What is the difference between Art and Porn?

[Justanewguy]

I was reading this thread: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/for...dian-customs-who-found-manga-on-his-computer?

I'd like you to read the op for me before actually continuing on. Did you do it? Ok, thanks. Now then, let me frame this by beginning that the discussion there is whether he did anything wrong, which regardless of the answer, brings another question to the table. What is the difference between Art and Porn?

Now let me put forward two examples very quickly. I will attempt not to allow my bias into this, but of course, that's impossible. I hope to keep it to a minimum at least.

The first example: There is a movie that was made a few years back called Last House on the Left [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_House_on_the_Left_%282009_film%29]. In it two girls are kidnapped and put through an incredibly brutal rape and murder scene. The actual ages of the girls are never given, and it seemed that they were most likely in High School (It has, admittedly, been a while since seeing this movie, so I may be incorrect on that). In the original version (the 1972 one), I believe one of the girls is said to be seventeen. The point I mean to make is that these two girls who are arguably underage, are subjected to a very intense sexual encounter that may be considered sexually gratifying to a certain group of people.

The second example: Broadly, this example is Manga. Specifically a manga that was considered "child pornography" by Canadian officials. To put it simply, in this manga something must have been considered a sexual encounter or of sexual nature and had to do with a character that was either implied to be or directly stated to be underage.

I hope you're still with me. My question is why the first example is considered art, but the second is considered porn. Both contain arguably underage characters, both contain sexually explicit or at least sexually implied scenes, and both are of characters that don't really exist. Sure there are some differences, but do the differences justify branding the second example as pornography while protecting the first one as art?

I really look forward to the discussion on this.

 

[Regiment]

I always assumed that the difference is that the intention of pornography is to be titillating. If it has any value as artwork or literature, it's art. If it is intended exclusively to sexually excite people, it's porn.

 

[Baneat]

Art: Appeals to "Higher" pleasures (Pleasures of the mind, JSMill utility)
Porn: Appeals to "Lower" pleasures and desires, base desire for a base pleasure. Of course, with a sexual focus.

 

[Terminal Blue]

From a legal perspective, it's a matter of authorial intention.

Material which has the primary purpose of sexually arousing its reader is legally considered pornographic. This doesn't necessarily have to apply to the entire piece of material, a porn movie with a backstory is still considered a porn movie, but there will generally be a set of criteria (varying from country to country) demarking at what point something has become pornagraphic.

On a deeper level, it's also about conformity to pornographic modes of representation. In cinema, for example, there are particular kinds of shots and ways of filming which differentiate pornographic films from most non-pornographic films. It's about things like the angles you use, lighting and post-processing, dialogue (or lack thereof).

Anime and manga are complicated because they generally don't adhere to the distinction in quite the same way. Japan doesn't really have a very clear distinction, be it in cinema or other media, between porn and art. Even as someone who doesn't watch anime or read manga unless I'm physically strapped down and forced to, I can think of several examples of scenes and series which have blurred the line between pornographic representational modes and other forms of storytelling, sometimes with very dodgy consequences or implications or deliberately, as a means to break taboos without admitting that you're making material for people with taboo fetishes to get aroused to.

It's also important to note that there has been a legal shift in recent years in many countries (including the UK) away from only criminalizing the production of obscene images, and towards criminalization of possession of images regardless of intent or personal perception of those images. This is in response to the great difficulty of prosecuting people who would simply claim that they believed they were consuming simulated images, in the face of which the prosecution would have to prove (impossibly in most cases) that the defendant was aware that the image was not simulated, and indeed that it wasn't in the first place. While this shift makes sense on that level, it has however lead to some extremely silly laws which don't make a whole lot of internal sense.

So in short, I don't know. For me personally as a non anime and manga consuming person the inability to view questionable images seems a reasonably small loss in exchange for the ability to prosecute people who actually do consume child porn with some degree of reliability. But then, I also dislike the precedent of punishing people for things, however obscene and taboo, which occur in their minds. I think however abusable it might be, the distinction between fiction and reality does need to be legally respected, especially when it is so clear cut.

 

[papakapp]

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.

 

[bdcjacko]

a government grant!

At this point I didn't ninja you, and 3 other people already said it, don't quote me anymore saying ninja'd.

 

[Joshimodo]

The intent.

 

[Treeinthewoods]

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.

This is the greatest first post I have ever seen. That's all I have to say about that.

OT - I'd argue porn is art, it's just art designed to create a different reaction than other artforms. I consider it its own subset but I still consider it art.

Probably one of the oldest forms of art in humanities history if you think about it.

 

[emeraldrafael]

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.).

 

[Blue_vision]

I always assumed that the difference is that the intention of pornography is to be titillating. If it has any value as artwork or literature, it's art. If it is intended exclusively to sexually excite people, it's porn.

But the two are not mutually exclusive. I would consider the whole field of erotic photography to be incredibly artistic, but I'm quite sure that it'd also be considered porn by pretty much everybody.

In the same sense, literature's abound with intense sexual sequences, which are enough to get the reader pretty hot under the hood, maybe even to the author's intention. But it is still a piece of art, even if it is sexually stimulating. Just as you can have books that stimulate your logical thinking, or movies that stimulate your imagination. It's just that sexuality is seen as rather strict and taboo for some reason, so we have to suddenly choose.

 

[Vandy]

The difference between porn and art? The lighting!

 

[EHKOS]

a government grant!

DAMMIT! NINJA'D!

OTorn is meant to jack off to, art is to be art. Art is hard to classify because it tries to be.

 

[scienceguy8]

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.

This is the greatest first post I have ever seen. That's all I have to say about that.

OT - I'd argue porn is art, it's just art designed to create a different reaction than other artforms. I consider it its own subset but I still consider it art.

Probably one of the oldest forms of art in humanities history if you think about it.

I'm going to back you up on this. Art is anything that brings about an emotional response, and pornographic material does indeed bring about an emotional response, except instead of inspiring happiness or such, it inspires lust.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

It's difficult because you know somebody has jerked off to art like it is pornography. Art is supposed to inspire our higher values, like beauty and grace, whereas pornography promotes baser reactions like lust.

Part of it is in how the audience reacts to it, and some people cannot accept beauty within nudity without allowing their sexual urges to command their thoughts.

I find that nudity can be very beautiful and tasteful at the same time, but not everyone can.

 

[Arkvoodle]

Fifty bucks.


Seriously, I don't think there's a truly defined boundary in most cases.

 

[emeraldrafael]

...

OTorn is meant to jack off to, art is to be art. Art is hard to classify because it tries to be.

So if I were to masturbate to say... um... a statue of Aphrodite from the Greek/Roman eras (Classical) or to Birth of Venus (look it up, its a 1912 painting) it would be porn?

 

[Richard Po]

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.

 

[Regiment]

I always assumed that the difference is that the intention of pornography is to be titillating. If it has any value as artwork or literature, it's art. If it is intended exclusively to sexually excite people, it's porn.

But the two are not mutually exclusive. I would consider the whole field of erotic photography to be incredibly artistic, but I'm quite sure that it'd also be considered porn by pretty much everybody.

In the same sense, literature's abound with intense sexual sequences, which are enough to get the reader pretty hot under the hood, maybe even to the author's intention. But it is still a piece of art, even if it is sexually stimulating. Just as you can have books that stimulate your logical thinking, or movies that stimulate your imagination. It's just that sexuality is seen as rather strict and taboo for some reason, so we have to suddenly choose.

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.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

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.