still thinking of an earlier conversation
how about this explanation for that fine line?
"Even though an art's soul is essentially determined by beholders, perhaps in the interest of simplicity, the line that distinguishes porn from art should be assessed by the intent of the artists/pornographers. In the creators intend to solely trigger sexual emotions, perhaps they should be considered pornographers. If the creators intend to trigger cognitive responses that may or may not include emotions, then perhaps they are artists.
Perhaps an even better definition is to apply some rules of sex to art. An intimate sexual encounter has two people engaging, thinking, and having their emotions stimulated. A deviant sexual encounter is less complex. Although two people are involved, there isn't much consideration given to the other person. The emotion is rawer and there is almost no thought. A work of art is like the former. A work of pornography like the latter."
http://www.convictcreations.com/art/porn.htm
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom. Anais Nin
About Me
- Blue Fairy
- Perdutto e tutto il tempo, che in amor no si spende. Or something like that.
3 comments:
I have trouble with this line of reasoning -- with the word pornography in general. such discussions as the one you linked, while well reasoned, commence from a place of bias that I don't really accept.
art vs. porn -- as if the two are mutually exclusive.
indeed, the word iteslf -- pornography -- has become such a pejorative that it is no longer very useful, hence the discussion of "art vs. porn"
futher, I think the question of intent is a spurious argument, since the audience ultimately determines the value of a given work, regardless of what the artist intended. likewise, we can view a given work on many levels: yes, the woman is artfully lit, posed, yes, she is beautiful -- yes, it's art in every sense... oops. but she's naked, and that turns me on.
and that's one of the reasons why I find erotic art in particular so fascinating -- not only can it please the eye in a purely abstract sense, but it can also communicate a tangible emotional charge more directly than almost anything else.... "oh, what gorgeous light, what a pretty body -- omg, he has an erection! omg, that is so, so... so hot!
i know i tend to see things very differently than most, but if I were to give you an example of what I believe pornography is, I'd say "the passion of the christ."
i love photograhy ... I like to photograph many, many things... among them, people in the nude. since there's a taboo involved, I don't have my choice of models, so I shoot myself -- an act that is in itself gratifying in both an artistic and an erotic sense.
there are many, many, many people who would call the art of "the naked eye" pornography. so be it...
it's another facet of a world gone mad, that we've taken what is inarguably among our most beautiful aspects and turned it into something shameful -- I mean, our children, who universally possess genitals, are given dolls sans genitals and taught that such is "decent."
anyway, i don't mean to sound aggrieved -- I'm not -- but I guess you get the idea that I find this subject deeply interesting, eh?
thanks for looking, thinking, and listening.
ok
a long time ago i wanted to write a thesis about this but i find now that i just don't care
you take great pics
i have no problem with full frontal or anything else that does not involve the harming of an individual/animal
its just flesh
it can be beautiful
it can be ugly
so what
i'm tired and have no ability to joust at the moment
or perhaps ever
live and let live
aw, it wasn't jousting i intended -- more like communion.
sorry you have a case of the blahs... hope I didn't contribute to that.
Post a Comment