2006-08-17 18:50:34 · 27 answers · asked by monzy 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Other - Visual Arts
Like beauty, might it not depend what is in the eye of the beholder?
2006-08-17 19:48:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Art is just a concept and like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the trick is tho, to convince lots of people it is lol literally ANYTHING can be deemed as art (look at the turner prize) I think since pornography varies a lot from nudes to more explicit material you will also find that some will tollerate and accept some types of pornography where others may conflict with their moral or ethical beliefs. I personally believe that the naked human body can be captured in still photography or painted or even sculpted in beautiful ways, but porn for the most part is usually very tacky and exploitative in nature.
2006-08-17 23:35:00 · answer #2 · answered by xx_connor_uk_xx 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everything in life can be art, including the human body, and including sex. It's funny though...no one really can define legally what pornography is, but yet, if you go to a bookstore and intend to purchase it, it's right there in a sealed package, ready to be bought. If we can't define it legally, how do we know we are buying porn? Personally I think some types of porn can be seen as an art form simply because of the culture it represents, the needs it satisfies, and the clientele diversity it serves. Wow, this is a good question, and a hard one to answer!
2006-08-18 12:46:16 · answer #3 · answered by Mark L 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well, it all depends. this is a popular subject among constitutional law buffs. the test ,at the time i knew something about it, some years ago, was whether the "work of art" could be viewed within the community, by general community standards, as appealing to prurient interest. i won't go into the dull details on this. in other words there are "legal guidelines" for deciding the answer, and it's a question of fact in each case. you might wish to check out "prurient interest" for more detail on the matter. :-)
2006-08-17 19:03:20 · answer #4 · answered by drakke1 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Erotic art is not porn - eg the late Victorian Aesthete Movement.
Much that is pornographic is not art in the sense of having aesthetic value, but then nor is a sliced up cow!
And I got a higher A level Art grade than Damien Hurst! (But I don't have his money!! Boo hoo)
2006-08-18 02:23:07 · answer #5 · answered by andigee2006 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on one's definition of pornography and arts. Some porngraphy are arts, some are not.
" In general 'erotica' is used to imply artistic quality, sensuality, or implied sexuality, whereas 'pornography' tends to signify obscene sexual acts. " ~Wiki
2006-08-17 19:15:42 · answer #6 · answered by Dawn Treader 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i would consider some pornography as art
2006-08-17 19:03:36 · answer #7 · answered by ♥fluffykins_69♥ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some pornographic images may be art and some art may be pornographic. It all depends on your definition of pornography and Art.
2006-08-17 19:00:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
i would say yes.. i think that pretty much anything that involves people is an art form... now the real question is "is it good art?" that depends on how it is done.. i think.. but beauty is all in the eye of the beholder...
2006-08-17 18:58:40 · answer #9 · answered by ...m-k... 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think it's art as long as it's not exploiting the women
2006-08-17 20:45:18 · answer #10 · answered by BadShopper 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋