Where do you draw the line? In porn vs. nudism, I agree with Antithesis when she says that it all depends on whether or not the people are engaged in sexual acts. Porn vs. art and/or basic nudism vs. art are two dividing lines that are harder for me to define. You may recall the old saying about art, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it". Well, the same thing has been said about porn, but that doesn't work out too well because too many people have different definitions in their heads. I know some religious people who consider all nudity to be porn. One part of this debate has become quite important in the US because of current laws against child pornography. By some people's definitions, just seeing a child playing in the sand on a nude beach could be considered a sex crime. To me, this is absurd. To a normal and healthy person, such a scene is the epitome of innocence.
the definition of art to me is anything that inspires, so it can reside in the other two. porn? sexual activity being recorded. basic nudity? just that, the absence of clothes haha. i think that children playing on a nude beach considered a sex crime example is ridiculous too.
A picture of people fucking can be a piece of art and a great photo if the photographer has a good eye.
All up to the observer's opinion... What you should have asked is "is porn ever considered art" and I would say yes.
art is just a word people use to defend something they did which has no practical purpose. you could consider pretty much everything art; i go the opposite direction and consider pretty much nothing art. the difference between nudity and porn is a function of the intent of the creator and the viewer. nudity is nudity; porn is nudity that was done for erotic purposes, or potentially nudity that is used for erotic purposes.
I think it's easy to make a case for something that requires a tremendous amount of talent and ability to create, such as a high quality oil painting or sculpture - especially if it draws you in and makes you think about something on a deeper level than you would otherwise. But that level of talent is quite rare. The word games that people play with this subject can be frustrating. But if someone wants to call something art that does nothing for me, why should I care? If it moves, provokes, or inspires them but not me, then...good for them! That's not a real problem. Maybe they are perceiving on a higher level, or maybe not. Maybe they are just ahead of me on the learning curve. After all, I wasn't born with an appreciation for Monet. Nobody is. I think we are better off to have a liberal definition of art and allow almost anything that isn't harmful (i.e. child porn) to be included. Try looking at a lot of different things with an open mind, and you just might learn something. Sometimes art can be funny - in an absurd way. I remember once looking at a Picasso painting that was supposed to be a nude woman. My boyfriend asked me, "is that supposed to be a nipple?" I had to laugh and say honestly, "I'm not sure!" If you can't even identify the body parts, it sure as hell isn't porn! :rofl:
Thanks for the thread tribute Karen J. Back in college in art history, the class was presented this discussion. Many would agree that the classic nude sculpture of Michaelangelo's David was solely for the purpose of art. How does the image (or motion image) depict itself? Is it erotic? does it entice sex? Does contain nudity? How 'bout these famous 300 year old paintings? Olympia:http://www.griseldaonline.it/percorsi/3checcoli_1d.htm Origin of the World: http://www.gustavecourbet.org/The-origin-of-the-world.html These were controversial for their time. Olympia challenged the depiction of presenting women as sex objects. Many paintings prior to Olympia had the nude woman laid out, smiling, presenting the viewer as a form of eye candy. Perhaps enticing the viewer as a way to say "I'm all yours, baby." But Olympia, she was the first nude painting that scowls "what are you looking at? You can't have any of this." Notice her scowling face and unappealing skin tone. Fast forward to present date, and now mere images of naked people without any sexual imagery can be seen as pornographic and immoral. Yet on the National Geographic channel it is totally ok to see primitive tribes people totally naked, the FCC doesn't mind that at all.
There seems to be a lot of grey area even when I just try to form my own opinion. I can think of an artistic example as well as a pornographic example for many situations. A bunch of naked people in the same room could be a lot of things. I think that the reason that it's so hard to decide if it's art or not proves that it is in fact art. If you don't know the exact purpose behind the creation of a form of media, that means it has an artistic value upon which to speculate.
I would pass both of them on talent alone, especially the Manet (not to be confused with Claude Monet, who I mentioned earlier). All his work looks like photographs, but with better light. You have to be born with that kind of talent. Nobody can teach that. I'm sure he learned and progressed as his career went along, but his natural starting point had to be extremely high. And yes, both paintings make you think, if you are open to it. The artists definitely have something to say other than, "buy this picture; I need the money". You've heard the old saying; a picture is worth a thousand words. If you are really good, your picture is worth ten thousand words. People just have to learn to comprehend it, like you once had to learn how to read written English. I love it! This is a liberated woman! She was ahead of her time. Or at least the artist was. :cheers2: For this, we need wine glasses instead of beer mugs. Thank you for sharing this. I see that as a religious perspective, which hasn't changed in centuries. My grandparents would surely still feel that way about nudity, if they were still alive. They could never trust an artist for a moment, and step outside of themselves to see something from another perspective. I'm sure that dogmatic mindset can be traced back to the cradle of civilization. This is a classic human conflict. Can there be anything worse than being on the wrong side of a war on ignorance? This brings us to the third leg of my thread concept triangle: casual, honest nudism. A modern nudist or tribal woman relaxing and enjoying the warm sun is neither pornography nor art, and a photo of her doing so is neither porn nor art, unless the photographer has artistic talent and intent. She is merely enjoying being alive in the moment, and the opinions of others are not important to her. At most, she may wish to communicate self confidence and contentment to the observer - nothing more. There's a quiet, subtle beauty in that. From the religious dogmatic perspective, my triangle has only two legs; there can be no art in nudity. Those people would not understand this conversation. It's sad, because their lack of sophistication is depriving them of something valuable - an added dimension to being human.
That is how I feel too. I've seen many things that are considered art that no not move me at all. But they obviously move other people and I would never presume to tell someone that they are wrong about what they consider art. But I still have my opinion and I consider artful nudity or even artfully photographed sex to be completely different than 'porn'. But it is a pretty hard subject to have hard and fast rules about because one person's 'porn' might be another person's 'art'.
I don't think it's solidly divided, any creation that is not made for utility is to different degrees to entertain, to sexually arouse, or to express an idea or emotion. I suppose the ones that favor sexual arousal over the other two purposes would be be porn, while ones that favor expression are art if you had to sort it out.
My thoughts exactly. There actually are, and I am DEAD SERIOUS, people out there who see Victoria's Secret ads and regard them as pornographic. There are paintings and sculptures that feature sexuality and are still considered art. And we get aroused by whatever arouses us. It doesn't have to be pornographic, nor does it always have to be "morally right".
I agree with others on the subjectiveness of this. I think art is anything that sparks of creation with an intrinsic value of beauty to the observer. For me, I wouldn't consider a Jenna Jameson video art. But a well-shot black and white photo of a naked couple entangled in each other with facial expressions of contentment and pleasure I would. That's just my personal viewpoint, though.