What is the difference between Art and Porn?

[dcdude171]

porn holds my attention for more then 5 seconds

 

[emeraldrafael]

Im going to post what I posted b4 >.>

Porn is the perversion of a theme and/or object meant for the purpose of sexual related entertainment. In other words its what it what meant for when tis was created. Just cause you can jerk-off to it does not make it porn.

If thats true, then how come in the sixties guys would paint and display naked women as their "art" which was clearly pornographic and the only thing really stopping it was that they were in person, flesh and blood, instead of in playboy, print and paper.

art has held some very... perverted imaginings of themes, including much of Goya's work. And sexuality was a large part of the Victorian era, when youw ere painting men and women naked, using their sexual and physical attributes to drive home an idea into the mind of a common man and to the cultured critic.

Pubic hair.

No, I'm not even joking. WAy back when, when all those elizabethan artists were painting stuff like the royals families, that was the one thing that was "forbidden". it made your art "dorogatory and low class".

really, there's not a lot of difference between. Both Art and Porn make an emotional connection, so its more or less, which do you consider "high" art (picasso, DaVinci, etc) and "low art" (<url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_Vargas>vargas, <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_Cox>Cox, etc.).

Intrestingly, thats the exact thing that made lolicon popular in Japan. Depictation of Pubic hair made lolicon perfect for circulation because, you know, little girls.

Yeah, but then again, thats a completely different and isolated culture. I was talking more from the european victorian era art style, cuase if you look at Japanese pornography in a comparison, or even Japanese art that uses sexual nature, they dont view Pubic hair as Europeans did.

Not really disagreeing, just saying.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Last House on the Left
I really look forward to the discussion on this.

Why would you use THAT movie as your example? A lot of art critics believe that that movie IS porn. That is a simply terrible example to use - if someone had THAT DVD in their car, Canada could probably arrest them as well.

Anyway....

Porn is a type of art.

Many porn producers consider themselves artists. Certainly the Japanese believe that porn is art - there are CLASSICAL porn images that hang in Japanese museums - Japan has been drawing porn for centuries. There are even classical motifs. Ever wondered why Hentai seems to have an obsession with unattractive old men having sex with very young girls? It's a famous motif from three hundred years ago.

And it isn't just Japan. Many Western porn makers focus on acting, framing, and special effects to create their porn vision. It isn't just about smut to them - it's about the art.

But I digress.

All porn is art, IMO - most of it just isn't very good art.

Just like the average romance novel is art... but not very good art.

Or the average video game is art... but not very good art.

And, the flipside of that is that some romance novels are high art, just like some video games are high art.

It isn't the genre, it's the quality.

 

[ThatLankyBastard]

I can't jerk off to Art... mostly...

All Seriousness Now: It all really depends on the person...

...for instance, I once got in trouble for watching the intro to the show "Elfen lied" in school (at lunch hour) because the teacher thought it was porn...

...personally, I consider the intro to be pure Art

Spoiler: Intro

EDIT: lol, wrong link... Fixed

 

[Blue_vision]

Fair enough. I propose that pornography is then a type of art. I think that when people think of "porn", they're thinking of crudely-done artwork that has to make its point with a sledgehammer, then.

I'd say for sure. The regular porn that people think of is the B-list of the porn genre, unartistic and with little thought put into it.
But there are a number of very arthouse-type movies that are very pornographic, examples that there is a spectrum to be had: you can go for cheap thrills, or go with a complexity in how you use the form of the human body for showcasing an idea and moving the audience. Something that I'd say needs to be explored more (as well as fleshing, excuse the pun, out the openness of sexuality in art and culture in general.)

 

[Nieroshai]

Porn is art to masturbate to, enough said. I may have a better answer somewhere, but I'm sleepy.

 

[King Toasty]

Intent.

 

[TheDooD]

There is technically no difference at all. A basic example I draw a beautiful naked woman. One viewer may see it as beholding, where to another it excites them sexually. The difference between the two is mental.

 

[Seanfall]

About ten to twelve ounces of Semen.

 

[Arehexes]

I was reading this in class one day

My teacher took it from me when I put it down, because she thought it said "Female Fantasy" and concluded it was porn.

 

[TitenSxull]

The line could be blurred if they ever, you know, decide to make adult films with heavily engaging stories and compelling characters... but then most people would just see that as an R-Rated film with explicit sex scenes. The difference is that porn is meant to stimulate solely sexually, whereas art must stimulate the mind/senses in MORE than a sexual way. That is not to say art is not allowed to include sexually arousing content but merely that there must be more to it than that.

 

[Hatchet90]

There is no difference, because porn IS art. The question lies on whether or not it's good art.

 

[Mr. 47]

Nothing other then context and perception. A naked woman in a provocitive pose made to be stimulating is porn. A naked woman in a provocitive pose made to be artistic is art. If you view a photo for stimulation, it is porn, if you view it for it's artistic qualities, then it is art.

 

[LittlePineWeasel]

Intent is one difference. Another is rather visually obvious is it not? I mean, in the OP's example "last house on the left" there is a rape scene, but while the concept is delivered to the viewer in a dramatic and impactful fashion, its not particularly graphic. Or maybe a better word is explicit.

Yes, according to the plot of the film a girl is raped, but in porn, it would be more explicit.

Even "I spit on your grave" (either version) which includes much more nudity than last house isn't porn.

 

[zehydra]

I would say if you have less interest in looking at after masturbating, it's porn. If you still find it just as interesting, it's art.

That is an excellent explanation, lol. Simple, and relevant.

 

[gigastrike]

Spoiler

Do you see naked boobs in this picture? There you go.

Anyway, yeah. There is no inherent difference between art and porn. Porn is quite capable of being art, it all comes down to whether or not the person who made it is really trying to do well of not.

Edit: Holy crap! Mona has something over her hair! I never noticed that!

 

[WolfThomas]

Lighting.



To pad out this post and avoid trouble, I'll just mention this was the exact same answer I gave to a psychiatrist giving our tutorials one time when he asked that exact question.