at what point does art become pornography?

Question

I had this discussion with my friends not too long ago, and was wondering what your insight was?

I know there are rules about children being naked in pictures, paintings etc...
but at what point does this change?

and what about naked angelic paintings from hundreds of years ago?

should we still be showing these in galleries?

what about if you, for example, take a photo of your child in the bath, just because they look cute? Why is this not illegal?

to the only person who has answered:

why then, are there rules about showing pictures of naked children in galleries? If they aren't ment to be sexual, shouldn't they then be allowed to be shown?

Answer 1

Simply put, the point that art becomes porn is at penetration.

Answer 2

There's nude and then there's naked. Yes, theres a difference and sometimes the line is fine. And their are fine arts who purposely cross the line to make a statement. Take a look at the artists credentials and all their other work. This will help you decide. As for the children- Sally Mann- one of my FAVORITE photographers was accused of making child porn because of some images she took of her children. I recommend you google image her. I don't think their porn. The line for me is drawn here:
If the person in the image is "nude"- its art. Is the intent of the image to instill sexual feelings in the viewer(the pose counts for a lot here!)= porn. Just becuase children may be nude, does not mean they are being looked at as a sexual being. Also- with the chreubs- an actual cherub would have no age- would be thousands of years old. So even though they are depicted as "children" they are not.

Answer 3

I have two opinions

1. If there is someone nude in a picture then it isnt really porn unless someones views it for this purpose, many times have i admired a girls body but without a single sexual though. Only the appreciation of her beauty. So basically if a perverts looking at it then yes it is porn but if someone has no intention of that and are admiring the work then it is not.

2. A exception is the artist's purpose. If it has been published in a porn magazine and it is art then the artist had the intention of it being porn and it is unlikey that it can be seen under other conditions so it would be porn and as for the children... Well i dont know about anybody else but im not attracted to kids (if anyone at all) to be honest im kinda asexual lately.........anyway that is my opinion hope someone understands my perspective,,,

Answer 4

I agree wholeheartedly with the previous answer. Look at the content of work to determine if it is pornographic in nature or not. An example would be a sex magazine that objectifies the male and female body. Emphasis is placed on the sex organs to simulate the reader or viewer. Non-pornographic or art related material has another underlying and overall meaning other than the sexual one that may or may not be implied.

We are all sexual beings from birth to death, and the societal and personal value placed upon sex should never be underestimated. In other words, we will "see" something sexual in just about anything we experience for good or ill. Repression (of everything sexual) in our culture creates a tremedous imbalance in what was otherwise intended to be a joyful and loving act. Toss in the religious fanaticism of good and evil and you have a whole can of worms that corrupts everything it touches. Making the taking of pictures of your naked child in the bath a pedophilic event.

I guess the bottom line is your own intent. Do you believe enough in the nature of innocence to let it be, or to accept an expression of it that differs from your own? Or do you want to place a moral judgement on anything remotely connected to the sexual? In looking at a work of art that displays partial or full nudity, do you write it off as pornographic without ever considering another meaning that the artist is trying to convey? An individual's opinion and perception of just about any work of art, especially how it relates to the human form and sexuality, is what determines if a work is pornographic in nature or not.

Answer 5

"Art is a declaration of recognition"... It is a shared point of view that requires a conscious effort, it must also be sustainable within a conducive environment...

When an Artist expresses his/her work in a fassion that excludeds a meaningful POV he/she leaves his/her work open to interpretation, at which point it becomes the "right" of the audience to determine the the intent of the imagery / literature / performance and appropriate an environment to preserve that POV.

As Artists, it is imperitive that we address our intention as we present our work to a prospecive audience and stand ready to respond to critisism if nessisary, this is called; "responsability", an ethic that is rarely addressed in Modern Art discussions.

If it is the "percieved" intent of the artist to provoke an emotional responce from his/her audience that is "explicitly sexual" then it is "pornographic", however, in the event that a "work" is miss-interpretated by an audience, it is the "responsability" of the Artist to defend and/or promote his/her POV.

If he/she is unable or unwilling to do so it becomes the responsability of the audience to determine the intent, the "Audience" assumes responsability for appropriating an environment to preserve the (groups) POV, (pornographic or otherwise).

If niether are able or willing assume responsability, then it is ultimately the responsability of the public to determine (through established principals, morals and laws) the intent of an expressed POV and assert appropriate controls, to preserve the POV with respect towards the "public domain".

For more about "The Definition of Art" by Mark A. Gallegos, BFA; go to www.g3artstudios.com

Answer 6

Well, the explicit nature of the subject matter makes it hard to see initially, but it is an art form, and has been in several cultures throughout the world. Most notably in the Asian, and Indian countries, as well as places like Egypt. The major problem is that we Westerners have turned it into such a raunchy thing, that all we see is the filth, and completely forget about good taste, and artistic values. But, hard as it is to appreciate, even the raunchy stuff has it's place in the art world. It is very definitely, an entity unto itself. Kinda like a "black sheep".

Answer 7

There is no such thing as pornography in art. The image is merely a reflection of what the artist is thinking. Do we censor each other's thoughts? Of course not although there are some that would like to. If you study art history at all, you will find that many prominent artists both past and present at some time in their careers acted out their fantasies on paper, canvass or through other mediums. No one is forcing you to look at them. If the viewer finds them offensive, that's his tough luck.

Answer 8

I have seen some great art that was porn....at the same time.

http://www.amnesiacarts.com/Immagini_The_room/jeff-koons.jpg

"Jeff Koons. I find many of his works awful, almost arrogantly destructive--especially the raw porn he once employed in commemorating himself in coitus with his then wife Ciciolina--the porn star *** Italian parliamentarian. But part of artistic stature is shock value, and Koons is an accomplished shocker. I don't think Koons' works are contrived shock or kid's shock or some kind of practical joke.

His marbles are gripping. You might not like them, but he's got an exceptional talent. One mark of his abilities is the hatred he generates among the mainstream art critics. Jeffrey Deitch, 721 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10022, fax [phone] "


Nakedness in art is never pornography. Nakedness in porn is never art.

If you take a picture of your kid this never is illegal. If the same picture ends up on a computer among many other naked kids it is. It serves a different purpose and that is what makes it pornographic.

The law is overly protective of kids and I think it isn't a crime the law does that.

Answer 9

I have a strongly differnt view on art and pornography. Art is all pornography and Art and Pornography are very much the same. It is all created to titalate your senses and take the artist and viewer into past memories, feelings, untouchable worlds and draw emotions from imagery. Pornography lets many into worlds they dream of without being there and opens minds. So does art on a more intellctual level. These are general statments of course. I do not condone lots of porn, and there is lots of art I do not care for either. But every piece of pornography and every piece of art has its own target market so who are we to judge if its not meant for us? I do judge though. Its impossble not to, but unless there is a life suffering for a piece of pornography or a piece of art then it is okay/kosher in my eyes.

Answer 10

I agree with most of the posters here. Simple nudity is never pornography. Nudity that is very plainly sexual and there really are only a very poses that I would conider overtly sexual is perhaps the one exception.

Answer 11

Art concerns itself with truth; pornography concerns itself with arousal. You decide.