Interesting topic, and one that deserves a significant amount of attention, now that porn is much more readily available than it ever was in the past.
My thoughts - Short answer: yes.
Long answer: Yes, art is subjective, but there has to be such a thing as subjectively "good" art. Without a certain standard, we would never be able to differentiate between, for example, the Mona Lisa and a simple sketch, or a work by Mozart and a song by Miley Cyrus. While, in both examples, the two may have the intent to be a legitimate work of art, one simply does it better than the other, for whatever reason. I'm not going to get too far into it, but we all have to agree that some "art" is better than others.
That being said, porn, for the most part, is made to arouse its audience and nothing more. Watch anything online, and you'll find low production values, shitty photography, and horrible acting...but that's not the point. Tits are a-jiggling and that's all that matters. It's not art, and if it is, it's really, really bad art.
However, that doesn't eliminate the possibility that porn could be filmed artistically, it's just saying that it largely isn't. The point is that, if the sex acts were actually approached from an artistic standpoint, and it was done with care, and with specific purpose in mind, pornographic scenes could very well be considered art. Think of "Watchmen", the movie. The one big sex scene had a definite point to it, it wasn't there just for T&A. If you saw more skin, it wouldn't be too different than anything "pornographic" in nature: ie. real sex shown on screen. However, it would still maintain the same purpose, and, as such, contribute to a work of art.
It's all about context. Porn can be art, sure, just if it's done right.
My thoughts - Short answer: yes.
Long answer: Yes, art is subjective, but there has to be such a thing as subjectively "good" art. Without a certain standard, we would never be able to differentiate between, for example, the Mona Lisa and a simple sketch, or a work by Mozart and a song by Miley Cyrus. While, in both examples, the two may have the intent to be a legitimate work of art, one simply does it better than the other, for whatever reason. I'm not going to get too far into it, but we all have to agree that some "art" is better than others.
That being said, porn, for the most part, is made to arouse its audience and nothing more. Watch anything online, and you'll find low production values, shitty photography, and horrible acting...but that's not the point. Tits are a-jiggling and that's all that matters. It's not art, and if it is, it's really, really bad art.
However, that doesn't eliminate the possibility that porn could be filmed artistically, it's just saying that it largely isn't. The point is that, if the sex acts were actually approached from an artistic standpoint, and it was done with care, and with specific purpose in mind, pornographic scenes could very well be considered art. Think of "Watchmen", the movie. The one big sex scene had a definite point to it, it wasn't there just for T&A. If you saw more skin, it wouldn't be too different than anything "pornographic" in nature: ie. real sex shown on screen. However, it would still maintain the same purpose, and, as such, contribute to a work of art.
It's all about context. Porn can be art, sure, just if it's done right.
