stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,771
The Fine Line Between Art and Pornography
- Thread starter stlukesguild
- Start date
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,771
You don't love ArtActivistBarbie? 
musket
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,031
I got no prob with her, but she's wasting her time. Lots and lots of guys are little more than walking, talking bundles of appetite-- even if they don't know what the word "commodity" means, that's all women are to them, there to be consumed. You can't raise the consciousness of males who have hardly any consciousness to begin with.
musket
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,031
“The boundaries have always been blurred,” says Hans Maes, a lecturer in art history at Kent University who has written extensively on the subject. “It’s generally assumed that pornography has two key characteristics: it’s sexually explicit and its aim is to sexually arouse the viewer. Well, throughout history and across cultures you can find great works of art that share those very characteristics. Think of some of the mosaics in Pompeii, Kama Sutra sculptures or some of Gustav Klimt’s explicit drawings. If you want, compare Goya’s Naked Maja to a Playboy centrefold and tell me the line is not blurred.”
Real people do the same things--present themselves in sexually provocative ways, be it buff women in string bikinis that reveal as much skin as possible or ripped guys in whatever those tight, tiny swim trunks designed to call attention to the size of their equipment are called, with the aim of sexually arousing the viewer.
Real people pose all the time when in search of a sex partner, even when not dressed in such scanty clothing. Dresses designed to show as much cleavage as possible, spandex jeans so tight that they show off the buns (for both men and women)... the whole point is to arouse the viewer. And of course, there is body language which also has the same effect, deliberately.
So why doesn't this qualify as a form of porn?
Real people do the same things--present themselves in sexually provocative ways, be it buff women in string bikinis that reveal as much skin as possible or ripped guys in whatever those tight, tiny swim trunks designed to call attention to the size of their equipment are called, with the aim of sexually arousing the viewer.
Real people pose all the time when in search of a sex partner, even when not dressed in such scanty clothing. Dresses designed to show as much cleavage as possible, spandex jeans so tight that they show off the buns (for both men and women)... the whole point is to arouse the viewer. And of course, there is body language which also has the same effect, deliberately.
So why doesn't this qualify as a form of porn?
musket
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,031
Obviously, the activists quoted in the article. A more interesting question to me is, what's the difference between activism and censorship? Where does one draw the line? This is actually a question of considerable import today, especially on college campuses. But I'll drop it. It ain't that important to me.
Bongo
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,571
In the past sexual content in Fine Arts - to the people of that time- might have been arousing, but in today's context, I think we find it for the most part staid.
Today's "porno" on display in a presumedly respectable public setting might be shocking to some but "Porno" dies in the light of day. To be "aroused" you have to be not only in the presence of a stimulus but "in the mood" as well.
Nor do I think you can argue (with a straight face) on the grounds of aesthetic appropriateness while at the same time displaying bananas gaffer taped to a wall. If a club used to bash in heads so brains could be eaten can be re-contexted to be art, then why not "Porno"?
The club hanging on a museum wall no longer threatens - as the "porno" hanging in the next gallery no longer arouses.
No one has the urge to light up a cigarette after looking at a Lucian Freud painting.
Today's "porno" on display in a presumedly respectable public setting might be shocking to some but "Porno" dies in the light of day. To be "aroused" you have to be not only in the presence of a stimulus but "in the mood" as well.
Nor do I think you can argue (with a straight face) on the grounds of aesthetic appropriateness while at the same time displaying bananas gaffer taped to a wall. If a club used to bash in heads so brains could be eaten can be re-contexted to be art, then why not "Porno"?
The club hanging on a museum wall no longer threatens - as the "porno" hanging in the next gallery no longer arouses.
No one has the urge to light up a cigarette after looking at a Lucian Freud painting.
Last edited:
J
JohnEmmett
Art is poetry. Poetry is about ideals.
Ideals are aimed at heaven.
Ideals are aimed at heaven.
Last edited by a moderator:
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,771
In the past sexual content in Fine Arts - to the people of that time- might have been arousing, but in today's context, I think we find it for the most part staid.
The club hanging on a museum wall no longer threatens - as the "porno" hanging in the next gallery no longer arouses.
No one has the urge to light up a cigarette after looking at a Lucian Freud painting.
I don't think you can make any assumptions as to how a work of art might impact... or arouse... others. I had a visitor to our studios slip me his business card and tell me that if he owned one of my paintings he'd never stop masturbating.
I think part the problem with the whole question of the "fine line between Art and Pornography" is the idea that fine Art cannot be intentionally arousing or erotic. This is due a great deal to the art critics and art historians who turned summersaults in attempting to downplay the erotic or sexual content in works of art that strike me as clearly erotic. I'm reminded of the theologians who worked themselves into convoluted knots to deny the erotic nature of Biblical Song of Songs... even attempting to turn the Hebrew poem into an allegory of Christ and the Church.
Sex is a profound part of human experience. It strikes me as absurd to even suggest that such should not and would not play a major role in art... any more than themes such as mortality and death, birth and parenthood, love and hate, war, etc... Of course, the problem is the word "pornography". The word, as many do, comes from ancient Greek. It is a combination of πόρνη or pórnē (prostitute) and γράφειν or gráphein (to write, record, or illustrate) and basically meant a written description or illustration of prostitutes or prostitution. With time it took on a broader meaning: the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual arousal. Today, we generally think of pornography or porno as the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the exclusive purpose of sexual arousal.
But where does that place Picasso's 347 prints, the drawings of Rodin, Klimt, and Schiele, Shunga prints, Aubrey Beardsley, or the ancient Indian temple sculpture Khajuraho? A dictionary definition suggests the term Erotica which includes works of art, including literature, photography, film, sculpture, painting, prints, drawings, illustrations, etc... that deal substantively with stimulating or sexually arousing descriptions, such as the portrayal of the human anatomy and sexuality which yet retain high-art aspirations... or rise above the merely arousing in spite of the intentions... differentiating such work from commercial pornography. IMO, there is no doubt that Goya's Naked Maja, Velazquez' Rokeby Venus, Shunga prints, many of Cranach's nudes, many drawings by Rodin, Klimt, and Schiele... even Michelangelo's Ignudi on the Sistine Ceiling qualify as Erotica... but not Pornography.
Simply dropping the letter "a" we have the Erotic which is again something different altogether. The Erotic is that which an individual finds arousing... but it need not include a depiction or portrayal of sexual subject matter or have been created with the purpose or intention of sexual arousal. Someone may find a certain perfume or other scent arousing. Some may find certain foods arousing. Still again, some might might certain fabrics, works of music, or the sound of a voice arousing and thus erotic. The Victorians notoriously were supposedly aroused by the legs on fine furniture and thus added the drapery skirts to cover these from their view.
Member E.J.H.'s post above states it far more concisely than I have:
A cow is a mammal, but not all mammals are cows.
Porn is sexually arousing, but that does not make everything that is sexually arousing, porn.
The club hanging on a museum wall no longer threatens - as the "porno" hanging in the next gallery no longer arouses.
No one has the urge to light up a cigarette after looking at a Lucian Freud painting.
I don't think you can make any assumptions as to how a work of art might impact... or arouse... others. I had a visitor to our studios slip me his business card and tell me that if he owned one of my paintings he'd never stop masturbating.
I think part the problem with the whole question of the "fine line between Art and Pornography" is the idea that fine Art cannot be intentionally arousing or erotic. This is due a great deal to the art critics and art historians who turned summersaults in attempting to downplay the erotic or sexual content in works of art that strike me as clearly erotic. I'm reminded of the theologians who worked themselves into convoluted knots to deny the erotic nature of Biblical Song of Songs... even attempting to turn the Hebrew poem into an allegory of Christ and the Church.
Sex is a profound part of human experience. It strikes me as absurd to even suggest that such should not and would not play a major role in art... any more than themes such as mortality and death, birth and parenthood, love and hate, war, etc... Of course, the problem is the word "pornography". The word, as many do, comes from ancient Greek. It is a combination of πόρνη or pórnē (prostitute) and γράφειν or gráphein (to write, record, or illustrate) and basically meant a written description or illustration of prostitutes or prostitution. With time it took on a broader meaning: the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual arousal. Today, we generally think of pornography or porno as the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the exclusive purpose of sexual arousal.
But where does that place Picasso's 347 prints, the drawings of Rodin, Klimt, and Schiele, Shunga prints, Aubrey Beardsley, or the ancient Indian temple sculpture Khajuraho? A dictionary definition suggests the term Erotica which includes works of art, including literature, photography, film, sculpture, painting, prints, drawings, illustrations, etc... that deal substantively with stimulating or sexually arousing descriptions, such as the portrayal of the human anatomy and sexuality which yet retain high-art aspirations... or rise above the merely arousing in spite of the intentions... differentiating such work from commercial pornography. IMO, there is no doubt that Goya's Naked Maja, Velazquez' Rokeby Venus, Shunga prints, many of Cranach's nudes, many drawings by Rodin, Klimt, and Schiele... even Michelangelo's Ignudi on the Sistine Ceiling qualify as Erotica... but not Pornography.
Simply dropping the letter "a" we have the Erotic which is again something different altogether. The Erotic is that which an individual finds arousing... but it need not include a depiction or portrayal of sexual subject matter or have been created with the purpose or intention of sexual arousal. Someone may find a certain perfume or other scent arousing. Some may find certain foods arousing. Still again, some might might certain fabrics, works of music, or the sound of a voice arousing and thus erotic. The Victorians notoriously were supposedly aroused by the legs on fine furniture and thus added the drapery skirts to cover these from their view.
Member E.J.H.'s post above states it far more concisely than I have:
A cow is a mammal, but not all mammals are cows.
Porn is sexually arousing, but that does not make everything that is sexually arousing, porn.
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,771
Art is poetry. Poetry is about ideals.
Ideals are aimed at heaven.
I get the feeling you haven't read much poetry.
Ideals are aimed at heaven.
I get the feeling you haven't read much poetry.
J
JohnEmmett
"Our feeling for beauty is a spiritual and not a sensual emotion."
-Roger Scruton
"Art is the only clean thing on earth, except holiness."
-Joris-Karl Huysmans
-Roger Scruton
"Art is the only clean thing on earth, except holiness."
-Joris-Karl Huysmans
Last edited by a moderator:
J
JohnEmmett
Last edited by a moderator:
Bongo
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,571
Porn is sexually arousing, but that does not make everything that is sexually arousing, porn.
yes- porn is defined as what arouses the other guy - love, lust, the imperative to procreate are what arouses "us.".
I don't think you can make any assumptions as to how a work of art might impact... or arouse... others. I had a visitor to our studios slip me his business card and tell me that if he owned one of my paintings he'd never stop masturbating.
l think you just made my point. He didn't masturbate in your studio because of the context but in another context - the bedroom he would choke the monkey.
Both of the above quotes make the valid point that we cannot assume with total fidelity how a given work will be perceived. But imo we can find the broad outlines, the bell curve of responses - and on that basis determine the appropriateness for inclusion in a fine-arts institution.
This is not saying porn is bad, - just that fine-arts institution is the wrong venue. And the curve can shift over time. Every institution has an "umpire" that makes the call - erotica or porn. Important to remember not getting into a gallery or museum is not the same as having your work burned in a funeral pyre. Imo most people don't go to fine-art institutions to get their porn anyway- that's what incognito mode on your browser is for.
yes- porn is defined as what arouses the other guy - love, lust, the imperative to procreate are what arouses "us.".
I don't think you can make any assumptions as to how a work of art might impact... or arouse... others. I had a visitor to our studios slip me his business card and tell me that if he owned one of my paintings he'd never stop masturbating.
l think you just made my point. He didn't masturbate in your studio because of the context but in another context - the bedroom he would choke the monkey.
Both of the above quotes make the valid point that we cannot assume with total fidelity how a given work will be perceived. But imo we can find the broad outlines, the bell curve of responses - and on that basis determine the appropriateness for inclusion in a fine-arts institution.
This is not saying porn is bad, - just that fine-arts institution is the wrong venue. And the curve can shift over time. Every institution has an "umpire" that makes the call - erotica or porn. Important to remember not getting into a gallery or museum is not the same as having your work burned in a funeral pyre. Imo most people don't go to fine-art institutions to get their porn anyway- that's what incognito mode on your browser is for.
J
JohnEmmett
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,771
"Art is the only clean thing on earth, except holiness."
-Joris-Karl Huysmans
And yet Huysmans was every bit as much of the sensualist and the hedonist as Oscar Wilde, Baudelaire, Verlaine, and Rimbaud.
-Joris-Karl Huysmans
And yet Huysmans was every bit as much of the sensualist and the hedonist as Oscar Wilde, Baudelaire, Verlaine, and Rimbaud.
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,771
Roger Scruton? You can't be serious.
Scruton wasn't always off the mark... as he was in the quote above. I quite agree with his dislike of a lot of Modernist architecture.
Scruton wasn't always off the mark... as he was in the quote above. I quite agree with his dislike of a lot of Modernist architecture.
