I got in an argument today with this guy who claims that ‘porn is art.’ I didn’t take him seriously until I found out he was serious! I talked to some other people, and apparently this is a widespead belief. So can pornography considered art or what?
One man’s pornography is another man’s art…
Yer pal,
Satan
I’d reply, but I’m not so good at typing with one hand…
Cecil said it. I believe it. That settles it.
It depends. What is “porn”?
I am an artist, who through the years have done many, MANY Life Drawings. (i.e. drawings and paintings of nudes.) None of these artworks were “porn” in my mind, but I’ve discovered some people get real uptight about drawings of nude people. To some, that is “porn”. I don’t agree, but there you go.
I think there is a grey area where the lines of “porn” and “art” are blurred, but I do think that after a certain line is crossed, porn is just porn. I guess we can argue forever about where that line is.
After saying all of that, my hunch is that your friend just wants to justify enjoying porn, by trying to elevate it to “art”. Whatever… :rolleyes:
Nudity and/or representations of the sex act can very well be used as the basis of works of art.
The problem is that most pornographic movies lack the two key ingredients, skill and imagination.
Short Answer: No, porn isn’t art.
Long answer:
First we need to define some terms.
first let us differentiate between “small a art” and “capital A Art.” Small a art are the works produced in any of the standard artistic mediums: prose, poetry, movies, pictures, performance, music, etc. etc. By this standard porn might be art, but only in the most trivial sense.
True Art, IMNSHO, is something that at least tries to present us with a profound, unexpected view of life and the world. It is the product of a singular vision, and while it may work in an established form, it uses that form for its own ends. It is beautiful in the deepest sense of the word.
Entertainments on the other hand, are works that attempt to generate a predictable emotional response: Horror, Humor, Romance, suspense, etc. etc. Entertainments are formulaic and predictable.
I realize there is an artifical nature to these definitions and that they blur around the edges. They are not mutually exclusive. However they will do for my point.
By these definitions, porn is not art, at least not Art. Porn is designed to provoke a specific response, male masturbation, and not to show us anything new. Much porn succeeeds by being predictable, by giving consumers the money shots they desire. If porn does that it doesn’t even have to be well made, as the explosion of amateur video shows.
Note that I am not saying that Art cannot be Erotic. However there are very few people who would confuse Erotic art with porn. Not many Booksellers mix up “Ulysses” with “Suburban Sluts.”
Also please do not confuse this post with a prudish anti-porn rant. I have nothing against porn and I think it’s basically harmless. It just isn’t Art, that’s all
Perked Ears indicate curiosity - Know Your Cat
I would argue that to the extent that studying pornography as a medium can tell us about our culture, it may be considered art. A fuller treatment of this subject is Bound and Gagged, an excellent volume by Laura Kipnis.
Larry Borgia,
People can get off on all kinds of crazy things including “erotic art”.
I’ve had all kinds of arguments about what art is, and it seems to me that in the 20th century we’ve been forced to redefine art many times. I don’t think many porn makers condider themselves artists in the high brow sort of way, but neither did a lot of “folk” artists who were later lauded by the art world.
I wonder if the Dadaist movement fits in with your definition of art?
A side note: women masturbate to porn too. Check out Playgirl and On Our Backs, better yet, you should pick up a copy of Cosmo some time.
The Supreme court definition of Pornography is, “Material that is produced solely to arouse the viewer through depiction of sexual imagery, and which contains no redeeming social or artistic value.”
So, by definition porn is not art.
There have been erotic ‘art’ movies that had hardcore sex in them (“The Devil in the Flesh”, and recently “Romance”), but neither were deemed to be pornography, and were shown in mainstream theatres and art houses.
As soon as “porn” becomes “art” it stops being “porn”. The primary difference is price. A picture of a gay man w/ a whip up his ass is porn, but sign a “big” name to it, add 4 zeros and it is “art”.
This is (one of the many reasons)why all anti-“porn” laws are unconstitutional bullshit.
Porn isn’t art…but then who says it has to be.
“Clatu, Verrata…nector?..neck-tie?”
If porn were art, it would be called ‘porn art’. Ain’t never seen that anywhere.
However, art can be pornographic. Extensive rich images with deplictions of sexuality.
Art requires input from the heart in order to be ‘artistic.’ Porn is input from the genitals.
Handy, yeah but whose genitals & whose heart? Some grumpy old man who hasn’t got laid in a decade? Torquemada? Pat Robertson? Larry Flynt? Nice definition, but I wouldn’t try it when the Feds indict you for 100 counts of possessing child porn, when all you have is a downloaded “Art” photo book…
I’d say Caligula is both porn and art. I mean, it’s got real actors in it and a real plot and everything. And shots of well-endowed guys getting sucked off by naked babes.
A valid point. I think the OP meant Art. I would probably, in my own mind, use another word entirely to describe what you call “small a art,” but we essentially agree, differing only on a tiny scemantic (and unimportant) point. I will use the capital A in this post to avid confusion on the scemantic level.
A great many things try to be Art, and fail, even in media which we are used to associating with Art: painting, music, photography, dance, film, and so on. Pornography is one of these media. If elevated to the level of art, porn (“erotica”) could be a very powerful thing. Robert Mappelthorpe (sp?) certainly took some erotic (pornographic?) photographs, to the dismay of many.
This could go down a convoluted, philosophical path, but I think I’ll truncate it by saying: porn (or erotica) COULD be art, if approached well, but the overwhelming majority of the pornography produced is the equivalent of telephone doodles.
A committee is a lifeform with six or more legs and no brain.
Heilman-C is an “artist” whose work often consists of pornography. A friend of mine attended one of her events which consisted of live sexual performances by lesbian couples, called “Women Loving Women”. The final product was a film that focused on the onlookers’ reactions to watching explicit sexual acts.
My personal take on the OP is that some things are clearly porn, and others clearly art, but that there is considerable blurring of the middle ground.
Ignorant since 1972
I thought art was supposed to elicit emotion. E.g.:
[ul][li]Monet paintings generally make me feel happy[/li][li]Winslow Homer’s storm paintings make me feel fear, dread, anxiety[/li][li]The picture of the fireman carrying the dead/dying baby from the Oklahoma City bombing site makes me feel extreme sadness & anger[/ul][/li]So why is a photo of a hot brunette bending over her couch sans clothing (which makes me feel lust, joy, etc.) not art?
Wrong thinking is punished, right thinking is just as swiftly rewarded. You’ll find it an effective combination.
Getting punched in the face elicits an emotion too, but I’m not sure I’d call it ‘art’. 
Ignorant since 1972