GameBanshee Forums

This is something I've been pondering for a while, but even more so since I started taking Art Appreciation and looking at nudes(paintings and sculptures) every class day and now I'm curious as to what other people think on the matter.

What is the difference between art and porn?

There is a sculpture on a palace or religious building(*forgot which*) in Indian that is of foursome(1 guy, 3 girls) having sex. How is that different from a porn pic of a guy and three girls having sex?

Many of Picasso's paintings are more perverted than much of the Hentai "art" that can be found on the net yet Picasso's work is art, but Hentai isn't.

What is the difference between the Venus de Medici or Venus de Milo and the pics in Playboy magazine?

What is the difference between Michealangelo's David or Donatello's David and the pics in Playgirl magazine?

On those last two questions, ignore the fact that the former are sculptures and the latter are photos because both are types of art.

I think the intent behind is the difference. If nudity is portrayed in a way as to show beauty or make some kind of statement, I guess that would be considered art.

If nudity is presented in a way as to arouse sexual desire to the point of satisfaction, well, that's porn.

Personally, I have no problem with it either way.

How are certain pictures of Picasso "perverted?" In what sense?

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>How are certain pictures of Picasso "perverted?" In what sense?</STRONG>

I'll mention some of them when I get home. I don't have my book of Picasso artwork with me because I'm in class right now. I don't necessarily mean "perverted" as a bad thing, and I'm not trying to put down Picasso or his work. Picasso is one of, if not, my favorite artists.

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>

What is the difference between art and porn?


</STRONG>

The only difference is in the mind of the person who does the judging.

In life, I can look at something and judge it on my standards You can see the same thing and come up with a totally different point of veiw. Now who is to say your right and I'm wrong...or that I'm right and you are wrong.

The majority?

In life if everyone thought the same....it would be one boring place.

In my opinion art is something that has a creative side to it and a nature that is not meant to be seedy or arouse someone in lustful matter. Does anyone get excited looking at David? That's a serious question yet does a straigh women get excited at seeing a large penis? Probably...

I think what you are asking brings us back to DuChamp who seemed to be asking all the right questions. Some thoughts...

Through his questioning Duchamp redefined art to be primarily a mental rather than a visual experience. And although he used a physical object (DuChamp's "Readymades" aka "Etant Donnes") to make his statement, it is apparent that what is important is the thought or idea it provides and not its visual form. Duchamp said of his motive for this: "I was interested in ideas-not merely in visual products," and "I wanted to put painting once again at the service of the mind." He referred to art that appealed to the eyes alone as "retinal."

With regard to the 'reading' of images, Roland Barthes has asked if analogical representations or copies produce 'true systems of signs' and not 'simple agglutinations of symbols'. Is it possible to conceive of an analogical 'code' - a 'language' of the image, or is the image 'the limit of meaning'.

Etant Donnes/Readymades cleaves from logos, an abyss of eros. It represents the culmination of the humanist trajectory in the philosophy of being. The perspective of the 'eye' is fused, or rather, confused with that of the 'I' in what must be the 'end game' of 'retinal art'. Sculpture and photography are reduced to indifference in this paragon of visibility. This parergon of reality. This 'hypereality'.

In Hellenistic usage, aisthesis implies 'physical affectability' as distinguished from 'mental operations'. Ananda Coomaraswamy has remarked that the Greek origin of the modern term 'aesthetic' means nothing but sensation or reaction to external stimuli - what the biologist calls 'irritability'. With this observation the conventional dichotomy of pornography and art is dissolved. Fredric Jameson has even proposed that the visual image is, in itself, 'essentially pornographic'.

Some good books:
Roland Barthes: Image, Music, Text
Ananda Coomaraswamy: The Transformation of Nature in Art and Christian and Oriental Philosophy of Art
Fredric Jameson: Signatures of the Visible

Originally posted by Nippy:
<STRONG>In my opinion art is something that has a creative side to it and a nature that is not meant to be seedy or arouse someone in lustful matter.</STRONG>

I agree, but here I ask another question. Are the photographers for Playboy and Playgirl magazines artists? I believe they are. If their work was published in a...more artistic way, i.e., on display in an artshow at an art museum, they would be artists, would they not? However, their work is published in magazines with the intent to arouse and such, thus making the pics pornography.

Originally posted by Nippy:
<STRONG>Does anyone get excited looking at David?</STRONG>

Uhh...actually, this is what really got me thinking about this to the point of posting a topic about it... ...though, Donatello's David is rather wimpy looking. Nice hat, though. My mom thought Donatello's David was a girl...until she looked down. *giggles*

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>The only difference is in the mind of the person who does the judging.

In life, I can look at something and judge it on my standards You can see the same thing and come up with a totally different point of veiw. Now who is to say your right and I'm wrong...or that I'm right and you are wrong.

The majority?

In life if everyone thought the same....it would be one boring place.</STRONG>

I agree entirely with this. I think that the same difficulties at finding a dividing line exist between porn and erotica.......

I suppose that for me personally, the distinction lies in whether or not anyone is being degraded, and how freely the
subject(s) has(have) chosen to participate.

Well, I think that defining pornography by intent is a flawed definition (though that's the one the courts use, right?). Think about this: what if one of the great artists like Van Gogh decided to paint a nude with the intent that the viewer would become sexually aroused by it and masturbate to it? Would Van Gogh's Nude be pornography or art? I suppose that most artists want to generate some emotion in the viewer--is there something inherently wrong with generating sexual arousal?

The problem with Playboy is that the photographers are not trying to respond to what photographers in the past have done--photography as art is not just about the object being photographed but the whole history of photography and a response to that. However, conceptual artists may disagree, since according to DuChamp, everything is art. And, if everything is art, then nothing is art. This is what is driving all artists and museums crazy today.

BTW, if any of you out there who are reading this are artists located in the NYC area, please email me--I'm part of a group of artists who meet regularly to create art and to discuss things like this.

Originally posted by VoodooDali:
<STRONG>--is there something inherently wrong with generating sexual arousal?


</STRONG>

This is the question.

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG> This is the question.</STRONG>

You were just waiting for a chance you communicator

@ SS, I think it would depend. Would you consider a woman with her legs spread wide apart in a frame at a portrait gallery to be artistic? Not only would the art world be in uproar but I think it's just seedy...

@VoodooDali, very perceptive. I agree pretty much with the contents of your posts, here. Porn isn't about a subject; it's about intent.

As an example, the Reverend Dodgson, a pleasant Anglican cleric in Victorian times, used the quickly developing artform of photography to take photos of nude girl children.

Ah ah--think before you leap. This was culturally acceptable in Victorian England. Children were not considered objects of sexual desire, and girl children in particular were thought of as innocent of the world's horrors and pleasures. They were therefore regarded as the next thing to angelic beings, and many photographs survive in various collections by estimable Victorians of nude girl children, posed to show their innocence. Reverend Dodgson received the permission of any child's parents first, in any case, as he was asking to use them as an artistic subject.

In cultural terms, this was certainly not porn: 1) it was culturally and legally acceptable. 2) There was no intent to sexually use the objects of the photos for any purpose whatever. 3) There was no attempt at material benefit with the results.

(Incidentally, one of Dodgson's subjects, Alice Liddell, was quite taken with the Reverend's funny tales, which differed from the kind of mathematical papers and sententious, moralistic fiction he normally wrote. Under her urging, he gathered and worked up those tales, and published them in two volumes: as Alice in Wonderland, and Alice Through the Looking Glass; for Dodgson's penname was Louis Carroll.)

By contrast, photographing children today in sexually suggestive or explicit poses and situations *is* pornography, and IMO, the people who do it deserve to be locked up good and tight. 1) It is not culturally or legally acceptable. 2) The children are being used without their knowledge (consent be damned, they aren't usually of the age to make critical choices) for sexual purposes. 3) The person doing intends some monetary benefit to themselves.

There is, then, a distinction between art and porn, at least on this very basic level which I've briefly sketched.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
<STRONG>You were just waiting for a chance you communicator </STRONG>

Has my plan been foiled?

Originally posted by Nippy:
<STRONG>@ SS, I think it would depend. Would you consider a woman with her legs spread wide apart in a frame at a portrait gallery to be artistic? Not only would the art world be in uproar but I think it's just seedy...</STRONG>

A question....why would they find this to be an uproar?

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>Has my plan been foiled?</STRONG>

That depends on if anyone bought it or not?

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>A question....why would they find this to be an uproar? </STRONG>

And Fable answers ....In cultural terms.

The majority make the rules.

Originally posted by VoodooDali:
<STRONG>Well, I think that defining pornography by intent is a flawed definition (though that's the one the courts use, right?). Think about this: what if one of the great artists like Van Gogh decided to paint a nude with the intent that the viewer would become sexually aroused by it and masturbate to it? Would Van Gogh's Nude be pornography or art? I suppose that most artists want to generate some emotion in the viewer--is there something inherently wrong with generating sexual arousal?

The problem with Playboy is that the photographers are not trying to respond to what photographers in the past have done--photography as art is not just about the object being photographed but the whole history of photography and a response to that. However, conceptual artists may disagree, since according to DuChamp, everything is art. And, if everything is art, then nothing is art. This is what is driving all artists and museums crazy today.

BTW, if any of you out there who are reading this are artists located in the NYC area, please email me--I'm part of a group of artists who meet regularly to create art and to discuss things like this.</STRONG>

You pose a good point VoodooDali but what is your opinion on the nudes that were meant to be displayed in galleries by the famous artists. I am not au fait with art but I have enough understanding to realise that art is in the eye of the beholder. To one person a Michalangelo painting is art to another Asia Carrera naked is art.

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>And Fable answers ....In cultural terms.

The majority make the rules.</STRONG>

Not just the majority, @Weasel. I also included informed choice on the part of the subject, and the purpose of making money. Sure, Rodan expected to make money for his nudes, but that was not their primary purpose. He was an artist, and he used he chosen medium to reveal beauty as he saw it. By contrast, Playboy isn't about beauty. Mind, I've got no problem with some of the lookers in the magazine, but it's definitely about making money off hormones. That's porn.

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>And Fable answers ....In cultural terms.

The majority make the rules.</STRONG>

Again you are very perceptive Weasel, I believe this is the problem. Too many of us rely on societiesdecisions instead of looking at our own moral compass.