In your opinion, is porn a form of "art?"?

Question

There have been many controversaries about this topic. Many believe the concept "beauty {or art} is in the eye of the beholder" but others believe that "porn is porn is porn, no questions asked."
Is their a line that exists between displaying sexual passion and the beauty of the nude? (Food for thought)

Answer 1

This question is loaded, because typically it's only called "porn" when the piece in question has been evaluated by society and regarded as "non art".

There are many examples of nude/erotic/explicite art, especially in the last decade. Too numerous to bother listing. It's quite popular in undergraduate art programs as well. There are a vocal minority who object to this, but they do so either from a religious or old fashioned and outdated ideology, and can't ever produce a logical argument (aside from the bible) to defend this point of view.

On the other hand, a better argument against "porn art" is that it's played out and retarded.

In contrast to "porn art" (artists who function in the real art world and make sexually explicit work that resembles internet porn) there is "art porn" (porn sites that try to emulate "art" by using moody lighting, effects, etc.--yet have cheesy taste and nothing conceptually interesting to offer and therefore aren't taken seriously by the art world).

There are a great many porn sites which, although they may be "art", they are really bad art. Fantastic porn, but bad art. To take just one popular example: Met-art.com.

I don't pretend to understand the motivation of all these "art porn" sites, but generally they seem to be run by men who date models and have really bad taste in art and design. This type of "art" seems little more than a great way to legitimize taking pix of really hot girls all day. Nothing wrong with making porn (in my opinion), but as art? It's just pretentious. Ballarina poses, cheesy props, fuzzy lighting, etc. Give me a break.

Answer 2

2

Answer 3

Porn is defined as "the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement" and is mainly a cultural standard. If you were to travel outside of the US, you would see images that your might consider Porn but are viewed as everyday images by the local population. So, the question is by who's standard of Porn are you asking about. A famous photographer from Northern California was very well regarded as being an exceptional photographer had his images called indecent and Porn in the state of Ohio. You may have heard of him, Robert Mapplethorpe.

Answer 4

Well, those who consider themselves artists, working with sexuality in their medium, tend to refer to their work as nude, or erotica, etc. 'Pornography' is reserved for referring to content to be used for autoerotic sexual activity; not meant to elevate or provoke thought, which art arguably does. The human body is historically the most frequent subject of artistic renderings, and sex is a basic human act, so human sexuality will always be a vital subject. I would say that although pornographers don't endeavor to make art, there are certainly some works that I would qualify. And I would also say that I have seen far too many works that affect themselves as art, but are more appropriately called pornography.

Answer 5

There is a great difference between porn photography and Nude photographic art.

Porn is basic sex. The buying and selling of flesh as a commodity. And selling cheap sex.

Nudes are about the contours of the body. You dont actually have to see any sexual organs. Its about the sensuality of the form whether it is male or female.

The difference is as obvious as a botticelli to penthouse.

There is no comparison

Answer 6

"Art" is correctly defined as anything that creates emotion in intelligent beings. So even though porn is the most base and primal form it is technically ART because it does create emotion. However you could also say that the ART in porn is simply the Actors themselves created by God and that the collection of them and their actions on film are coincidental to the Actual ART involved.

Answer 7

pornography
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from pornE prostitute + graphein to write; akin to Greek pernanai to sell, poros journey -- more at FARE, CARVE
1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction

The third definition could qualify it as art in that we have plenty of movies that center on violence but for the most part porn is porn. The creators of porn are not in it for the art of crafting film making.

Answer 8

there is a fine line between porn and eroticism. Porn can be more crude, while eroticism can be more refined.
through history, there have been different art forms that have been labeled as "porn".
I think that art should not be censored.
All nudity in art is not sexual, or erotic.

Answer 9

depends on the porn.

i think art is made for art, not smut made for wacking off. so if it's a nude that has been though about and executed with a fine sense of respect then possibly.

and whether that would be good art is a matter of opinion as well.

Answer 10

I think it basically depends on the intent of the creator of the work.

Some put out junk purely for money. Others approach it purely as an art form.