If something is erotic, does that make it pornographic?
2007-06-21 03:25:30 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Other - Visual Arts
Erotica, or erotic art, is as close to pornography as art can get without being pornographic.
Via answers.com / wikipedia:
"Proponents for erotic art argue that such work is intended to arouse aesthetic rather than erotic feelings, and is therefore not pornographic. Opponents see this as a pretentious stand, as they believe that erotic art shares the same purposes as pornography. Stephen Gilbert once remarked 'The difference between erotica and pornography is simple. Erotica is what I like. Pornography is what you like, you pervert!'"
That's pretty much the closest you're going to get to an objective answer. It's really a matter of semantics and subjectivity at that point.
My stance is, if you can hang it on a wall and masturbate to it, it's porn. Then again, I don't know you.
2007-06-21 15:12:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Very much in the eye of the beholder. For some, the work of Eric Gill was considered pornographc, for others he was was a master of line. Probably, porno is designed to debase and degrade whilst true art is meant to enhance or elevate. But then, some art of today, whislt designed to shock can be called acceptable if it is received in the right spirit. So we are back to the individual view...for some it will be art and for some it will be porno. Does it offend?
2007-06-21 03:33:19 · answer #2 · answered by John G 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not necessarily. The main difference in my mind is that pornography is for sexual stimulation only whereas 'art' may or may not include this element and if it does, there is more to it than just that.
2007-06-21 03:29:41 · answer #3 · answered by megalomaniac 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
intent. art, though sometimes erotic, has the intent to be viewed as art. whereas porn has the intent to get you off.
2007-06-21 03:28:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anne 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
porn is vulgar and shows too much for one to see. art with naked people is different. It doesn't show it in a bad way. It is showing that the human body is beautiful./
2007-06-21 03:31:30 · answer #5 · answered by southg11 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The funky guitar music in the background
2007-06-21 03:29:18 · answer #6 · answered by DOC 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
pornography costs $19.95 a month
that's the difference
2007-06-21 03:28:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Intent.
2007-06-21 04:28:50 · answer #8 · answered by tdubya86 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
do you appreciate it, or are you just looking for something to stimulate you physically. thats the difference.
2007-06-21 03:28:29 · answer #9 · answered by Ibrahim 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you look at porn to please your manly needs, but you look at art because you like it, unless you like porn, and that would just make you a pervert!
2007-06-21 03:31:57 · answer #10 · answered by ~shet head~ 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋