What is the difference between Art and Porn?

[xDarc]

If you guys want to read an interesting case about how obscenity laws work, google the amateur action bbs. They were raided and shut down in the early 90s (back in my hay day) because a postal worker found the material offensive; and although the BBS was based in another state- the laws in the postal worker's state deemed the material to be obscene.

This is why a lot of 70s porn had narrative and plot; because technically all porn could be considered obscenity and therefore illegal unless it had some kind of artistic quality. (a story) There was a crack down when Reagan came into office, no thanks to Traci Lords who did a number of scenes underage; this caused hundreds of people to be arrested/investigated- but then in the late 80s/early 90s they started pushing the limits again and only the most disgusting stuff was ever prosecuted- typically the violent stuff.

 

[sextus the crazy]

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".

Only then. Pubic hair has been used as an indicator for age, masculity and other such things since the early days. It doesn't necessarily represent pornography.

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

Yes. This. In fact, apply this statement to all mediums. Everything is art; whether it's good art or not is debatable.

 

[II2]

Listen to the beard. 9:50

It is wise.

 

[Gigano]

"Porn" is meant to inspire but one feeling: Arousal. "Art" is meant to inspire in general.

Can something be "art" while featuring more or less integral parts which are "porn"? Of course!

As for a legal difference, such shouldn't be necessary: No "porn" which is fictional or depicting consenting adults should be outlawed, while no "art" which features real[footnote]Or for pragmatic reasons, fictional depictions so realistic that they're virtually indistinguishable there from.[/footnote] scenes of sexual acts not involving consenting adults should be allowed. The only thing which actually matter in a civilized legal system are the terms "realism" and "consenting adult", courts are not capable of deciding artistic merit, nor should any government institution wield such power.

 

[Jolly Co-operator]

I never check over my shoulder nervously to make sure my parents don't catch me looking at art, for one thing.

Honestly, I have no idea, but I've seen some pretty interesting answers so far.

 

[Olas]

There isn't one. The definition of art is entirely subjective. If I think a puddle of vomit is art, then it's art.

I mean, I DON'T think that, but that's beside the point.

Pretty much this, anything that's put on display as art is art.

In 1917 Duchamp took a urinal and submitted it to an art museum as a work of art entitled Fountain.

Spoiler: Fountain

It was eventually accepted and put on display in the studio of Alfred Stieglitz. Say what you want about it but it's a work of art now. Since then people have put on performing art by publicly peeing into it.