what is the different between pron and art?? that is the big topic in my photo class the guys say it art and girl don't see the say why. i just want other views on this ?
2006-11-06 14:48:03 · 11 answers · asked by Orangie 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Other - Arts & Humanities
Suspecting you mean pornography... So here's your argument.
It's all about motive.
The reason for making art is different than the reason for making porn. Artists make art because they have an inner need to express their being in a creative way. Getting rich is not their reason for making art. (People who call themselves artists for the purpose of making money are generally fakes.) True art is inspired, and contains emotion. Lust is NOT an emotion.
People who make pornography have no interest in art, but do what they do with the prime motive of making money. They make money by exploiting other people - both the "actors/models" and the buyers. Calling pornography art simply cheapens the real thing.
Sadly, the art form of photography has taken a lot of beatings from people who misunderstand the difference between the message contained in art and that (or the lack of it) contained in pornography.
In short - the girls are right, and the boys are mistaken.
2006-11-06 15:04:01 · answer #1 · answered by joyfulpaints 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You really have to define art before you can answer this question, otherwise you're just spinning your wheels. So I'm going to use my definition:
A human-made thing is art if it fulfills at least one of the following:
A) Expresses something abstract about the artist
B) Is aesthetically pleasing
So by my definition, porn falls under B, and is thus art. But don't think that all art is equally artistic. I think that's probably where a lot of the disagreement is coming from. I think it's safe to say that a Van Gogh is more art than anything made by a 4 year-old with a box of crayons. The Van Gogh is "Lost in Translation", the 4 year-old with a box of crayons is "Weapons of A** Destruction".
*To Shayna* (Enable email messaging, it'd be much easier.)
Your statements against the aesthetic appeal of pornography are twofold. Both are fallacious:
1) Porn is not realistic, and teaches falsities about female sexuality.
--The realism of pornography is totally irrelevant. Picasso's art is far from realistic, yet it is in fact, art.
2) Porn is degrading.
-- Again, this is hardly relevant to the matter at hand. Art can't be degrading? If you actually believe that, you're entitled to that opinion, but I think that's a bit narrow-minded.
As with point 1, your ignorance of pornography (admittedly usually considered a virtue) is apparent. There are more varieties of porn than there are flavors of ice cream in all the world. Some porn is simply couples having (what you would consider realistic) sex. How is this degrading to the woman, or to anyone for that matter? Sex can be beautiful in private, but if filmed it's degrading?
In all this, I have ignored something critical to the argument so I could make the above points: degrading means "causing a loss of self-respect; humiliation." To assume that everyone who is in a porn doesn't respect themselves is not only a projection of your shame onto others, but is aggressively ignorant. You would feel humiliated if you were filmed, but that doesn't mean others would or do. So if the (let's call them) actors neither experience loss of self-respect nor humiliation, then it is not, by definition, degrading.
Also it was asked to whom it is aesthetically appealing. To the people who watch it and enjoy it, obviously.
Cheers.
2006-11-06 23:02:09 · answer #2 · answered by Jacob H 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is a difference between pornography and art. Pornography is not an expression of feelings or beauty, and is not created to be admired or inspire meaning or wonder. Art can be a fantasy, and it can be sexual fantasy, there is plenty of sexual art, fantasy or not, that is not pornography. Pornography does not serve the puporse that a painting, or a piece of writing, or some sort of artistic creation does. Pornography is a multi-million dollar industry that caters to what people want to see. It holds no artful value. Pornography is addictive, and CAN captivate a persons mind and control his/her thoughts and actions. Pornography CAN be very destructive to a persons mind, and in my opinion, is way too redally available. Porn can build a persons desire so much to do some pretty sickening things. Art can inspire someone so much to do some very good things. To me, pornography and art are total opposites. I believe.
2006-11-07 05:05:39 · answer #3 · answered by Rogi 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pornography isn't art. Art is never demeaning; porn always is. Art expresses the inner feelings of the artist; porn preys on a person's sexual feelings. Artists do not do what they do for money; people in the porn industry do. Porn exploits the women and men who work in the 'field'; art is used to uplift. Porn is dangerous and addictive, and it causes pain and suffering for some. Art never does that. Porn teaches falsities about female sexuality; art inspires the viewer to see the beauty in everything.
Pornography is also a form of prostitution. Sex is sold to make money. Where is the difference?
*To Jacob* How is pornography aesthetically pleasing? If you stopped to think about what a woman is going through to produce this 'art', as you see it, then you would know that there is nothing pleasing about it. Pornography teaches a lot of wrong things about a woman and her sexuality. I'm sorry, but it takes more than a quick pinch of my n*pples to get me going. Pornography is nothing short of degrading to women, and to the men and women who watch it, and to the men who 'act' in it.
2006-11-06 23:49:03 · answer #4 · answered by Shayna 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It mainly all depends on the context of the piece. Wether the pose is to show off the "sexual" parts of the body or is just a simple pose. Are they trying to promote the thought of sex or is it merely a pose nothing more nothing less?
In porn they are showing bodies that are sexually appealing when in art it can be any figure... Art is not made in the sense to promote the idea of sex.
I am in a college art class we have drawn nude bodies in there and trust me it's big time different.
Hope this helps. ^_^
2006-11-06 22:55:46 · answer #5 · answered by Junas 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Art should start by speaking to your intellect. Pron just speaks to sexual instinct.
That's just the way I see it.
2006-11-06 22:50:56 · answer #6 · answered by nbasuperdupe 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think it depends on the porn. Some fall more toward the artistic end of the spectrum; some fall more toward the trash end of the spectrum. It isn't really useful to generalize either way.
2006-11-07 01:16:01 · answer #7 · answered by retorik75 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
art is beautiful sex is beautiful. porn is disgusting, these ppl are getting paid to have sex with each other in front of a camera. making porn isn't a far cry from prostitution.
2006-11-06 22:52:32 · answer #8 · answered by Manx 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Art causes our soul to soar. Porn destroys our soul.
2006-11-06 23:44:03 · answer #9 · answered by beautiful_heart 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
what is pron? do you mean porn? porn is not art it's sex
2006-11-06 22:51:13 · answer #10 · answered by Brian 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋