# Porn as Art or Porn vs. Art



## rexbobcat (Apr 20, 2013)

This kind of popped into my head tonight when I was thinking about a proposition a person made to me about taking some nude photos. 

Personally, nudity doesn't bother me. Porn, art - it's all the same to me. If a photo appears to have some deliberation beyond "look at my sexy sexiness" then I probably will consider it art.

But...the notion of porn as art kind of has me curious. Can a photograph be both? Can a seemingly sexualized photograph both titillate and inspire? What I mean by seemingly is that there are certain poses or whatever that most people would probably deem as being too risque, EVEN if it's not the intention of the photographer to turn anyone on.

Yes, yes, this is a super vague question and it goes back to the notion of "I can't define vulgarity but I know it when I see it", but from the standpoint of individual people of TPF, how do y'all view pornography as it pertains to art?


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 20, 2013)

First I don't think either can be defined (though if I had to try, it would be a lot easier to define porn, lol).  I don't think I would ever view one photo as being both porn and art at the same time - but I definitely know that some things I would view as art, others would view as porn.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 20, 2013)

Maybe I should have stated it as whether images that are pornographic can be art. I guess delegating something as porn is kind of a more harsh distinction than something that is called pornographic.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 20, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> Maybe I should have stated it as whether images that are pornographic can be art. I guess delegating something as porn is kind of a more harsh distinction than something that is called pornographic.



Small, but important distinction, I think.

I still kind of stand by what I said earlier though.  It all depends on what you consider pornographic.  I know that my definition of it is probably more liberal than most others.

I do think pornographic images could be art, though I am not in the "everything is art" camp.  I think there is probably a lot more pornographic art than artistic porn - if that makes sense.


----------



## pgriz (Apr 20, 2013)

What steers art into porn is the degree of impersonalization that occurs.  Art makes you want to look underneath the surface, while porn focuses on the superficial.


----------



## runnah (Apr 20, 2013)

The human form can be a gorgeous thing of beauty. Porknon the other hand is for self gratification and thusly cannot be art.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 20, 2013)

runnah said:


> Maybe I am jaded but nudity isn't porn and is art. Porn is intended only for guys to rub one out.



Yes, but some people consider all nudity to automatically be porn.  (Not me, lol.  I'd more-or-less agree with what you said, except that I think that there can be nudity that is neither porn nor art.)


----------



## EIngerson (Apr 20, 2013)

If the photographer, subject or viewer sees something as art, it's art. The content doesn't decide that.


----------



## runnah (Apr 20, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> Yes, but some people consider all nudity to automatically be porn.  (Not me, lol.  I'd more-or-less agree with what you said, except that I think that there can be nudity that is neither porn nor art.)



Well those folks have serious personal issues related to their own bodies and sexuality. They then project their anger and confusion towards others.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 20, 2013)

pgriz said:


> What steers art into porn is the degree of impersonalization that occurs.  Art makes you want to look underneath the surface, while porn focuses on the superficial.



That makes sense.

But...what do you mean by superficial?


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 20, 2013)

EIngerson said:


> If the photographer, subject or viewer sees something as art, it's art. The content doesn't decide that.



But doesn't that tread dangerously close to the "everything is art" line?

And if everything is art, then why do we use the word 'art' to distinguish anything?


----------



## pgriz (Apr 20, 2013)

Well, porn makes pretty dolls of people who could be sexual partners.  That's pretty superficial.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 21, 2013)

runnah said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but some people consider all nudity to automatically be porn.  (Not me, lol.  I'd more-or-less agree with what you said, except that I think that there can be nudity that is neither porn nor art.)
> ...



Agreed.  There are a lot of those folks though...

I once had my mother-in-law threaten to rip a picture off my wall because it was 'porn'.  Long story short, she doesn't come around anymore, lol.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 21, 2013)

Yes.

Yes.

Helmut Newton.

Depends; it's gotta be on a case-by-case basis.


----------



## rlemert (Apr 21, 2013)

I think another way to phrase the question is "when does 'erotic' become 'pornographic'?"

  Consider the Japanese "pillow" books, or the erotic art from ancient India. Both were originally intended to titillate, and both show explicit sexual activity - yet both are considered today to be 'art'.

  What makes these paintings 'erotic art', while photographs showing the same things are necessarily 'pornographic'? Is it the fact that the artists (and models) are long dead? Does paint somehow lend a legitimacy that photography lacks?

  I think an image becomes 'erotic art' when it goes beyond simple titillation. Maybe it becomes a study of how light and shadow highlight the participants bodies, for example, or maybe it highlights the angles they form in their coupling.

  I guess my conclusion is that "pornographic images" can become 'art', but that once they do so they cease being pornography.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 21, 2013)

It's all about the message for me.  Art "means something".  There is some underlying message that the artist is trying to convey with the work.  Without that, I can't call it art...

I'm not trying to impose my view upon others though, as I know they are not universal.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 21, 2013)

rlemert said:


> I guess my conclusion is that "pornographic images" can become 'art', but that once they do so they cease being pornography.



That's basically what I was trying to say earlier, when I said that I couldn't call one image art and porn at the same time.


----------



## EIngerson (Apr 21, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> > If the photographer, subject or viewer sees something as art, it's art. The content doesn't decide that.
> ...



If you see something as art, who would I be to say otherwise and vice-versa? To answer your question, because "art" is a catch all term. It's nothing more than "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination." It is what it is and there's no line that separates art from non-art. And there most certainly are no rules to art.


----------



## Dikkie (Apr 21, 2013)

Can't seem to fully understand what you mean... 

Maybe you have to clarify this by adding some photos to support your thread, as arguments, so we can clearly see what you mean.
Preferably close-ups and such


----------



## manaheim (Apr 21, 2013)

In one of these discussions a while back someone said what I think is the only way to answer this question...

[para] "I can't tell you what the difference between art and porn is, but I can sure as hell tell you which one I'm looking at when I see it."


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 21, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> > If the photographer, subject or viewer sees something as art, it's art. The content doesn't decide that.
> ...



Art is an abstract construct, not a concrete or physical entity.  As such it is beyond the realm of definition and can include ANYTHING.  When you limit what art can be you kill the whole idea of art, which is free expression.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Apr 21, 2013)

They have art that is pornographic and pornographic photos that does not have much art in it.


----------



## jaomul (Apr 21, 2013)

It depends on the impact it has on your senses. If i walked into a room with my young son and there was a picture of nudity on the wall- if it made me uncomfortable that he could see it I may think its pornagraphic, if not I may think its arty


----------



## pgriz (Apr 21, 2013)

Could something be pornographic if nakeness or sex acts were not on display?  How about a display of garden vegetables arranged to give an impression of a phallus?  Then, it is not the subject that is "pornographic" but our interpretation of it.  And that, by its very nature is going to be different for each person.  I remember one artist that my wife went to school with, who incorporated images of the vagina as a graphic element in her mixed media. It was always kinda hidden, so you had to be at a certain distance for the components to come together visually, and then it popped out at you (sorry, that was not meant to be a pun).  She's locate this in the image of a tree trunk, or a still-life, or a landscape, and it was always sufficiently well incorporated into the flow of the image that it wasn't obvious.  She had an exhibition of her work at the university gallery, and no-one noticed these elements until the exhibition was taking place, and then some patrons would walk around admiring the pictures and then some were recoiling from the images in horror.  Created a huge stir and there was a demand for the "pornography" to be taken down, and of course the university defended the work as freedom of expression in an academic arena.  I've tried to find a link to some of that work, haven't yet succeeded.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 21, 2013)

back when I installed granite countertops for a living, we did a job at a very nice older couples house. VERY nice house. over the mantle of their fireplace, was a full body nude sculpture of each of them. (only partial arms and legs though, thighs and shoulders) Not sure what the material was.  they were probably in their 50's at the time i was in their home, and the wife explained to me that they had them done 20 years ago while they were in their "prime", and have always had them prominently displayed in their living room. they were BOTH still in fantastic shape, and neither one liked to wear much around the house. which was fine by me. They were exemplary specimens of the male and female form.  

anyway, it would be very easy to look at those sculptures and see "art".  they were very well done, and extremely well detailed. im sure they cost a ton of money. 
but, if someone looked at them and became  aroused... and...you know....is it porn now? can it be both?
art is subjective right? I see plenty of (what I consider) crappy stuff labeled as art. photographs, paintings, modern sculptures....
is the woman that makes "art" by brushing paint on a canvas with her boobs and butt art? that's what she calls it. 

you would probably have an easier time defining something as "porn" than something as "art"... by American culture anyway, I cant speak for other cultures around the world.  whats the saying? I don't know art but I know what I like?


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 21, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> you would probably have an easier time defining something as "porn" than something as "art"... by American culture anyway, I cant speak for other cultures around the world.  whats the saying?* I don't know art but I know what I like?*



That's it right there.  99% of art is crap is my opinion, but one man's crap can literally be another man's art.

The problem stems from people equating "art" with "good" and that just isn't correct. If you made sculpture or something, there isn't a scale to measure it's craftsmanship that you have to meet a minimum of to achieve "art".  No one from the Art Inspector's Office is going to come to you and say, "Well Bob, I'm sorry, but that's just a couple notches below what we consider art.  Better luck next time."  The fact is it's all art.  All of it.  And you can classify it into two categories.  There's art you like and art you don't.


----------



## runnah (Apr 21, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> back when I installed granite countertops for a living, we did a job at a very nice older couples house. VERY nice house. over the mantle of their fireplace, was a full body nude sculpture of each of them. (only partial arms and legs though, thighs and shoulders) Not sure what the material was.  they were probably in their 50's at the time i was in their home, and the wife explained to me that they had them done 20 years ago while they were in their "prime", and have always had them prominently displayed in their living room. they were BOTH still in fantastic shape, and neither one liked to wear much around the house. which was fine by me. They were exemplary specimens of the male and female form.



Dear Penthouse forum,

I've always read your letters and never believed them to be true until one night while I was delivering a granite countertop...


----------



## DarkShadow (Apr 21, 2013)

I think this article is a good read. Is Nude Photography Art or Is Nude Photography Porn?


----------



## Trever1t (Apr 21, 2013)

Pornography is an Art Form. Nudes are not necessarily Porn. What is the distinction you ask? Porn is an art form of sexual arousal.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 21, 2013)

bentcountershaft said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > you would probably have an easier time defining something as "porn" than something as "art"... by American culture anyway, I cant speak for other cultures around the world.  whats the saying?* I don't know art but I know what I like?*
> ...



Do you mean that everything that humans create is art, or everything that exists is art?


----------



## EIngerson (Apr 21, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



What are your views on the subject?


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 21, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> Pornography is an Art Form. Nudes are not necessarily Porn. What is the distinction you ask? Porn is an art form of sexual arousal.



But would you consider it a fine art? Or is some porn more "fine" in its representation than others since technically fine art is art that is created its aesthetics and not necessarily to give a message or to persuade the viewer.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 21, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



Neither.  But _anything_ that humans create can be art.


----------



## mishele (Apr 21, 2013)

*NSFW*


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 21, 2013)

EIngerson said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > bentcountershaft said:
> ...



I personally don't think everything that exists is art. I think that anything a human creates can be considered art because it has the application of human creativity and thought, but I think that of we label everything that did, can, and will exist as art then the word itself is useless. It's like if everyone is rich then no one is rich so we don't need the word rich to describe a state that doesn't exist.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 21, 2013)

bentcountershaft said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > bentcountershaft said:
> ...



Ah. In your earlier post it sounded like you were meaning that everything is art.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 21, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...



Yeah, sorry about that.  Although the art that animals create is a bit of a gray area.  Elephants painting with their trunks and what not.


----------



## EIngerson (Apr 21, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...



But your question is about porn being art. What do you classify it as?


----------



## manaheim (Apr 21, 2013)

Anytime the answer to a question is preceded with "For me..." there can be no one answer.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Apr 21, 2013)

:addpics:


----------



## DarkShadow (Apr 21, 2013)

What Picture's you say, here you go.Credit to Igor Amelkovich photography. NUDE & EROTIC : Photo Images by Igor Amelkovich Photography - photo.net Try not to get a woody.


----------



## Trever1t (Apr 21, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > Pornography is an Art Form. Nudes are not necessarily Porn. What is the distinction you ask? Porn is an art form of sexual arousal.
> ...



ABSOLUTELY NOT, by definition. PORN is a form of ART but NEVER fine art...If it is FINE ART you can not classify it as PORN. Now the line between is subjective and changes throughout history.


Eroticism and nudes are not Porn, necessarily. PORN has a distinctive connotation.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 21, 2013)

The most important statement one always needs to remember in any philosophical discussion.....
































"Would you like frys with that?"


----------



## pgriz (Apr 21, 2013)

I thought it was "want another round to help your discussion, folks?"


----------



## MK3Brent (Apr 21, 2013)

We're going to need some examples to decide.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 21, 2013)

Dikkie said:


> Can't seem to fully understand what you mean...
> 
> Maybe you have to clarify this by adding some photos to support your thread, as arguments, so we can clearly see what you mean.
> Preferably close-ups and such





jwbryson1 said:


> :addpics:





MK3Brent said:


> We're going to need some examples to decide.



He said porn.......huhhh huhh huh huhhh huhh huh. 
Beavis & Butt-Head


----------



## jenko (Apr 27, 2013)

Most famous example I can come up with is Robert Mapplethorpe's "Portfolio X." 

There was such a scandal over these photos that it changed the way federal funding works in the arts.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 28, 2013)

MK3Brent said:


> We're going to need some examples to decide.



Well I just landed a gig with www.sexy-secretaries-xxx.com so I will post some photos soon to see what the verdict is.


*Please be aware that I am NOT SERIOUS....I can't in fact post the photos because of my contract.


----------

