Porn vs. Art

The problem with these discussions is that we're dealing with two concepts that pertain human culture: "porn" and "art". Both of them subjective, dependent on the specific culture, interchangeable, malleable and in short, impossible to nail down to a specific, objective, scientifically measurable definition.

But to some people, speaking of relative things as if they were objective, seems like an impossible dream. Like someone who wants to reach on the ocean's horizon and keeps sailing forward forever. A romantic notion, but still, delusional.
 
Whoa... why did my last post appear in all bold text?

Anyway, erotica and sexuality have been present in art since the earliest Stone Age artifacts. Some scholars may call such imagery "fertility symbolism" and ascribe religious significance to it, but let's be honest: Humans throughout history were pretty much the same animal we are today. There's a very basic reason why (mostly male) artists devoted so much of their time and attention to reproducing images of the nude female body for their (mostly male) patrons: a lot of people have always enjoyed looking at pictures of naked chicks.
 
Well, this just had to be linked here.



(original thread here)

The result of application of skill? Check. Evoking visual gratification? Check. Evoking emotion? Check. (Nostalgia is an emotion, and so is amusement.)

Can anybody claim this isn't art?

(I won't deny it could be said to be a "nasty and dysfunctional" form of art, though. :p)
 
JFrankA said:
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.
Click to expand...
So magic is art, lying, deception and misdirection eh. Anything more, per chance?!

JFrankA said:
I was in the museum of arts in Boston several years ago ...
Click to expand...
Alongside what other masterpiece, I wonder!

JFrankA said:
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.
Click to expand...
Mmm ... sounds analogous to "reality beans on toast": people eat beans (and toast). And there's a whole section of cuisine called, coincidentally, "reality beans on toast". That is, real people who eat real beans, on real toast, without all the right vegetables, condiments, perfect teeth, silverware or even a napkin. It's the truth!
 
Okay, that bickering was stupid of us. Right of the mods to step in.

Anyway, Southwind, I'd like to ask if you're really interested in resuming this conversation? It's a subject that interests me, so I'd be willing to continue. However, since it's a pretty old thread by now, it would probably be best if you concisely restated your claim and your reasoning for it.
 
Mirrorglass said:
Okay, that bickering was stupid of us. Right of the mods to step in.

Anyway, Southwind, I'd like to ask if you're really interested in resuming this conversation? It's a subject that interests me, so I'd be willing to continue. However, since it's a pretty old thread by now, it would probably be best if you concisely restated your claim and your reasoning for it.
Click to expand...
What I'm claiming, in a nutshell, I suppose (and I think I've summarised it similarly before), is that porn cannot be art per se (I'm sorry - the "per se" part is the nub of this), because porn, by definition, serves a specific, primary purpose wholly unrelated to art. I think I used the analogy that it's similar to claiming that motorcars are art. They're not. They're a mechanical mode of human transport. Contrast that with a painting hanging on a wall (leaving aside what determines an individual painting as "art", or more to the point what might discount an individual painting from qualifying as "art".)

Now, as I've acknowledged countless times, both porn and motorcars can, and often do, have artistic attributes. That does not, however, qualify them as "art" in the way that a [typical] painting is, for example.

There - I've re-stated it (again!). Is there a chance any subsequent debate will not invoke feelings of deja vu?!
 
Southwind17 said:
What I'm claiming, in a nutshell, I suppose (and I think I've summarised it similarly before), is that porn cannot be art per se (I'm sorry - the "per se" part is the nub of this), because porn, by definition, serves a specific, primary purpose wholly unrelated to art. I think I used the analogy that it's similar to claiming that motorcars are art. They're not. They're a mechanical mode of human transport. Contrast that with a painting hanging on a wall (leaving aside what determines an individual painting as "art", or more to the point what might discount an individual painting from qualifying as "art".)

Now, as I've acknowledged countless times, both porn and motorcars can, and often do, have artistic attributes. That does not, however, qualify them as "art" in the way that a [typical] painting is, for example.

There - I've re-stated it (again!). Is there a chance any subsequent debate will not invoke feelings of deja vu?!
Click to expand...
Your claim begs the question "can anything be art per se?". Before your claims can even begin to be addressed, that question must be answered fully -- including what characteristics are intrinsic to art. As long as you refuse to answer those questions, your claim has absolutely no ground to stand upon.

The problem is that the answer to that question (Can anything be art per se?) is a resounding "No". Art is subjective. It's so subjective that, since the dawn of "art", no one has ever been able to come up with a definition that people can agree upon.

Your entire claim is based upon a flawed premise. In fact, the premise is so flawed that it makes your argument fairly nonsensical.

Maybe you should try reconsidering your claim, and coming back with one that actually has some sort of logical basis.
 
SkeptiChick said:
Your claim begs the question "can anything be art per se?". Before your claims can even begin to be addressed, that question must be answered fully -- including what characteristics are intrinsic to art. As long as you refuse to answer those questions, your claim has absolutely no ground to stand upon.
Click to expand...
I think your reference to intrinsic characteristics misses the point in the context of the OP. The pertinent question relates more to what characteristics preclude something from being art per se. In principle, what purpose does hanging a picture on a wall serve, other than for it to be looked at, and possibly contemplated, in any event from some sort of inherent "value" perspective? That's "art". Nothing more; nothing less.

BTW - I don't believe I've ever "refused" to answer any questions. You might not have agreed with my answers, but there you go.
 
Southwind17 said:
I think your reference to intrinsic characteristics misses the point in the context of the OP. The pertinent question relates more to what characteristics preclude something from being art per se.
Click to expand...

Whatever. Pretend for a minute that everyone here agrees with this statement:

"If anything at all is art per se, pornography is not art per se".

Got that fixed in your head? Good.

Now answer the question: What makes something art per se?

Please note that pointing at something like a painting on a wall and saying "That is art per se!" would be avoiding this question, not answering it. The question is what makes something art per se, according to your own personal definitions of those terms.
 
Last edited:
Kevin_Lowe said:
Whatever. Pretend for a minute that everyone here agrees with this statement:

"If anything at all is art per se, pornography is not art per se".

Got that fixed in your head? Good.

Now answer the question: What makes something art per se?

Please note that pointing at something like a painting on a wall and saying "That is art per se!" would be avoiding this question, not answering it. The question is what makes something art per se, according to your own personal definitions of those terms.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that it's possible to singularly define "art per se", just like it's probably not possible to define many other things to the exclusion of absolutely everything else, without resorting to atomic structure, genetic make up, etc. What I do know, though, is that I recognize a motorcar by simply looking at it, and I know that it's a functional vehicle, thereby precluding it from the "art per se" category. I also know that when I look at most paintings, for example, many cannot blatantly be discounted from qualifying as "art" like a motorcar can, because they have no obvious alternative function. Some might be subsequently discounted after due consideration (which I confess is, to a degree, subjective). But some things are plainly not art per se. A motorcar is one example; porn another. I'm not here seeking to define "art" for you. I'm here claiming that porn is not art per se, because it has a primary purpose wholly unrelated to art, by any stretch of a workable definition.
 
Southwind17 said:
I'm not sure that it's possible to singularly define "art per se", just like it's probably not possible to define many other things to the exclusion of absolutely everything else, without resorting to atomic structure, genetic make up, etc. What I do know, though, is that I recognize a motorcar by simply looking at it, and I know that it's a functional vehicle, thereby precluding it from the "art per se" category. I also know that when I look at most paintings, for example, many cannot blatantly be discounted from qualifying as "art" like a motorcar can, because they have no obvious alternative function. Some might be subsequently discounted after due consideration (which I confess is, to a degree, subjective). But some things are plainly not art per se. A motorcar is one example; porn another. I'm not here seeking to define "art" for you. I'm here claiming that porn is not art per se, because it has a primary purpose wholly unrelated to art, by any stretch of a workable definition.
Click to expand...

So to sum up: You have your own personal definition of art per se, which you can't define, and by that personal definition porn cannot be art per se.

Okay. Whatever.
 
If a painting depicts something, can it not be argued that it's primary function is to be an accurate representation of some real-life object? Wouldn't that prevent it from being art 'per se', the way you define it? How about if a motor car was designed not with the primary intention of providing transport, but arousing certain emotions in the driver? Would it still primarily be a mode of transport, not art?
 
Southwind17 said:
I think your reference to intrinsic characteristics misses the point in the context of the OP. The pertinent question relates more to what characteristics preclude something from being art per se. In principle, what purpose does hanging a picture on a wall serve, other than for it to be looked at, and possibly contemplated, in any event from some sort of inherent "value" perspective? That's "art". Nothing more; nothing less.

BTW - I don't believe I've ever "refused" to answer any questions. You might not have agreed with my answers, but there you go.
Click to expand...
No, my reference to intrinsic characteristics does NOT miss the point of the OP. I really hate to get into this again, but it seems that you do not understand the meaning of "per se". Your use of "per se" makes my questions about intrinsic characteristics directly relevant.

Southwind17 said:
I'm not sure that it's possible to singularly define "art per se", just like it's probably not possible to define many other things to the exclusion of absolutely everything else, without resorting to atomic structure, genetic make up, etc. What I do know, though, is that I recognize a motorcar by simply looking at it, and I know that it's a functional vehicle, thereby precluding it from the "art per se" category. I also know that when I look at most paintings, for example, many cannot blatantly be discounted from qualifying as "art" like a motorcar can, because they have no obvious alternative function. Some might be subsequently discounted after due consideration (which I confess is, to a degree, subjective). But some things are plainly not art per se. A motorcar is one example; porn another. I'm not here seeking to define "art" for you. I'm here claiming that porn is not art per se, because it has a primary purpose wholly unrelated to art, by any stretch of a workable definition.
Click to expand...
If you cannot define what "art per se" is, then you have no basis to claim that something is not "art per se". Thus, the problem with your claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom