HERESY! (Art & Porn)

[Reeve]

"Heretics are the only [bitter] remedy against the entropy of human thought." - Yevgeny Zamyatin, Author of We

And this is my heretical contention: Art and pornography are not mutually exclusive. That is to say that: Pornography can be considered a form of art.

My evidence? Go and have a look on some NSFW hentai websites and try coming back to tell me that the work on those sites isn't creative expressions of the human imagination.

Do you agree with me?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Personally, I think the supreme court ruling that created that distinction was a terrible misinterpretation of the first amendment. It is not the government's job to censor things, it is truly antithetical to meaning of the first amendment. Obviously that doesn't apply outside of the US, but as far as I know the US is also the only country with a law/case law that talks about the difference between "obscenity" and "art."

 

[Reeve]

I'm sad to say that the UK also indulges such a distinction too. :/

 

[Thaluikhain]

Eh...so?

Firstly, the definitions of both are so vague as to be impossible for them not to overlap.

But then, almost anything can be done artistically, with added style. Of course naked people can be depicted as both sexual and artistic.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Personally, I think the supreme court ruling that created that distinction was a terrible misinterpretation of the first amendment.

Which ruling are you thinking of?

I know of a ruling that defines obscenity as being works without any artistic merit, but not pornography. And while a lot of people in decades past liked to pretend porn and obscenity were the same thing, I don't think they ever were.

And this is my heretical contention: Art and pornography are not mutually exclusive.

That's not really all that heretical. A whole genre of artistic porn was in the market as of at least a year ago. Nearly every nude photo on devantart these days is some kind of intersection between art and pornography.

"Obscenity" is just code for "pornography that people are offended by." The case was Miller V. California, and here's the text of the test it set up (conveniently called "the Miller test"):

Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[3]

Each of those statements is something that has to be met for a work to be declared obscene, and all three have to be met. So in the united states, at least, only pornography can be considered obscenity, which makes sense because "obscenity" laws are just old timey anti-porn laws. Granted, that test also pretty much says it has to be the weird stuff, but, well, let's just say that the definition of "weird" was greatly expanded first by Playboy, then by porn on VHS and Beta tapes, then by the internet. If "community standards" were still today what they were when that ruling was handed down, pretty much everyone with a computer would be treated as just as much a criminal as people who have child porn on their hard drives are in reality.

 

[Drakane]

I don't follow this subject closely, but I don't recall anyone being prosecuted for "regular" porn. I have heard of court cases stating that animated porn depicting children in the act can be considered child pornography and be persecuted as such. I believe the case that made the most headlines was someone that had Bart Simpson performing lewd acts on the teacher Ms. Crabtree?? or something (as you can tell I am a huge Simpsons fan). I don't recall the actual case law though.

Edit: It should be noted that despite Bart now being over 30 based on when the show began to now, he is always depicted as a minor and is treated as such.

 

[Lilani]

"Heretics are the only [bitter] remedy against the entropy of human thought." - Yevgeny Zamyatin, Author of We

And this is my heretical contention: Art and pornography are not mutually exclusive. That is to say that: Pornography can be considered a form of art.

My evidence? Go and have a look on some NSFW hentai websites and try coming back to tell me that the work on those sites isn't creative expressions of the human imagination.

Do you agree with me?

If you really want to learn about that fine line between art and porn, check out feminist performance art, specifically the work of Carolee Schneemann (such as her Interior Scroll performance). Or even Vito Acconci's Seedbed.

I'm not going to explain either of these because of the forum's rules, you can look them up at your own risk. But while both of them are very sexually explicit and even downright erotic, they were both done with the intent of making statements about sexuality. That would really be the difference. Pornography is solely done for titillation, while art has something a bit more subversive going on. It isn't just about arousing the viewer, in fact that usually isn't the intent at all, unless they're looking to subvert it[footnote]Like the way Sucker Punch brings in the sexy ladies and basically says "Eh, you like this? These sexy ladies dancing and fighting shooting their big guns turn you on, even though you know they're being manipulated and exploited and even brainwashed? Then that makes you a terrible, terrible person."[/footnote].

Of course, this isn't including the aesthetic principles involved with pornography. I don't feel like this is necessary to point out because I feel like it's rather moot. Pointing out that there are certain aesthetic values to be found in porn when it comes to creativity, the portrayal of the human form, and even the artistry of the medium (whether it's photography, film, or even a drawing or painting) is rather like pointing out there are certain aesthetic values in a laptop computer. Yes, that's true, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was the intention. Pornography is very surface-level, in both its intent and aesthetics. And while yes everything can technically be considered art, that doesn't necessarily mean both have equal artistic values or intentions. And when discussing the difference between the two things, pointing out the vagueness of the terms "art" and "porn" is rather counter-productive.

 

[aba1]

"Heretics are the only [bitter] remedy against the entropy of human thought." - Yevgeny Zamyatin, Author of We

And this is my heretical contention: Art and pornography are not mutually exclusive. That is to say that: Pornography can be considered a form of art.

My evidence? Go and have a look on some NSFW hentai websites and try coming back to tell me that the work on those sites isn't creative expressions of the human imagination.

Do you agree with me?

I agree with you but then again sometimes I feel like I am the only one who understands art doesn't have to be paintings of people or landscapes and is anything that is as you said is "creative expressions of the human imagination"

 

[Abomination]

I don't see how something being "art" somehow makes it valuable.

If I wipe my shit all over a Nazi flag then take a few snapshots of it one would be hard pressed to not classify it as "art". But it's also just human fecal matter staining a red, black and white piece of fabric.

 

[doggy go 7]

Art is a vague term at best, to the extent that if you ask twenty people what art is, they'll have a clear answer, all of which will be different. With that said, I think the only way you can define whether or not something is art is what the person who created it intends it to be. If the author defines it as art, then it is, and any stricter definition will mean I can give counter examples. Note that that doesn't make it good. Being art is easy, being good art isn't. However coming (HAH) back to porn and art, if an art piece contains two people fucking, then art and porn aren't mutually exclusive (though if that's what you meant, I should point out that the art world has had things like that since the sixties, so your opinion is less heretical then you may think).

 

[Nazulu]

Yes, I agree.

Who gives a shit what other people think is art. Everything is art since everyone is entertained in different ways, though many can't see that, mainly because they want it to work a certain way. They forget there is a million ways to look at 'art'.

Though, if you want go into what is more 'arty', that's different.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

My evidence? Go and have a look on some NSFW hentai websites and try coming back to tell me that the work on those sites isn't creative expressions of the human imagination.

Ok I'll grant you that, but it's also art that turns my stomach.

 

[Ferisar]

Lilani pretty much said what I wanted to say. Sure, some pornography is and can be artistic and some can be aesthetic, but this is true of pretty much everything. It's not about the statement of "can be pornography be art" because, yeah no shit it can. Just like a plastic cup can be art. Problem is, 99.99% of plastic cups are cups made of plastic.

It's about artistic integrity/intent and perhaps even some form of statement, not about a broad-sweeping term being laid on a broader blanket and being wrapped up nicely with a ribbon to satisfy everyone.

 

[Colour Scientist]

Art can be porn, porn can be art.
Your statement isn't heretical, it's not even controversial.

Classifying something as art doesn't put it beyond criticism though.

A Birth of a Nation revolutionised cinema and you can watch it and enjoy it but you can still point out how insanely racist it is.

 

[Shinsei-J]

As everyone said, they ain't mutually exclusive. I don't think as many people as you thought would disagree with you these days either. While yes, a lot of stoically religious people would jump right on the hate train, most people these day are more open minded than to just reject your argument outright and I'm sure a lot of them would agree that these arbitrary lines can blur. Only reason some people don't find any porn tasteful is because of old social taboos which are being broken pretty rapidly now days.

My personal experiences with your "evidence" is pretty vast too, as an avid reader of vanilla hentai manga.
It's cliche but I read them for the story because they can go further in a love story than any other medium and it may sound odd but often I'll forget that I'm even reading porn, forgetting about masturbation, just being entrenched in the story.
Ya'know I've cried to a hentai manga before. If people can say that ain't art then screw those people.
Just felt like sharing.

 

[OneCatch]

Seconding what's already been said.
You can define pretty much anything as art because it's a subjective term.
But because something is art doesn't make it good art in the eye of the beholder and unsurprisingly, a lot of people aren't going to wax lyrical about the artistic merits of porn (unless it's ancient Roman porn in which case it get a free pass because it's classical).

 

[Seydaman]

Not really heresy. That's about it, really, Vanguard did an episode on porn that one might find interesting, for perspective if nothing else.

 

[KOMega]

Art can have nudity and still be art.
Not all pornography is art.
Some pornography can be art and vice versa.

Art and pornography are in this way categories in the same way an object can be both round and orange. Or orange and not round and vice versa.

Or maybe just a fruit. Either one. I'm eating and orange right now.