Art and Pornography

[socalheart]

Thought of this based on a response from the Muk to a post I made in the Fired Up thread.
I've never seen any nudity or pornography posted here. :rolleyes: Maybe some artistic pictures of the human form but really now PORNO :-|

Everything I have seen here so far has pretty much been like these examples here :rolleyes:

http://travel.asia.ru/files/3189/23sitting-nudel.jpg http://www.davidhotel.it/imgoffers/david_michelangelo%5B1%5D.jpg

I have two things I tend to harp on without pause: nudity/pornography posted on this forum and how people dress like gangsters and whores as casual attire.

So, where do you stand on this if anywhere? I know many people enjoy both art and pornography. Once upon a time, in cultures other than mine or in certain religions they're considered the same. Is it wrong for it to be one or the other? I'm throwing it out tere for y'all to chew on.


Personally, I believe that pornography isn't art, and art isn't pornographic.



Note: This is NOT an invitation to post pornography on this thread. Please don't. Thank you.

[badkitty]

Here is the differece between art vs porn. To me the sole purpose of porn is for sexual excitiement. When art is there to stimulate the senses and the mind. While there is nudity in art, it's not there to stimulate people sexually. The only photo that i can see is Michaelangeo's David. It's symbolic, its beautiful. Now, Jenna Jameson, laying on her back getting rammed by random dude is not art. That is straight up sex. There is nothing artisitc about it.

[Isaak Brodsky]

Form follows function.

[Isaak Brodsky]

One is for satisfying an appetite for flesh, the other for developing an alternative appreciation for the beauty of flesh. It's not usually difficult to tell the difference between them. Porn is in no way clever, art is.

[proudtobnotpc]

ah h the beauty of a naked women.... sorry brb....:D

[Doomrider]

I mean who does not enjoy a finely sculpted penis????? I know I do

[perfect10]

I feel that art or porn is up to each individual to decide for himself or herself. I find there is a fine line between the two. I collect pin-up art, Olivia, Betty Page, Gil Elvgrin, Steve Cartihanya and a few others; I feel it is all in the presentation. I find it to be art but was turned in to family advocacy because a neighbor helped my baby sister with a dishwasher problem and unlock my bedroom door. I had a few Betty pages on the wall with bear breast and she told them I had porn all over my house.... No one went into my room that is why the door lock I cannot help it that she was nosey.

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff15/FrodoFt/thbetty01.jpg

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff56/SEXY562_03/BETTY%20PAGE/th172596800l7gt.jpg

[socalheart]

I had a few Betty pages on the wall with bear breast and she told them I had porn all over my house....

People like that give art a bad name. I admire the art of Bettie Page's and Olivia's (whom I met once) pictures. As I mentioned before though, back in the day, Bettie Page's pictures were considered pornographic, not art. A few decades later, Olivia is pop art. Some people, perhaps like your nosey neighbor, are just zealots and nothing is good and right enough for them. They are sad and miserable people. heh.

[perfect10]

People like that give art a bad name. I admire the art of Bettie Page's and Olivia's (whom I met once) pictures. As I mentioned before though, back in the day, Bettie Page's pictures were considered pornographic, not art. A few decades later, Olivia is pop art. Some people, perhaps like your nosey neighbor, are just zealots and nothing is good and right enough for them. They are sad and miserable people. heh.


Because of Betty once being considered porn is one of the reasons I put her in. All art is subjective. It is upon the viewer to determine if it is suitable and to there liking as an art form. I do not know if you know Elvgrin but it was also considered porn because it occasionally showed nipples, women in their under garments, and situations that encouraged the imagination to figure out what would come next. The line changes all the time.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e378/littlerachelc/elvgrin.jpg

[perfect10]

I would love to met Olivia, went to a convention she was at but could not get near her to many people. I do have a few signed books. There are many people that consider a lot of Pop art like Olivia’s porn.

[Muku]

Wow I gave Socal an idea for a thread....must be my lucky day today:w00t::rolleyes: :D

Ok sarcasm aside here.....

To me personally I think there is a fine line between art and porn in some cases however let me say that any photos or videos whatever of a person or persons engaging in copulation, masturbation, or some other depiction of a sexual act with the intent of getting a rise:-| out of the viewer is, to me at least pornography.

Also pictures of males or females singly in poses or positions that are depictive of the same, showing spread genitalia or positions usually associated with a sex are pornographic to me.

That being said my former avatar of Reon Kadena was not pornographic though it could be viewed as being titillating, which btw means pleasantly stimulating or exciting is not porn to me.

However there is probably a fine line between the two in many cases.

So....to each his or her own. Good topic btw Socal!

[okisteve]

I never saw any of those pictures or even heard of Bettie Page. Anyway, they strike me as nothing close to porn. More like "cheesecake" for both sexes. Certainly for men; it reminds me a lot of the old-style pinups and the old Esquire magazine. And for women, why not? Nothing wrong with admiring other women looking good and sexy.

For sure, that Elvgren works both sides of the fence. Is she asking herself which wig to wear, or is she asking her lover whether he wants to bang a blonde or a redhead.? Very cool.

[perfect10]

Wow I gave Socal an idea for a thread....must be my lucky day today:w00t::rolleyes: :D

Ok sarcasm aside here.....

To me personally I think there is a fine line between art and porn in some cases however let me say that any photos or videos whatever of a person or persons engaging in copulation, masturbation, or some other depiction of a sexual act with the intent of getting a rise:-| out of the viewer is, to me at least pornography.

Also pictures of males or females singly in poses or positions that are depictive of the same, showing spread genitalia or positions usually associated with a sex are pornographic to me.

That being said my former avatar of Reon Kadena was not pornographic though it could be viewed as being titillating, which btw means pleasantly stimulating or exciting is not porn to me.

However there is probably a fine line between the two in many cases.

So....to each his or her own. Good topic btw Socal!

I was trying to think of the best way to put what I was thinking in to words and I think you hit the nail right on the head....

[perfect10]

oki here's one that's a little S&M.:D:D... I tried to post ones that wouldn't offend some one it they saw it

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj311/dopehat757/Bettie_Page-2.gif

[elgringoloco]

It is all in the mind of the beholder:
One person's art is another person's pornography

[TheNoNamedOne]

Here is the differece between art vs porn. To me the sole purpose of porn is for sexual excitiement. When art is there to stimulate the senses and the mind.

What if the creator of the depiction intends his work for the stimulation of the mind and senses, but the masses, or even a minority, use it for the sole purpose of sexual excitement?

Whose purpose trumps the other in deciding? The creator's, or the viewer's?

[Brand_X]

art and pornography... well it depends on how you look at it. They can be the same at time and totally different at times. Its all in the eye of the beholder.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Naked in nature...

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1358314062/bclid1422258516/bctid1631207505

...It is a tribal, hedonistic experience exploring energy, joy and the beauty of nature.

[Zorro]

Trying to pin this all on intent, like with many other things, is an absolute dead end in trying to make a definition of art or porn. It always becomes completely self serving because we can never be sure of someone's intent, and so we decide based on the way we want things to go. The Puritans and zealots love this method, because it gives them a window to enforce their ways.

If you fall for this, then even some of the most harmless pics ect can suddenly be used against you. All one has to do is declare your intent and convince others of it. Just like that nosey neighbor is doing right now.

Perfect10's pics stimulate me, whether it was his intent or not. I still would hesitate to call them one or the other. Some things are both. Its not whether its one or the other anyway. Its the degree that counts.