Log in

View Full Version : The line between Art and Porn


Kontroll
September 10th, 2010, 01:37 PM
Recently ive seen films that have been very very graphic, some are comedy films some have been horror films, i dont think im allowed to say the names of them here, but they have all been considered art films. Also, i doubt im allowed to say what happens in the films on here, but i will say there are many closeups of people having sex in very explicit positions and doing very explicit things to eachother and themselves. When is the line crossed between art and pornography?

Rainstorm
September 10th, 2010, 01:55 PM
For me, I consider pornography to be a movie/video made exclusively involving sex, nothing else but a few lines of cheesy dialogue. If the sex scene is just in a movie, but sex isn't the main theme and it isn't all sex, then I say it's art.

deadpie
September 10th, 2010, 03:08 PM
Art can be anything - as erotic or violent as it gets.

I mean, look at some of the stuff Andres Serrano did. He takes pictures of feces and sells it for thousands of dollars - literally.

I can consider porn to be art because beauty to me is a form of art itself.

You might think this form of art/films you see is too extreme for you, but that's probably what they want. This style of art is called Shock Art. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_art)


/end debate

Amnesiac
September 10th, 2010, 04:22 PM
Art becomes entertainment when it fails to carry a message and is made primarily for money. There are plenty of movies that can be considered art because they were made for more than just the box office revenues.

Most porn is made for pay sites, which I don't consider art. There's plenty of art porn though, which people make for the soul purpose of showing off their artistic abilities.

Azunite
September 12th, 2010, 02:58 AM
In many movies, they put sex becaue they need more watchers and if half of the movie is sex people will go to that movie again.
Porn is somethign way diffrent.
Porn is usually no more than an hour. It only shoots the sex part, not the relationship, fighting, banging, shooting parts ( like in movies )

Obscene Eyedeas
September 12th, 2010, 09:21 AM
art is interpreted differently by different people. art can be violent, art can be beautiful and art can be disturbing all at once. one wishing to debate such should understand that. shock art is imo very nice if it is done correctly but it also takes a certain type of person to correctly interpret it.

The Batman
September 12th, 2010, 09:34 AM
Who says porn isn't art? Only problem is how people see it as disgusting when it's something that we all do.

deadpie
September 12th, 2010, 01:45 PM
Art becomes entertainment when it fails to carry a message and is made primarily for money.

You don't make much money as an artist. Jackson Pollock sold some of the most expensive paintings in the world, but he wasn't a millionaire or any of that. He didn't have that much money. Same with Basquiat - he was still living in a small apartment selling 5000 dollar paintings nonstop. Art will always carry a message, whether if someone did it for money or not - because everyone likes to interpret things in their own way.


There are plenty of movies that can be considered art because they were made for more than just the box office revenues.

Most porn is made for pay sites, which I don't consider art. There's plenty of art porn though, which people make for the soul purpose of showing off their artistic abilities.


Porn is art. It's a form of erotica, although it's not the greatest type of art. It's not that creative or special in it's own way when you look at most of it, but yes, there is porn out there striving to be erotic, beautiful, and emotional to it's viewers.

Amnesiac
September 12th, 2010, 01:56 PM
You don't make much money as an artist. Jackson Pollock sold some of the most expensive paintings in the world, but he wasn't a millionaire or any of that. He didn't have that much money. Same with Basquiat - he was still living in a small apartment selling 5000 dollar paintings nonstop. Art will always carry a message, whether if someone did it for money or not - because everyone likes to interpret things in their own way.

As I said, I don't think it's art anymore when you're making it purely for profit. If whatever you're making carries a message, or is meant to be artistic, then yes, it is art. But let's say you're making a movie (Vampires Suck) simply to suck the cash out of people's pockets — it's not art.

Porn is art. It's a form of erotica, although it's not the greatest type of art. It's not that creative or special in it's own way when you look at most of it, but yes, there is porn out there striving to be erotic, beautiful, and emotional to it's viewers.

I never denied that there's porn that is art. However, as I said before, a lot of porn is made for profit, and nothing else. It doesn't carry any message, it wasn't made to be amazing to look at. For-profit porn is made to make money off of people's horniness, not to be some dazzling masterpiece.

deadpie
September 12th, 2010, 02:06 PM
As I said, I don't think it's art anymore when you're making it purely for profit. If whatever you're making carries a message, or is meant to be artistic, then yes, it is art. But let's say you're making a movie (Vampires Suck) simply to suck the cash out of people's pockets — it's not art.


The people that made vampires suck probably don't know that movies are a type of art. What those people that made that movie did is give a middle finger to all people who create films and even the critics for being so horrible.


I never denied that there's porn that is art. However, as I said before, a lot of porn is made for profit, and nothing else. It doesn't carry any message, it wasn't made to be amazing to look at. For-profit porn is made to make money off of people's horniness, not to be some dazzling masterpiece.

Art has been called Porn for a long time. People look at some of Picasso's paintings and say, "Hey look, a boob! That's porn!" But allot of people who do porn do it to make people feel good and sometimes bring couples together (I watched a movie in which a bunch of these porn stars were documented about their jobs and they talked allot about that). And if a Porn video is art, then you shouldn't call it Porn because that word is found offensive to many artists that are aiming for this type of erotic, but emotionally driven feeling to what they're doing.

JackOfClubs
September 12th, 2010, 08:13 PM
For me, if it includes sex/masturbation/etc I think of it as porn. If its just naked people sitting there without erections, its art.

deadpie
September 12th, 2010, 08:18 PM
For me, if it includes sex/masturbation/etc I think of it as porn. If its just naked people sitting there without erections, its art.

So what you're saying is there's no such thing as erotic art. That's pretty foolish of a thought imo.

Amnesiac
September 12th, 2010, 09:04 PM
The people that made vampires suck probably don't know that movies are a type of art. What those people that made that movie did is give a middle finger to all people who create films and even the critics for being so horrible.

Agreed.

Art has been called Porn for a long time. People look at some of Picasso's paintings and say, "Hey look, a boob! That's porn!" But allot of people who do porn do it to make people feel good and sometimes bring couples together (I watched a movie in which a bunch of these porn stars were documented about their jobs and they talked allot about that). And if a Porn video is art, then you shouldn't call it Porn because that word is found offensive to many artists that are aiming for this type of erotic, but emotionally driven feeling to what they're doing.

I agree, erotic art shouldn't be labeled "porn". It does seem pretty insulting.

I just don't believe some general porn video you'd find on any major paysite would be considered "art" by its definition:

the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

Your regular $10 porn DVD wouldn't be considered aesthetic or remotely artistic. It's not beautiful or appealing. It's simply the dirty offspring of capitalism, not art.

Dorsum Oppel
September 12th, 2010, 09:53 PM
Art does not have a set of rules stating that sex robs it of artfulness. Cirque du Soleil is putting out a new act, Zumanity (http://www.zumanity.com/en/home.aspx).

Our previous shows have all been family-oriented and politically correct, which is great," Laliberté said, "But we're human beings, we won't hide it. We're a bunch of happy campers. We like to live new experiences. Zumanity deals with some of those experiences."

So many things are art, and sex is one of them. It is joyous and inspirational, a unique feeling. Everything in life contains a potential to be art, just waiting to be extracted.