[Tocsin]

Originally Posted by Rohsiph To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is an interesting argument . . . but I wonder if it might fail by way of slippery slope. If anything that stirs emotions is art, then everything that can possibly stir emotions is art. I have trouble thinking of anything that cannot possibly stir emotions, therefore, by this definition of art, absolutely everything is (at least potentially) art. That might not be a bad thing, but I'm sure there are some who would vehemently disagree with certain things being rightly called 'art'.

Hmmmm... good point.

A punch in the face would stir emotions in most people...

But would it be art?

Maybe, maybe not. But I don't think many people would appreciate it.

[zibber]

Originally Posted by PeterIMC To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The idiots that weld 10 pieces of trashed metal together are not artists at all. That's never been more than the expression of an enormous lack of skill. The same thing for those people (I'll stop calling them idiots To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ) that throw paint against a piece of paper and call that art. It's not! Many things are called art, but they just aren't.

Read some art discourse before naturalising your opinion.

[Kisai]

	Originally Posted by Tocsin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hmmmm... good point. A punch in the face would stir emotions in most people... But would it be art? Maybe, maybe not. But I don't think many people would appreciate it.

There are many fans of boxing and martial arts who do appreciate it.





Kisai added to this post, 4 minutes and 11 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by Rohsiph To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The answer I keep coming around to is: no, "pornography" cannot be considered art. The definition of "pornography" I understand is some form of explicit entertainment produced entirely for the purpose of being consumed in order to titillate and arouse (and make the producers money).

So if I make a picture of two people getting it on with the motivation of being consumed in order to titillate and arouse, that's pornography.

But if I make the same exact picture with the motivation of uplifting mankind's eyes towards natural beauty, it's art.

How do you differentiate between those two pictures?

[PeterIMC]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Read some art discourse before naturalising your opinion.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree. I remember when I was in highschool in a class where we had to build something out of materials, the goal was to build a dream house. That was interesting, I built something with lots of details. But I got a lousy grade.

Another student who literally did nothing more than put 4 pieces of wood together in some kind of piramid shape with some colors got the highest grade. Why? He made up some dumb story about how he imagined it and how it made him feel. Our artistic teacher loved it.

I'm sorry, but I have no respect for that.





PeterIMC added to this post, 4 minutes and 16 seconds later...

Originally Posted by Kisai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There are many fans of boxing and martial arts who do appreciate it. Kisai added to this post, 4 minutes and 11 seconds later... So if I make a picture of two people getting it on with the motivation of being consumed in order to titillate and arouse, that's pornography. But if I make the same exact picture with the motivation of uplifting mankind's eyes towards natural beauty, it's art. How do you differentiate between those two pictures?

That's the thing,.. art is defined by the story that you tell with your creation. Makes no sense what so ever.





PeterIMC added to this post, 4 minutes and 26 seconds later...

Look at the old painters from the middle ages. They were real artists. Their paintings are worth millions now. But what were they in their time? Nothing more than skilled workers that made a picture.

[Tocsin]

	Originally Posted by Kisai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There are many fans of boxing and martial arts who do appreciate it.

They appreciate being punched in the face!?!

[metamagnet]

	Originally Posted by Kisai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So if I make a picture of two people getting it on with the motivation of being consumed in order to titillate and arouse, that's pornography. But if I make the same exact picture with the motivation of uplifting mankind's eyes towards natural beauty, it's art. How do you differentiate between those two pictures?

Pornography's only intent is to arouse and get off the viewer. It has no redeeming social value. Art does. That is the difference.

[Kisai]

	Originally Posted by Tocsin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	They appreciate being punched in the face!?!

They appreciate 'a' punch to the face.





Kisai added to this post, 3 minutes and 11 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by metamagnet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Pornography's only intent is to arouse and get off the viewer. It has no redeeming social value. Art does. That is the difference.

So it isn't what the artist actually creates, it is society's judgment that makes something 'art'?

[metamagnet]

	Originally Posted by Kisai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So it isn't what the artist actually creates, it is society's judgment that makes something 'art'?

Pornography isn't art, so its creators are not artists.

[Tocsin]

	Originally Posted by metamagnet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Pornography's only intent is to arouse and get off the viewer. It has no redeeming social value. Art does. That is the difference.

Perhaps you need to reconsider your definition of art.

Chris Burden had himself shot in the arm with a .22 as performance art.

Jeff Koons and Ilona Staller made large photographic prints of themselves performing oral, vaginal, and anal sex as art.

Both are written about, discussed, and critiqued in the art world as artists.

Where is the redeeming social value?

[metamagnet]

I do not know the intent with which Chris Burden shot himself in the arm. Perhaps he was trying to show the brutality of gunshot wounds. If that is the case - then that is the redeeming social value.

The pictures of Jeff and Ilona are a grey area. After viewing the pics from your link...some of them I would not count as pornography, such as the ones where they are posed holding each other. Images such as that have been around in art for centuries, it's not new and its not porn. On the other hand, the image - for example - where Jeff's one eye'd willy is half way up Ilona's septic tank...is pointless. How do you critique such an image?

[totallyconfused]

Here is a fun one..

So if you take your children on holiday to the beach and you take some pictures of them 'frolicking' on the beach....have you created child pornography? (the children are under 10 years old- with some clothed and unclothed)

If people wish me to clarify the definition of 'child porn' in the UK just let me know.
TC

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by PeterIMC To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	[A] student who literally did nothing more than put 4 pieces of wood together in some kind of piramid shape with some colors got the highest grade. Why? He made up some dumb story about how he imagined it and how it made him feel. Our artistic teacher loved it. I'm sorry, but I have no respect for that.

Peter.. that sucks, if he was truly bullshitting. There is a lot of that in the contemporary art world, because it leaves people with ample opportunity to be insincere. (Commercially speaking, sincerity isn't even a factor.) That's a shame. Does those unfortunate cases invalidate all of conceptual art, though? Of course not. Even if the majority of alleged conceptual artists were really bullshit artists, the sincere ones would still be artistically legitimate.

	Originally Posted by PeterIMC To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Look at the old painters from the middle ages. They were real artists. Their paintings are worth millions now. But what were they in their time? Nothing more than skilled workers that made a picture.

That is just your definition of art: technically skilled work. Obviously, artisans are very technically skilled. Do they have exclusive rights to the term "art"? Don't be ridiculous. Right now you are basically just echoing that trite old "I can do that, so it isn't art" line.

Originally Posted by metamagnet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The pictures of Jeff and Ilona are a grey area. After viewing the pics from your link...some of them I would not count as pornography, such as the ones where they are posed holding each other. Images such as that have been around in art for centuries, it's not new and its not porn. On the other hand, the image - for example - where Jeff's one eye'd willy is half way up Ilona's septic tank...is pointless. How do you critique such an image?

What you did is look at the pictures without knowing anything about the context, merely judging them formally. That method is quite effective when you're writing about 17th century Dutch art, but it comes horribly short here.

(You can condemn art that isn't particularly susceptible to this method as esoteric or something along those lines, but it is what it is. Something that wasn't made to be (primarily) critiqued formally is just that.)

As for the "most porn-like" photo you picked out of the batch, this would be critiqued as part of the series. It's a series, critiquing one single photo out of context doesn't do justice to the conceived work as a whole.

[PeterIMC]

Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Peter.. that sucks, if he was truly bullshitting. There is a lot of that in the contemporary art world, because it leaves people with ample opportunity to be insincere. (Commercially speaking, sincerity isn't even a factor.) That's a shame. Does those unfortunate cases invalidate all of conceptual art, though? Of course not. Even if the majority of alleged conceptual artists were really bullshit artists, the sincere ones would still be artistically legitimate.

I don't think he was bullshitting at all. He just had 2 left hands when it came down to building something with his hands. That he is much better at talking than at using his hands does not make his creation art.

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That is just your definition of art: technically skilled work. Obviously, artisans are very technically skilled. Do they have exclusive rights to the term "art"? Don't be ridiculous. Right now you are basically just echoing that trite old "I can do that, so it isn't art" line.

No not at all. There are many things that people think they can do that they actually can't. But in my opinion, if something needs a story in order to be labeled "Art".... then it's most likely not.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that welding pieces of metal together can't be art. I remember once I saw on tv an artist that did just that, but he did something extra: If you put a light on the statue under the right angle,.. the shadow was the shilouette of a woman. That I liked, that gets closer to art, though probably in the official "art world" it's not considered top art. It's already too specific.





PeterIMC added to this post, 2 minutes and 39 seconds later...

Here´s a question: Is the music of Chuck Berry art?

[graciela224]

Personally, I like to quote Arnold Hauser: "All art is a game with and a fight against chaos."

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by PeterIMC To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't think he was bullshitting at all. He just had 2 left hands when it came down to building something with his hands. That he is much better at talking than at using his hands does not make his creation art.

What I meant by bullshitting was that he randomly put some stuff together and then made up a story about it afterwards. That's akin to postrationalisation, and it's very contrived and insincere. The way you explain it, he was bullshitting
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


What I intended to convey is that there is a world of difference between that and a conceptual work that came forth from or the formation of which was greatly influenced by an artistic intention.

(Mind you, we are talking about quite heavily conceptual art here. That's a mere branch on the tree of art. There are plenty of very talented artists who don't attach loads of discourse to their work and leave the writing to the academics/critics. In that case, the discourse isn't intrinsically tied to the work and isn't really required for proper viewing.)

	Originally Posted by PeterIMC To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No not at all. There are many things that people think they can do that they actually can't. But in my opinion, if something needs a story in order to be labeled "Art".... then it's most likely not.

This is your taste. I don't think a shadow trick adds as much to a metal sculpture as a constructivist thesis would, but that's me. It's true that the emphasis on discourse is prevalent in the general art community, though, so that may well have influenced my position greatly. (Also, it's just more intellectually gratifying than "ooh, that's pretty".)

[replicant]

No. Movie Porno has no literary or artistic value. It's only value is sexual stimulation.

Example comparison: Soft core on Cinemax and Bertolucci's Stealing Beauty - specifically the scene between the young Italian man and Liv Tyler.

Big difference in substance and context.

[metamagnet]

Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What you did is look at the pictures without knowing anything about the context, merely judging them formally. That method is quite effective when you're writing about 17th century Dutch art, but it comes horribly short here. (You can condemn art that isn't particularly susceptible to this method as esoteric or something along those lines, but it is what it is. Something that wasn't made to be (primarily) critiqued formally is just that.) As for the "most porn-like" photo you picked out of the batch, this would be critiqued as part of the series. It's a series, critiquing one single photo out of context doesn't do justice to the conceived work as a whole.

If you can explain to me how the picture in question I used as an example added to the whole in a positive way, please do so.

[Uberfuhrer]

Yes. Porn counts as art.

Before they had cameras, naked women were painted on a canvas.

[replicant]

	Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes. Porn counts as art. Before they had cameras, naked women were painted on a canvas.

Uber, thanks for posting that thought. In actually, my quote relates to film pornography.

I have different view of the Karma Sutra, Japanese Shunga, erotic art such as pin-ups like that of Luis Royo and Hajime Soriyama and even H.R. Giger. Artistic nudes are one thing and there are plenty on Deviantart, but to me some of them are pornographic and not artistic.

It's really a matter of opinion. That's just how I feel about it.

[PeterIMC]

	Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes. Porn counts as art. Before they had cameras, naked women were painted on a canvas.

And putting them on canvas makes it all the sudden art???

[ryanteocc]

Could it be that one criteria of good art could be that it encourages debate and provokes thinking?

Anyway, the perception of art is up to the individual. I don't think there can ever be a universal definition of what makes art that will be accepted by everyone. =)

Before I get flamed, this is from someone who has never been trained in art.

[Gargoyle]

Porn can be art. Not all porn is art, just the same way that not all theatrical release movies are art. Look at artistic movies like 'Brazil' or 'Apocalypse Now' versus commercial crap like 'Dumb and Dumber' or 'White Chicks.'

If you want an example of art porn check out most Michael Ninn movies. Yes they are commercial erotica designed to 'get off' the consumer, but their design and production easily makes them art.

[Visum]

Not really sure I care unless you are asking me to buy your art. However, I can't help imagining a farmer with his camera precariously placed on the fence near the barnyard. He then very carefully observes and then chooses his most visually appealing animals to video. Excitedly he exclaims, "Ooh, look at that bull, he's got a great rack of horns! Oh... OMG.., look at that cow, she has got to have the most curvy utter I have ever seen, lets hook them up!" "Make sure we have some shit patties lying around too, you know, to make it look real."

[Anderson]

Not only can porn be art, (emphasis on the word can) but art can also be porn.

Much of my "porn" collection features drawings that I bought at art shows/galleries, and they contain neither nudity nor overt sexual behavior.

But I find them, very arousing, nonetheless due to their erotic facial expressions, body figure, overall theme of the drawing, etc.

[Marquesaurus]

I really agree whith you!