BTW, DT, I find that quote about “if men like it” and “if women like it” to be terribly sexist and wrong. I don’t fault you with posting it though.
I’ll be in my bunk.
When I was in college I saw a porn movie “Report from the President’s Commission” which got its redeeming value from supposedly illustrating what Nixon’s commission was talking about. It had no redeeming value, as science, commentary on the news, or even as porn, really.
<Tom>
When correctly viewed,
Anything is lewd,
I can tell you things about Peter Pan,
And the Wizard of Oz, there’s a dirty old man.
</Tom>
If by porn one means any work with explicit sex, then sure there can be artistic porn, and has been. If by porn one means a work centered around sex, then no, since a work cannot serve two masters. The instability of artistic porn is shown by the collapse of the high quality porn market. The original, uncut, Flesh Gordon was both pretty good porn and an excellent sf parody - a far better version of Flash Gordon than the big budget movie was. But the market reject such things, alas.
ETA: You can tell it was good because when it got hacked to pieces to give it an R it turned to crap. No artistic work can survive such a hacking - it showed it was an artistic whole.
Well put. Flesh Gordon was the movie that came to mind for me too. I laughed my ass off when I first saw it, and some of the scenes were hot, too.
That said, some porn can be done artistically, as has been said, in still photos. A sexual set piece can also be artfully done. I remember and R-rated softcore porn film that had a lesbian scene that had the camera rotating around the two participants with just the right mellow jazz in the background, beautifully filmed, that had something going for it. The sex was sexy, the bodies beautiful, the filmography topnotch, it all worked together for three or four minutes before the retarded plot started up again.
Also, the lesbian scene between porn actress Jacqueline Lovell and Venesa Talor (an actress who had a minor disco hit called “Who Do I Have To Blow?”) in Femalien, another softcore film, is reputed to have been very hot stuff.
That said, you have to wade through tons of manure to find one little itty bitty diamond in porn. Unless you like porn for it’s own sake, it’s totally not worth it.
But who says pornography has no redeeming value to society?
I think the real question is, is artistic sex possible?
Show your work.
I read the thread title as ‘is autistic porn possible?’
/nitpick
When correctly viewed,
Everything is lewd
/end nitpick
Posted simply because I’m too much of a fan of Toms not to notice the difference and the difference, while subtle is there.
while being a great fucking movie (if anyone else already made that joke, i unilaterally came up with it by myself, so tie.
artistic porn is erotica.
The Kenneth Tynan and the other folks behind the Broadway show Oh, Calcutta! claimed that this was their intent – to create an evening of high-class erotica for thinking adults.
I haven’t sen the show on stage, but I’ve seen video, and have read the script many times. It’s a weird mix, a combination of blackout skits that wouldn’t be out of place on TV (except for the nudity and sex), some clever parodies and invocations of stock situations and characters (Harpo Marx, Victorian erotica), and outright “artistic” weirdness (Samuel Beckett’s piece leaves you shaking your head and wobndering how this is supposed to be either theatrical or erotic). Other contributors included John Lennon, Jules Feiffer, Sam Shepard, and Peter Shickele (“PDQ Bach” – who was one of the composers)
If the definition of art is ‘a work intended to evoke thought, reaction, or emotion in the viewer,’ then technically all porn is art, since arousal is a reaction and emotion. It’s just not very good art. It appeals to low, lizard brain emotion and animalistic reactions. If there is a hierarchy of artistic importance, porn probably hovers somewhere above a Youtube screamer video and just below Hostle.
Movies like Shortbus, on the other hand, are not proof of artistic porn, because Shortbus is not porn. Its intent is not arousal. The sex scenes in Shortbus run the gauntlet from hilarious to touching to heartbreaking, but not a one of them is framed as wank material, and I certainly didn’t find them at all arousing.
Flesh Gordon (which I clearly need to see) sounds like it works well as both a comedy and intensional spank fodder, in which case I suppose it would be a more “artistic” class of porn than, say, Interracial Anal Bang 5, but then, how ‘artsy’ would a film have to be to earn the title of artistic?
I’ve mentioned this guy before, but you should check out Kyle Kalgren on Brows Held High. He reviews art films, including a few that might qualify as “artistic porn.” Two reviews relevent to this discussion are Nine Songs and Sleeping Beauty. Both films are erotic dramas that (to paraphrase) “try to appeal to both the needs of the head, and the needs of the other head. And since the body has only a finite amount of blood, the movies fail at both eroticism and drama.”
Pornography is any work primarily designed to titillate in a sexual manner. This is not incompatible with any definition of art that I have ever seen. And I can’t think of any definition of pornography where this is not so, other than one that intentionally prohibits artistic merit, which is, of course, begging the question.
Someone above tries to point out that artistry and porn can’t coexist and cites the downfall of artistic porn. That makes no sense, as you’ve just proven that artistry and porn can coexist, as they previously did so.
And, anyways, it’s not as if artistic porn does not exist now. There are a lot of porn parodies out there that have merit now; it’s just a niche market. The Star Trek: TNG parody works as an episode, even if you cut out the pornographic elements.
Also, Kyle Kalgren, like most people on that site, tends to gravitate towards those movies that don’t work, creating a sense of comedy about how bad they are. The fact that two of his movies don’t work as porn and art doesn’t mean that much, as he’s selecting for such.
the best definition of porn i’ve heard is something from a Cracked article:
“Porn” for the purposes of this study was defined as “any picture or video you suddenly lose interest in after masturbating.”
Read more: Define Porn As | Cracked.com Search - Cracked.com - America's Only Humor Site | Cracked.com
^willfully leaving the spam-embedded link because the article is good/funny.
Just be aware that the version of Flesh you see today is not what was released. When I watched it on video it failed both as porn and art. As far as I’m aware (and I hope to be proved wrong someday) the original version is lost forever.
I had a porn channel on Telestar 4 for a few months, but it gets tedious pretty quickly. The titles are often more entertaining than the content, I guess they pay the punmasters well for that. The one thing I remember was this mutation they called “Macbeth” that was a really strange mix of almost artistic filmwork (serious content) bridging various scenes of copulation. I would kind of like to see it again, to see if was any good or just weird.
I guess, in addition to depending on what we mean by “pornography,” it depends on what we mean by “art.”
It is certainly possible for the same work (or object, or whatever) to be viewed as porn by someone and as art by someone else. Does that count? What about if someone looks at something they know is supposed to be porn, and sees art? Or vice versa?
Or, more directly related to the OP:
As the judge declared the day
That he acquitted my aunt Hortense,
“To be smut
It must be ut-
-terly without redeeming social importance.”
I don’t believe that’s true. I saw it shortly after it came out, and the DVD version I have seems faithful to that. I do know that it has been cut over the years, and the version I saw in Salt Lake City (at an “art cinema”, apropriately for this thread) was definitely butchered, which is about what you’d expect for SLC, where they bowdlerized Amadeus on stage. The hardcore svcenes just before the appearance of the animated “beetle monster” are among the scenes usually clipped out.