Thread Tools

Loaded Complex
⊙ω⊙
497.36
Send a message via AIM to Loaded Complex Send a message via MSN to Loaded Complex
Loaded Complex is offline
 
#1
Old 10-12-2007, 02:38 PM

No, I won't be posting examples because I do not want to be banned. But I find this a very interesting topic of debate/discussion in almost every Art section for sites.

Art and Pornography, two different things but they share similar things because at one point Pornography could've been considered art and the other way around. To be a bit more specific, lets use the dictionary's definitions for these two words!

art
  • –noun
    1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
    2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
    3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
    4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
    5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
    6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?
Theres more but it's a pretty long page.

por·nog·ra·phy
  • –noun
    obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.
    [Origin: 1840–50; < Gk pornográph(os) writing about harlots (porno-, comb. form of pórné harlot + -graphos -graph) + -y3]

Now, seeing as the definition of Pornography is using another word, Obscene then we come to this conclusion. What is a commonly accepted view of obscenity? I'm sure everyone here has their own definition about obscenity and what isn't. I know plenty of artists who like to draw the naked human body because it's a marvelous thing to draw, not to mention one of the more complex forms.

With that said, thats where many people start to say that such an image is pornographic, just because it's showing a naked body in it's glory that the Romans and Greeks held to it several centuries ago. Now I personally think that a naked body should either be considered mature content or have no mature content at all seeing as everyones human and at one point sooner or later they will be seeing the naked human form of the opposite gender. (Health class).

Then theres art that shows two naked figures wrestling, hugging, kissing or even fighting among other things. This is another branch off where people say that this is pornography, but yet again my artistic self says it's not.

The next branch, to me is.

One or more naked human or human like thing (furry or otherwise) going along to do sexual things that many of us should know about by now. Thats when I make the line. That to me is pornography. But to others I know it may not be.

So what's your opinion about this very debatable subject?

What is your line between pornography and art?

Nephila
The Serpent Bride

Penpal
22066.00
Nephila is offline
 
#2
Old 10-13-2007, 08:49 PM

This is a very well thought out post. Although I confess that I may think it as such because we have similar views.

To me the human body is beautiful and is my personal favorite thing to draw. I myself have never really understood what the big deal about nudity is. It's harmless really since were all naked under our clothes.

I think one of my favorite art piece of all time is a Waterhouse painting called Hylas and the water Nymphs. If you don't know it, It's the one with seven very human very naked water nymphs are trying to seduce a passer by to join them. The image is so beautiful and soft, I feel it really portrays the female figure in a positive light as well.

While the Nymphs are visually naked and in the act of seduction I have never got an erotic feeling from it. As strange as it may sound it seems even pure.

Thats just my thoughts on it though.

Loaded Complex
⊙ω⊙
497.36
Send a message via AIM to Loaded Complex Send a message via MSN to Loaded Complex
Loaded Complex is offline
 
#3
Old 10-13-2007, 08:56 PM

I was wondering when someone would respond to this (though the notification email made me wonder what had been replied to).

I guess it's really how people are raised and their view on art. I know some people on deviantart got banned by putting up an image of a naked guy under the correct catigory and everything. Yet you have pictures of naked girls on that site everywhere. It's sort of sad.

And I just noticed that was off topic but oh well :(

Nephila
The Serpent Bride

Penpal
22066.00
Nephila is offline
 
#4
Old 10-13-2007, 09:45 PM

Yes, up bringing probably has a lot to do with it. The double standards of the naked male vs. female thing bothers me too. It doesn't make sense to hide one over the other.

I guess that's just the way thing are. Different strokes for different folks. :D

C H A R T R E U S E
Dead Account Holder
805.96
C H A R T R E U S E is offline
 
#5
Old 10-14-2007, 04:31 AM

Nudity in art and pornography are completely different.
Nudity shows the human body in it's natural state. Now if somebody draws a picture of a a woman sprawled across a bed and is all sweaty and naked that is what I would consider pornography. In order to be porn it has to be sexual. You can see it in the face expression or the posture. You should be able to tell the difference fairly easily.

Loaded Complex
⊙ω⊙
497.36
Send a message via AIM to Loaded Complex Send a message via MSN to Loaded Complex
Loaded Complex is offline
 
#6
Old 10-14-2007, 04:34 AM

Yes but most people put it up to how they were raised. It truely is a personal thing but I guess most people who just look at things like that and judge them on first glance arn't artists or actually want to look for fear of being called a pervert.

C H A R T R E U S E
Dead Account Holder
805.96
C H A R T R E U S E is offline
 
#7
Old 10-14-2007, 04:41 AM

Just because I can look at something and decide for myself if it is artistic or pornographic does not make me inartistic. There is a huge difference between the two. Just recently one of my friends showed be a picture of a group of nude males and females. They were touching each other, but it wasn't in any way sexual. I felt it artistic, but she was laughing at it because she felt it was flat out porn. I thought it was strange, but some people just can't see the beauty in artistic nudity.

Freakishly Human
⊙ω⊙
602.10
Send a message via AIM to Freakishly Human Send a message via MSN to Freakishly Human Send a message via Yahoo to Freakishly Human
Freakishly Human is offline
 
#8
Old 10-14-2007, 05:08 AM

I don't think images that may be sexually explicit are automatically porn. The definition of Porn as you posted states that it's especially those having little or no artistic merit so it can be asked who decides what has artistic merit and what does not? If someone draws two people having sex with the intention of it being purely artistic that wouldn't stop someone else from using the image as porn.

I think it would be very hard to draw a line between porn and art unless it's very obvious that it is intended to be one or the other. Even in that case though some may think of it as art, or porn.

LemonChiffon
Dead Account Holder
1620.88
LemonChiffon is offline
 
#9
Old 10-14-2007, 09:54 AM

I cannot remember which Supreme Court justice said this, but he said that he defined pornography as recognizing it as such once he saw it. That, of course, reflects how dependent it is on perspective. While one of my friends views anything that exposes "private parts" as pornography, it takes an image of a BJ, for example, to make me pass judgment.
Anything that is sexually arousing could possibly be viewed as pornography. While some people see National Geographic as an educational tool or a Victoria's Secret catalogue as merchandise on display, others can use it for sexual means.

scatterheart
⊙ω⊙
579.43
scatterheart is offline
 
#10
Old 10-14-2007, 12:21 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by C H A R T R E U S E
Nudity in art and pornography are completely different.
Nudity shows the human body in it's natural state. Now if somebody draws a picture of a a woman sprawled across a bed and is all sweaty and naked that is what I would consider pornography. In order to be porn it has to be sexual. You can see it in the face expression or the posture. You should be able to tell the difference fairly easily.
What if the woman is in that position because the artist wanted to make some kind of statement? What if there are goldfish flying through the air around her and the walls are melting, revealing a surrealist landscape? Wouldn't it be art then?

I think the line between art and pornography is very thin and hard to define. In my opinion, if something was made to arouse people and only to arouse people, without adding any new ideas, statements, or images, it's porn.

shellthabunny
*^_^*
144.78
shellthabunny is offline
 
#11
Old 11-02-2007, 04:36 AM

I think it's harmless as long as the artist did not mean for it to be pornographic. There's a fine line between pornography and art. I think we can all tell the difference too ;P

Caroline
stay gold
611.11
Caroline is offline
 
#12
Old 11-14-2007, 01:37 PM

  • It's art if it means something, pornography if it's just there for people to get off to.

Kyoko Otonashi
\ (•◡•) /
100175.12
Kyoko Otonashi is offline
 
#13
Old 11-29-2007, 04:43 PM

i think it's the difference between the artist's intent.

Prono is generally created to arouse it's watchers sexually

Nude art is created to arouse it's watchers emotions.

I've seen some nude art that is so beautiful even though they two people are comepletely naked and touching each other.

I really thing that it's just intent

Wordstreamer
Nifty Fairy of the North
Penpal
3494.93
Send a message via Yahoo to Wordstreamer
Wordstreamer is offline
 
#14
Old 12-03-2007, 03:11 AM

Ha--I'm doing a project on this!! I think it's mostly perspective--and the theory that it's about the artist's intent is the most obvious one; unfortunately people rarely look at it that way.

Titenya
(っ◕‿◕)&...
0.49
Titenya is offline
 
#15
Old 12-04-2007, 04:08 PM

Even porno though can be very artistic. I've seen quite a number of immages online, and some printed materials (I am over 21, thank you) and some of the published porno sorces are very artistic. From background choice to skimpy costumes, to pose and also lighting. there is nothing wrong with porn, at least in my view, it is just another type of art. Some people are uncomfortable with seeing images of the exposed naked body, and that's their choice. Personally I don't see why people get so hung up about it. The human body is a beautifull and natural thing. Just a bunch of religious conservatives comes up with the idea that se is bad and the human body is then seen as shame full.

Now i will say that not all porn is good. some times it's jsut pictures of naked bodies or body parts... and that can arrouse people... but in it's own way it is still a form of art... like how the little bubbles in a bottle of poland spring water can be called a natural art.

nike13
(っ◕‿◕)&...
3134.21
nike13 is offline
 
#16
Old 12-09-2007, 08:46 PM

I think if the artwork is depicting sex then its pornographic.

My parents made it a point to teach me that the human body can be portrayed artistically without it being 'dirty' (I was 5 at the time so dirty meant porn). I was shown sculptures of naked women and men and was told that these were art because they weren't doing anything bad. I have no problem with looking at nudes as art because its just an expression of the human body and nature.

Porn is showing sex or insinuating sex (ie, having those censor bars or screen cut off). Of course, there are pieces that are borderline that I wouldn't let a child of mine see until they are mature enough (ie a girl in only an apron, not porn but definitely on the ecchi side of art).

Avvy
⊙ω⊙
475.46
Avvy is offline
 
#17
Old 12-10-2007, 03:58 AM

Well its really in the eye of the beholder. One thing can be artistic to ones eyes while another person would see porn. I believe that an image or piece of art created by someone becomes pornographic when you look at it and begin to question whether its pornographic or not.

Fullmetal Phantom
Dead Account Holder
0.00
Send a message via MSN to Fullmetal Phantom Send a message via Yahoo to Fullmetal Phantom
Fullmetal Phantom is offline
 
#18
Old 12-17-2007, 06:41 PM

To me, if it's a naked male with an erection, then it's borderline. If he is in a sexually suggestive pose, then I might consider it pornographic (if he is in a suggestive pose nude, but not aroused, then it is not). If there is another figure there touching it or otherwise suggesting that something is about to happen, both nude, then it is porn. And if it actually depicts a sexual act...then I don't think I need to say it.

Hugging, kissing, or just being naked might be arousing to some, but that most definitely doesn't make it porn.

And then, some pornography can actually be artistic. Just because a good amount of it has little to no artistic merit doesn't mean it's all like that.

galy
(っ◕‿◕)&...
Banned
332.91
galy is offline
 
#19
Old 12-17-2007, 09:35 PM

conceptual art = 10% outcome and 90% presentation/explanation

whether something is seen as pornographic or not depends totally on the viewer, but if the artist has a solid explanation behind what they did it cannot be called pornography. even if it's a sculpture of two people having sex, if the sculptor says "it's a representation of carnal desire and natural human emotion blabla" then there is little room for argument.

now, if after several complaints the gallery it's displayed in decides to remove the exhibition, that is their call. that does not necessarily mean that the sculpture is pornographic.

Renchan
⊙ω⊙
1476.98
Renchan is offline
 
#20
Old 12-18-2007, 09:20 PM

Pornography can be art too.
Porn on the other hand, no. No art.
I'm not sure, but I thought naked people was concidered pornography too. Or two naked people. Not even doing anything.

Not sure though..

marshie
6.89
Send a message via MSN to marshie
marshie is offline
 
#21
Old 12-29-2007, 11:40 PM

pornography is art, for me.

it's a question of culture and aesthetics, not a question of semantics here.

were you raised to understand sexuality to be a beautiful thing, an ugly thing, a social taboo, a fact of everyday life, or otherwise?

how did your aesthetic preferences develop, and what are they like now?

whether we like it or not, nothing can perfectly match a dictionary definition in this sort of situation--especially one regarding art.

for me, though, pornography is an art form as much as anything else, and nudity itself is not automatically pornography. however, i also feel that because different people are aroused by different things, that i, as an artist, can't draw a line.

sometimes, i guess it just is, or will be what it will.

also, i was astonished to read in this thread that an instance of male nudity (i'm assuming completely uncontroversial) was removed from dA, a site teeming with half-naked, hopefully legal young ladies in various melodramatic poses.

the classical aesthetic, of course, always looked at both genders' nudity with a healthy amount of respect/as objects of great beauty.

it's funny, then, that in a society possibly more patriarchal than the greeks or romans (and in possession of a great sense of honor for them) has no regard for male nudity.

D:

and then...oh...the tangled web of hypocrisies ERUPTS.

i dunno, it's just a lot of that. particularly in puritanimerica, i don't see how art even thrives or if it does. now i just feel sad :/

organique
⊙ω⊙
146.22
organique is offline
 
#22
Old 01-08-2008, 10:55 PM

generally, if there isn't any stimulation/penetration going on, it's not going to be considered pornographic.

Dr Faust VIII
1.50
Dr Faust VIII is offline
 
#23
Old 03-12-2008, 02:31 AM

there is a difference between porn and art. art is made to be beautiful or express a point. a nude human body is beautiful and naked figures wrestling, hugging, kissing or even fighting is making a point. porn on the other hand, is made for the very reason of getting people hot. Nothing else. So if you are a normal person (have a normal sex drive) and you are getting hot, It's likely porn.

StarWand
(-.-)zzZ
2379.94
StarWand is offline
 
#24
Old 09-09-2015, 01:03 AM

Artistic nudity typically contributes to the symbolism behind the piece somehow, or just tastefully celebrates or embraces the human body. Pornography, on the other hand, may generally delve into gratuitously "gritty'' territory in ways showing that it was obviously created as fetish fuel, though you can typically look at a classical masterpiece and pornographic illustrations or art and be able to tell them apart. However, I guess erotica could be considered an art form, at least in some ways.

 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

 
Forum Jump

no new posts