Well the most obvious one that springs to mind is Robert Mapplethorpe - one of his collections of photographs was if i remember rightly the subject of a court case in america which argued exactly what you are asking, was it art or just porn - the main photo of concern was a close up of someone being 'fisted' (mapplethorpes book was referenced in a simpsons episode - homer ended up looking at it by accident to his horror!)
The japanese photographer Araki has often been accused of being a pornographer.
and Larry Clarke, who made the films 'Kids' also makes photographs which again tread this thin line.
many artists have dabbled with pornography as a subject, but in most cases there is usually a distinct element of 'art' about it, as in it is painted or sculpted or just plain weird (the Chapmans as mentioned above for instance actually made a porn film except that the main protagonist was a severed head with a penis for a nose! this is too bizarre to be said to be treading the line between art and porn, its weirdness places it firmly in the former catagory).
photographers however seem to run into trouble due to the graphic documentary nature of the photograph, the 'artistry' is less apparent and therefore the line is more blurred.
this is also due to the fact that photography is generally the medium of genuine pornography.
in many ways the photograph by its very nature is pornographic if you think about the wider use of the word - in reference to violence for instance - this is something Matt Collishaw addressed with his graphic photograph of a head wound which looked distinctly vaginal.
hope some of this is useful
2006-10-19 02:10:07
·
answer #1
·
answered by R Mutt 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's a very tough subject - art or porn?
A lot of artists have looked at pornography within their works, but the most recent exhibiton of porn or art (held in the Tate Modern, September this year) was a 2 hour video of 8 short films by artists such as Sam Taylor-Wood and Larry Clark (which is just porn!) Sam Taylor-Woods' piece was of a cowboy walking into the desert, kneels down and starts to masterbate.
This exhibition was VERY controversial, and lots of people didn't see it as art at all.
I'm unsure, as the films were all created by artists, so does it make it art??
I don't know if you can say anyone's taken it too far. Art is there to be pushed. To be tested, and rules to be broken. It needs a new direction, so is 'porn' the way forward? It's all to do with the concept behind the pieces in my opinion.
2006-10-18 09:36:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by nijikin 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Most of them! Think about it...BOTTYcelli, TITian, and Caravagio's homoerotic stuff has to be seen to be believed. If Leonardo's 'Leda and the swan' isn't an invitation to miscgenation, I don't know what is! Michaelangelo's 'David'? is that a cudgel he's got on his shoulder.. or is he just pleased to see you?Moving on to the Impressionists..I mean 'dejeuner sur l'herbe'..sex and drugs! After his 'Blue Period' Picasso went on to do 'Lez(!) demoiselles d'auvignon'-pure filth. Then Dali with 'the temptations of St Antony' (phwoaar!) not to mention the flaccid watch scene. Look at any Jackson Pollock, cross your eyes, defocus them and suddenly a 3-D tableau of naked nymphs fornicating springs from the canvas.(try it!) We have time only to touch on Damien Hirst's sheep and shark in formaldehyde and Tracy Emin's bed..pornographers the lot of 'em. Hope that's been helpful-cheers!
2006-10-18 12:40:54
·
answer #3
·
answered by troothskr 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
try looking at jake and dinos chapmans work, very strange, but something you have to look at to check what you are seeing is right, but work that often vegers on being just wrong
2006-10-18 17:52:04
·
answer #4
·
answered by falcoholism 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Your questions seem to have a bit of a theme establishing don't they? Do you perhaps wish to elucidate a little?
And by the way... my understanding of what art is is different to everyone elses so does it really matter?
2006-10-18 07:19:40
·
answer #5
·
answered by Harrison N 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
Jenny Saville. We're studying her in GCSE Art, and it's gross. But maybe that's just the view of a teenager!
2006-10-18 11:41:04
·
answer #6
·
answered by *Kate* 2
·
0⤊
2⤋