or whatever it is called that people post in their sigs. You're going to get artist in no time. Anyway, don't mean to offend my EII duals, who are artists and find it okay.
By the way, what do you self type as currently - Beta?
Oh okay. I've been on a 'bash all quadras except of mine roll' lately. Don't mind me.
Easy: usually anything depicting an erect penis or something being inserted into a vagina is porn.
Not really. The difference is the lighting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scapegrace
this.Quote:
Originally Posted by HandiAce
Art seems to use aesthetic considerations in order to create the titillation. Whereas with porn you take the state of arousal and work backwards around that.
There's a huge cross over - and much art IS meant to be sexually charged. The process is just inverted (usually- depending on concept). Maybe. I'm tired and can't articulate this well.
I get paid 15$/hr to sit and pose and not move for a few hours (and nap) for an art class, not to get things inserted inside me, either by myself or anyone else. And I don't spread out my sex organs for all to ogle. There's a difference for you.
Maybe I should go into porn though; I was described as being very frank about my nudity. But then, I think that if you're in a situation like that, you're either all in or not at all. There isn't really room for shame or embarrassment when you're naked center-stage with a bunch of people drawing you in weird positions.
I happen to think of most porn as art.
I think the major difference is between obscenity and art.
There are some porn that is obscenity, like snuff/bestiality/pedophilia, but most of these involve abuse, gross abuse and depravity of a individual or animal and various illegal and malicious things.
This line has some murky areas too generally based in religion, traditions and cultural values.
Think of Kate Middleton and Kim Kardashian as two calibrated opposites. If you can easily imagine Kim Kardashian doing it (on purpose) but not Kate Middleton, it's probably porn.
It's a difficult line, I agree with hkkmr in the obscenity versus art.
But to expand further in my own way
I think the goal or intent of pornography is its explicit and is there solely for sexual gratification of the user
I think the goal of erotic art however is to express sexuality which can have an impression and is not always explicit
This of course has overlapping because erotic art may intend to express something about human sexuality but function as an aid for sexual gratification, while pornography may intend to be used as an explicit aid for sexual gratification but actually invoke an impression in the viewer and actually function as a tool towards the expression of human sexuality.
The real line is drawn as a subjective agreement of the individual and society, certain types of sexual media are considered by the vast majority of society to be obscene and there solely for sexual gratification, while the vast majority of society sees other sexual media as less focused on sexual gratification and more focused on the expression of human sexuality. While certain stuff like a picture of a nude woman sketched is usually considered art on one extreme spectrum and hardcore throat fucking porn dvds considered pornography at the other, inevitably there is always going to be a hazy boundary that has to be crossed where society is fractured. Further there are always going to be individuals as outliers that see the most extreme pornography as art and even the most classy rendition of a nude woman sketched as smutty pornography.
The division itself is a mute point as it is what it is, but the label matters only in the social context of the situation. Pornography is usually regarded as a tool used for a person's entertainment or sexual gratification, its explicit, and obscene, but usually not smutty. Erotic art is usually regarded as something which expresses sexuality and make evoke feelings in the viewer but is not intended for sexual gratification or at least in an explicit sense. Smut is usually regarded as a more gritty form of pornography in which the sexual gratification is derived from something especially taboo, disgusting, forbidden. Not all "smut" may actually involve abuse or malicious intent, as it may be a consensual act in which actors depict something taboo. It can even be argued that smut is in fact a sort of art in order to challenge taboos. Ultimately its a difficult determination as an absolute law with fixed rules.
Not to further mess with your minds but consent is a shady issue as someone who is especially traumatized or abused may feign consent so as not to upset their abuser, something like stockholm syndrome. Society then may claim they need to determine the correct course of action in place of the individual, but then one could always argue that society itself is just another abuser trying to brainwash the individual towards their own end.
This is why I say ultimately its a subjective relationship between the individual and society. Not all societys or factions or subfactions or individuals may regard this all the same way, and an individual themselves can be conflicted as to where that hardline is drawn.
Usually for me I regard something explicit to the point of leaving little to ponderance or the imagination pornography, I regard anything which makes me feel sick as smut, anything which makes me seriously question the welfare of the participants as malicious smut, and anything which leaves a little to the imagination and doesn't explicitly show sex acts as erotic art.
Generally I deal mostly with what I consider to be at the boundary of erotic art and pornography, I usually avoid things I feel smutty as I don't think its good for me to travel into that realm, and I will sometimes push more into the erotic art side when I feel like I need to use my imagination more and feel desensitized by overly explicit things. Also I tend to be more liberal about sexuality than the typical American Conservative or Christian, but don't feel like my interests in sexuality push the line compared to the typical American Liberal. I generally view erotic art as useful in the process of understanding human sexuality at a deeper level and in helping stoke creativity and libidinal energies, and generally regard any participants with respect. I generally view pornography as a tool to relieve excess sexual tension and don't value it more than actual relationships with people or things which I consider art. When I encounter smut, I usually head in the opposite direction but view the experience as a darker exploration of taboos -- I also look at filming executions as another form of smut, this acting on the death side of the id, rather than the life side of the id.
That's just me, like I said its mindfuckingly complex and usually I don't like to think about it too much because my head will start to spin out of confusion.
A good part of it has to do with the conveyed intentions and motivations of the people portrayed. A lot of times porn actors and models are just that: actors. A majority of the time, bad ones. They over-exaggerate their facial expressions, show themselves off to a large degree, and ultimately are aware that there's an audience watching that they're obligated to impress somehow. I find that more "artistic" depictions of nudity demonstrate little to no awareness of anything towards the artist's perspective, and if they do their expressions and poses don't represent overt sexual allure. Say someone draws a naked figure: if you can imagine the person fully clothed, in the same pose and with the same facial expression, and still infer sexual desire from it, then it'll likely be more pornographic than not. By this metric, I'd be hard pressed to find someone (from this generation) who would Michelangelo's David or Botticelli's Birth of Venus explicitly pornographic, since their nudity is more or less incidental.
I agree in terms of the relationship between the observer and observed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galen
What makes the porn industry the porn industry and not an art house is because the actress is fucking in front of the camera for the sole purpose of getting you off and the man behind the scenes is turning out products to get you off in exchange for money and the person watching it is paying out cash to get off.
However one interesting area of consideration is when the observer and observed don't agree... you can have the person who regards pornography as masterworks of art while the people producing it are just turning it out for profit to get people off, likewise you can have the artist producing what they consider a masterwork of art while the audience is just gobbling it up to get off but regards it will little more respect than something to stimulate themselves.
I for example regardless of how much of an artist Justin Bieber thinks himself to be, I have troubling seeing his music as anything more than soft pornography that is niche marketed to preteen girls by marketing geniuses. However I'd guess there are some people that will unto their deathbeds regard stuff like that as there personal holy grail -- its just not for me though. In reality social trends fluctuate (justin bieber will be overtaken by the next fad) and its very rare an artist will actually survive the sands of time but it happens, and even then I'm sure there are tons of great works and people lost to time.
I think overtime though if any type of utopia is ever possible and there is any meaning to life at a grand scheme what so ever, then this would look like things approaching more towards a social census by both the observer and observed on things being regarded as art and less on "pornography". Then again maybe its all just lies and everything anyone regards with respect and considers "art" and places on a pedestal as a pillar of culture and expression of something higher is just "pornography". The point though I personally feel is entirely irrelevant as people are both observers and participants so life is what you make it-- I'd personally in my own sphere of control or will rather make art than pornography.
The orgasm as art. It's really great I think!
http://www.criminalwisdom.com/hyster...orgasm-as-art/
Thank you, everyone, for your responses! It's been really interesting to read through these.
@FoxOnStilts That is really cool -- I would love to do that sometime. Like @Fireyed, not as an exhibitionist, but just because I think it would be a really interesting experience, and just one more way to be involved with creating art.
There's no line between those two. Meditate on pornographic art or artistic porn and the conceptual line between those two.
It's also interesting how it is bound to the context. As soon as there is a break the model usually wraps himself/herself in a coat or something. Kind of like dancing. You can be intensely close to someone when dancing Bachata, but when the dance is over the context changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxOnStilts
I think some porn stars are ILE. Tanner Mayes is possibly one.
If it's made with the sole purpose of being jerked off to, it's porn.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by squirreltual
Intention.
Yes, I have a robe after I start moving around, and they have a changing room where you change into/out of the robe. It is very interesting, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowisthetime
Also, the professor asked if I was avaliable next semester, so I guess my "frankness" was a good thing. It was probably just because they were freshmen who have never worked with a nude model before. Crisis averted! I definitely got a little neurotic trying to decide if it was good or bad. >>
I agree also that there isn't much room for embarassement in that situation. I've attended these nude drawing courses sometimes, and the model just becomes an object or shape, because one has to concentrate so much on the task. It doesn't feel sexual, even if the model happens to be good looking. People can also comment on how the model looks, and give compliments to the model, but it's not the sexual kind of compliment, more about the structure/shape of the body, pleasing lines etc. I can imagine though, that these kind of sessions can trigger sexual feelings also, maybe actually because of this precise switching of outlook between shape and real person.Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxOnStilts
I would say, "if it turns you on, it's porn", but, then a girl walking around in shorts might be porn to some people. According to definition, it does seem to do with intent. So, if a girl walks around naked with no intention of causing sexual excitement, that's not porn. :) Art that is created without intent to cause sexual excitement would not be porn. However, who's to say the artist is telling the truth. "Oh, it's just art!"
So, in the instance of trying to determine "what is porn and what is art?", there really is no way to obtain a 100% true answer, unless you are the one creating the art or porn.
I think this is a position I can also take. Just because it's art doesn't mean it's artistically valuable. In the end, art is a communication between the artist and the viewer, and the effectiveness of that communication is how I rate artistic merit. Therefore, if you feel that the creator of this pornography was trying to tell you something and you understand it, then it is art.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vois
Do it, don't you have a lot of pictures of models and stuff? Maybe you should get into that if you enjoy that sort of thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fireyed
Yea this is what I think as well, at certain level art becomes so shitty that it's essentially just porn. I guess though since "shitty" is subjective everyone will have there own criteria though so its still a little annoying. But as for me I'm not going to consider MILFS Like it Big No. 25 as anything on the same level as a Kubrick Film, but some people may *shrug*.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vois
I've found lots of art to be intentionally sexually exciting without it being classified as porn. When people ask whether, say, Game of Thrones is art or porn, I'm inclined to say that the question shouldn't have an "or" since they are not mutually exclusive.Quote:
Originally Posted by jet city woman
Whoa whoa whoa, let's not bring MILFS Like it Big No. 25 into this.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man From Nantucket
Serious discussions at twelve o'clock.
You could certainly use a different definition for porn (some of the more obscure definitions might fit your ideas, in the case that you aren't taking into account intent). In this instance, I used the mirriam-webster definition, which includes intent. In the case of your first sentence, art doesn't have to be classified as porn to include pornography, or for me to label it "porn" or "possible porn". In this case, I would label it "possible porn" or assume "porn", depending, not to say that would classify it as "porn", or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquagraph
I prefer to see it on a technical basis, as much as possible. "Is it created with intent, or is it not?" This defines porn for me. The quality of the work does not define pornography for me, any more than the quality of the work defines "horror film". If it was created with intent to cause sexual excitement, then it's porn. With some porn being created using artistic methods and obviously created to be appealing to the senses and aesthetically attractive, it could be a form of art. So, a work can be both art and porn, from a more subjective outlook. In fact, according to definition, porn could also be art most or all of the time, if that's the way a person wanted to see it. There are blurry lines.
In the case of art being created with intent to be sexually exciting, if I know for a fact that it was created with the intention of causing sexual excitement, then I would label it as porn (and maybe art, depending). (In some cases, a flick could be created mostly with other intent, but with a few porn scenes included which I would consider "light porn". This isn't really classified as a porn flick to me.)
In the case of my previous post, that more had to do with "what do I label porn, and what don't I (art instead, or neither). What is porn? Where is the line between art and porn and what is the difference between them, which is the question the OP referred to. Some directors label their possible-porn "art" in order to appeal to a certain segment, while saying that their movies aren't porn.... and I seriously doubt it. When the definition has to do with obtaining a true answer from the artist or director, there is no 100% trustworthy answer as to whether it's porn or not in some cases, and they are denying intent and/or using different definitions, and that was my original point. So, "is it "art", or is it porn (or neither, or both)?" in that case...... I don't know for sure, but if I had to guess, it would be porn and possibly art, depending on the subjective view of the on-looker. (In my case, I would say it's probably- porn in these instances, and it's not artistic to me... I wouldn't actually label cookie-cutters as "art", nor would I label biting into an apple "art". This paragraph describes why I used the "or", within context, from my previous post). And, I think many times that people are assuming it was created to be intentionally sexually exciting (with reason).
I really don't have a strong opinion on the matter, but I do find it irritating when these directors disclaim "porn" and claim "art", when it seems that "porn" is true, and this seems to be a theme in the adult industry. (And, my point also was that you could and can get away with calling it art and not porn, when your true intention is to cause sexual excitement.)
There is a much better, more practical definition for porn:
Anything that if hospitalized, you'd be concerned of anyone discovering in your computer's history is porn.
Well I don't see the difference in what I said and you said, but ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vois
My new persona is "The Man from Nantucket", I can't exactly do justice to that being polite and proper now can I?Quote:
Originally Posted by JWC3
Beauty is in the eye the beholder, so is art it seems.
Yea I understand that but I don't think what I said is logically incompatible. If you consider porn is a kind of art, and most porn is shitty art, then by analogy someone could say that really shitty art in another sphere of reference is essentially just "porn". And whatever line exists that distinguishes the "shitty art porn" from the "fine art porn" may exist for other types of art.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vois
I think it fits because porn is usually erotic and entertains people but at some deeper and subtler level (imo) its very hallow and empty. It's shallow. I think you could extend the lessons from this debate to other areas of art in general. Certain things are simply entertainment and gets people excited, but its shallow and empty on a deeper level. While other stuff may be subtler and impact people on a deeper level. Unfortunately this line is probably subjective.
Anyways yes I know this is not exactly what you said, but I don't see how its incompatible logically with what you said. If porn is a kind of art, and it can be shitty or good, then other stuff that is art may also share this property of being shitty or good, in fact its easy to observe this with say music, people argue all the time over pop music being shallow versus fine art music or which modern musician is intelligent or soulful or what is actually art and what is just crap turned out by marketing executive to make profit on clueless consumers with bad taste.
Everything you said is subjective, you're talking about art in the first place and offering your(?) fine judgment on matters art. Porn is autoeroticism and the intent of a pornographic film is to show sex, most of it being camera work of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man From Nantucket
There is a film, a torture porn film, and the director of it received numerous death threats after its screening, and well some people from some organisation actually killed him.
Thing is, art gets political like most things (it represents your beliefs and so on) and it all depends on which side you're on and how far are you willing to go. People take sides, this forum is no different, even by not choosing a side you choose one.
As for the aesthetics art comes with, like I said before, beauty is the eye of the beholder and I have always found it hilarious seeing people who produce art to flip and defend it tooth and claw, leveling the infidels with rhetoric whilst the infidels do the same to one true believers (infidels).
Well its an analogy I guess and a 13 year old nephew's crayon drawing being porn isn't really compatible as its not really capturing the essence of the issue. That's like saying seeing a child nude while changing there diaper is porn because the nudity isn't art, no its not porn, but its quite shitty. Really I just meant it in the practical context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vois
I guess what your saying is porn is shitty art, but shitty art is not porn always. And I agree but that's not what I was trying to express originally is all I'm saying.
Actually I'm not offering my fine judgment on the matter, I'm just saying that I've observed that most people have their preferences on what they prefer or consider art.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absurd
Yes that's a pretty straightforward definition of pornography, but seeing as how it creates a sense of stimulation and entertainment that's usually not regarded as especially "deep" or meaningful, I think the analogy could be extended to other types of art. So long as someone doesn't get carried away with it rigidly and starts making odd connections like a 13 yr old's crayon drawing is pornography. Regardless that's the analogy, but yes in practicality your definition is correct.Quote:
Porn is autoeroticism and the intent of a pornographic film is to show sex, most of it being camera work of course.
Exactly, there was also an artist in America who did a picture of Jesus Christ on a Crucifix put into a vial of his Urine and called it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ . I think he had received money from taxpayers and this outraged senators. He received death threats and all sort of things. In this case I'm sure many people considered his work to be disgusting and vile much like many people regard some really smutty porn to be. I don't know why but I find this sort of issue interesting, I personally don't get off on especially smutty stuff personally, but I know its out there and I know about the controversy that exists... that's the aspect that interests me.Quote:
There is a film, a torture porn film, and the director of it received numerous death threats after its screening, and well some people from some organisation actually killed him.
It's also the fact that it seems like the picture in the first place is only mildly offensive, but then once it hits the media, everyone takes something small and balloons it to huge levels, almost in a way there concern for having everything proper and nice kind of destroys their original intention by calling more attention to what they find disgusting. It's like the difference between a musician who yells and bitches at someone for playing a wrong note once versus a musician who will try to change their own playing to ease the harshness of a misplaced note.
Anyways that's the aspect that really interests me, is how to handle these differences in opinions intelligently in a realistic situation. With pornography versus art I can see the extension to issues about whether or not a person is a whore or an innocent angel and several others, so naturally I find it a curious case to explore deeper because failed relationships and being cheated on is extremely common and I'd like to understand this issue early before I find myself on surprise about having to determine whether or not to accuse someone of being a whore or look past that and see their better nature.
Yes it is hilarious but I find it only ridiculous when the person defending their works are doing so from an objective/royal mentality of "you will accept this as fine art". Where I find it hard to blame a person for defending themselves when they are under attack, people got to have something that means something to them and make a determination on it in my opinion, otherwise everything is just a gray apathetic malaise.Quote:
Thing is, art gets political like most things (it represents your beliefs and so on) and it all depends on which side you're on and how far are you willing to go. People take sides, this forum is no different, even by not choosing a side you choose one.
As for the aesthetics art comes with, like I said before, beauty is the eye of the beholder and I have always found it hilarious seeing people who produce art to flip and defend it tooth and claw, leveling the infidels with rhetoric whilst the infidels do the same to one true believers (infidels).
If someone drops a revealing magazine in the woods and no-one ever jacks off to it, is it still porn?
It's like saying that a monkey is covered in fur, has a tail, four fingers and a thumb on each hand, etc., versus the ethical it seems porn-art debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man From Nantucket
Some interesting responses in this thread, enjoyable... thanks.
It is a little like asking if pop is good music (or music at all). Do we go with majority rule for consensus? Is that the right thing to do? are we arguing between right and wrong? Opinion versus fact...who decides.
Consensus decides...Quote:
Originally Posted by GemOfTroy
Well Boo to that. I rebel with all my heart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absurd
Well whatever I'm taking a break from this topic, I feel like I'm not getting what I want to say out clear enough, but I'm not trying to be rude to Vois.
Can anyone actually prove that lots of so-called "art" wasn't meant to titillate in any way?
Did Botticelli have an entirely Platonic relationship with his Venus, or was he at least a little turned when fantasizing about the most beautiful woman in the human collective imagination? As a corollary, what's the market like for nude models who are 300 pound, 75 year old women?
Heh, as long one is talking porn, you don't really need a proof - it is meant to stimulate and satisfy an excessive desire.Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
Egon Schiele's nudes could be a good case in point too. Their nakedness isn't exactly what one could call incidental.Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
Talk to Jenny Saville.Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
Yes. People want to assume that there is a line between porn and art. This is a bug created by the realm of words but the map is not the territory. Reality is always a lot more nuanced than we can capture with words.Quote:
Originally Posted by xerx
And I would say where people draw that line is based on their subjective impression on something. You may have some personalities that see what the consensus sees as tasteful art as smutty pornography and you may have some personalities that see what the consensus sees as base pornography as delicate and elegant works of fine art.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquagraph
Some people feel like there needs to be some objective guidelines to this, because I could see the case that without some objective guidelines there is no external validation to there appreciation of something as "art". I tend to agree, but I would say the actual objective guidelines are not so set in stone like if something satisfies X criteria then it is ART and if it doesn't its PORN. The objective guidelines or more like just acknowledging that it is purely subjective and external validation arises from harmonies that naturally and organically arise as a result of mutual appreciation of something as being "art".
This same rule I think applies for pornography, but the fact is most pornography is regarded by society to not be worthy enough to be called "art" and thus the naturally occurring consensus relegates it to be classified as pornography... with occasional "outliers" in society regarding things different, the two extreme cases being what I mentioned in the first paragraph of this post. Each of these extreme cases push and pull on the consensus and create conflict and society evolves more towards conserving their original values and consensus or moving outside of it to a new understanding.
Now what I was saying about music, is similar. I think there is a division between shallow entertainment and fine art, in a similar way people feel the need to define boundaries on what is really worthy, endearing, and appreciable versus what is just something they use to get off and relieve tension. Many people hate Justin B. because they think he's essentially "porn" (metaphorically speaking) that's being marketed to towards a niche market (pre-teen girls) in order to bank in on loads of cash. What makes it more diabolic in some people's eyes is that this market is relatively young, innocent, and impressionable so they haven't experienced enough to discriminate great art from cheap smut. They see it as exploitation that is so virulent and dominates so much of the market that its essentially drowning out the natural evolution of better art that would naturally arise and its raising an entire generation that used to a particular "thing". Try explaining to a pre-teen girl why Justin B. sucks and this other music is art and you will be regarded as being a "looser" in there eyes and stiff old person who doesn't understand the youth and all of that. This is a marketing device, scoffing off challengers to some established concept of "cool" as just "jealous losers or has beens" rather than seeing them as actual contenders. This effects of such marketing actually impacts the youth and directs their sensibilities towards an end.
Now that's all nice and good and natural, but consider the fact that quite possibly these marketing executives may not actually even like Justin B.'s music or care the slightest, in fact they find the fact almost laughable this audience likes it. It's like serving up a plate of crap to people at a resteraunt as gormet cuisine and then laughing behind their backs as they eat it because they don't know any better. The sad fact is this actually influences the evolution of society. There lazy opportunistic methods to make easy money, comes at the expense of backwards evolution of art -- where things get dumber and more vapid.
Once again like I said its hard to say what is actually art objectively, but one can still have their personal convinctions and preferences on the matter subjectively. What I find deplorable is those that purposefully direct society in a direction against their own perferences and convinctions because its easier and more expedient to profit in the short term while leaving society in a direction they personally find is in a worse direction.
I find it deplorable in terms of art, marketing, and relations with other human beings... and that's one area that I'm pretty committed to as a principle or ideal I hold.
Yea I know tldr, but it felt good to write it out -- you don't have to read it, but hey it kind of relates to the OP.
I've been asked to pose a few times, but always declined. I didn't like the idea of being naked in front of so many people, (or in one case having photographs put up for exhibit) not so much out of shame, but um, this probably sounds weird -kind of out of pride and ownership, as in I didn't want just anyone being able to look at me - I wanted to be more selective. There's just something distasteful to me about being too open to too many people whether with my personal life, past, thoughts, or my body. I'm sure nobody really cares - I mean, even when I post things here or elsewhere that I find to be somewhat (or quite a lot) revealing, I doubt many even read it or remember it, but idk, the open-ness itself makes me feel weird sometimes like I'm devaluing my own experience. Gah that's hard to explain. Anyway. . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Fireyed
"the secret of being a bore is to tell everything." - voltaireQuote:
Originally Posted by squark
Voltaire believed in God - Absurd.
Sartre started near his death...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Absurd
Strange is how i feel i get you when so many others seem to miss the point (maybe they don't). Ah well, losses to be had.
Well, I must be way too stupid for some people to read me, so I don't really blame any one. Both Voltaire and Sartre were artists, though...Quote:
Originally Posted by GemOfTroy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Absurd
We are all artists ;)
I'll take your word for that...Quote:
Originally Posted by GemOfTroy
We are all porn models.Quote:
Originally Posted by GemOfTroy
I'm not going to ask what is your porn name, Aqua.
art: girly pop song music love feeling or feelings of angst/rage/hate/sadness for another person (primary intent is to invoke complicated feelings)
porn: turns you on (primary intent is to invoke sexual pleasure)
both can exist at once, but how often are we really that lucky as humans? =p
We are all everything and nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquagraph
When the discussion reaches this level, all talk is moot.Quote:
Originally Posted by GemOfTroy
Quote:
Originally Posted by soapofsappho
I'm currently writing reviews and articles for a dude who published a collection of erotic poems. It's not necessarily his art that verges on porn, but other issues I discuss in my articles. The last one was about stuff like Ai no corrida (which qualifies as an erotic art film - the hardcore/unsimulated type), Nymphomaniac, and 50 Shades. This question is so well-suited.
Porn is mainly about arousal (any extra tools/devices are subordinated to the main purpose of turning folks on and helping them get off).
Art is mainly about representation and the creation of aesthetically coherent and impactful fictional worlds and if it verges on pornography, this is just a secondary aspect.
Well art can be anything I find inspiring and fills a space in me, energetically. I do know it when I see it but others might not agree. Hardcore porn is, um... I used to find it interesting and explored it thoroughly, but it doesn't stimulate my emotions, my brain, or imagination. That is the difference for me. :/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jI9kQCw3cE
Art is boring
Quote:
Originally Posted by Words
http://www.lovethispic.com/uploaded_...8-All-Lies.jpg
If it gives you a boner, its art.
arousal. That isn't to say it's a definitive delineation between the two.
Arts actually a bit of a ridiculous concept. The definition is so inherently ambiguous that it can encompass practically anything for the sake of protecting it as free speech regardless of whether it's something that should or shouldn't exist in a society.
a friend of mine once made a distinction between men she wanted to fuck and men she wanted to embalm.
the idea being, a choice b/t more visceral versus aesthetic/mental pleasure.
obviously many men might fit into both categories but if she had to, she would choose "would i keep this guy alive and around to sleep w/, or would i just keep him dead and preserved as a perfect specimen?" there was a lot at stake in that (hypothetical) decision-making lol
anyway, i think the difference between porn and art is which you want to "fuck" more, versus which you want to "embalm" more
Porn is used for masturbatory purposes