The Line between Art and Porn?

We're doing a presentation in class, and as such I'd like to hear your opinions. Where do you think the line goes between porn and art? How do you know whether it's one or the other?

If it has cherubs or plinths or if it costs alot of money to watch then it's art

Edit: more seriously, if you consider entertainment media art then there's no real reason to exclude porn, on the other hand if you do whatever line you draw will probably serve for porn too

edited 22nd Nov '10 12:17:15 PM by Kzickas

Does it require nudity? If not, you could try flowing, scant clothing or have only the back showing. Also, dramatic lighting, because, why not?

Porn is an artform.

Art's in a gallery, porn's in a magazine.

Of course, then you have art guides, and artists being clever and putting magazine pages up as art, and things get all Calvin And Hobbes.

Really, I doubt there is any line between the two. But, that doesn't mean you can't get around certain restrictions in the name of "art".

I'd say it depends on what the "artist" focuses on. In porn 70-80% of what the camera shoots is c*cks, b*alls, p*ssies, etc., while art generally looks at curves, skin, hair, lips, lighting, sometimes sounds, touch rather than penetration, stuff like that.

edited 22nd Nov '10 1:24:21 PM by maledicted

I've also seen a lot of yaoi manga that tends to focus on the same things. Granted, I'm sure there are a few people that consider yaoi art, but I doubt it's that popular an opinion.

Like violence, how you define it depends on intent, not the act. If the intent of the artist is primarily to elicit sensual arousal, then it's porn. If the intent of the artist is to elicit something more nuanced, it's art. Note that by this definition Anais Nin is art and a Victoria's Secret ad with no nudity is porn.

I don't see why we need to put "eliciting arousal" in a different, less meaningful category than eliciting fear. They're both primal emotions, and we've already agreed the latter is art, right?

(To clarify, this is another "porn is art" post.)

edited 22nd Nov '10 3:13:32 PM by feotakahari

Oh, related, one of the authors I like is a very high brow intellectual who writes about language and societal perception of sexuality and does literary criticism and all that nice stuff, and has also written a staggering number of pornographic novels.

Depends how you define porn. If you define porn as what is considered obscene and thus illegal in the US, I guess, there is, since those laws make an exception for artistic value.

^ Reminds me of the Sci Fi Ghetto.

The picture on this page should answer your question.

Seriously, though, in art involving nudity it gets difficult to tell. One would assume that art involving nudity wouldn't be too graphic, but there are works of art that are as bad as some porn.

• There's pictures of women masturbating... in art museums.
• There are topless women with huge breasts... considered classic masterpieces.
• Two of the most famous works of art involve a naked guy with his junk in full view (before it was censored) and a naked woman in a clam covering the naughty bits with her hands.

I guess a good way to define the difference is how much you have to pay to get access to it.

If you define porn as what is considered obscene and thus illegal in the US, I guess, there is, since those laws make an exception for artistic value.

Continuing off of my previous post...

@Malph: cynics have often said that censorship has always been about the upper classes' paranoia about stuff that the unwashed masses have access to. Thus, highbrow expensive stuff is 'erotica', nasty cheap stuff is just wrong and porn.

I'm basically against censorship in all of its forms.

Basically the reverse of my position on love.

Who says porn can't be art?

I think this is a matter, to some extent, of Complaining About Shows You Don't Watch on the part of the critics of porn. Understandably so, since some of them morally object to it altogether; though in that case one has to wonder how they know what they are morally objecting to. And when I see arguments like "the women in those pictures are probably someone's sister or daughter" (which obviously does NOT apply to the drawn stuff) I see it as reflecting rather poorly on the perspectives with which porn is so readily demonized. And yes, I interpret this as being connected to the whole "porn is not art" perspective.

edited 22nd Nov '10 6:33:30 PM by neoYTPism

@maledicted: You're allowed to curse, you know.

Maybe maledicted prefers NOT to curse? @ English Ivy

Censoring one letter out of the entire word just makes it look dumb.

Just to put in an explanation for why some people disapprove of porn - the view of some catholics, at least, is that it's wrong because it objectifies people. As soon as you start viewing other people as not people but as tools for your own sexual gratification, it's immoral, and it demeans all concerned.

Edit: this isn't me preaching or trying to convince people, just explaining why some people hold the views they do.

edited 22nd Nov '10 6:52:31 PM by LoniJay

Even though being aroused at the images does not mean refusal to acknowledge that they are people? I know, not your own perspective, I just felt like pointing that out.

Well, obviously you know in your head that the actors are people, with their own thoughts and feelings and families and whatever... but that's not what the material's about, is it? The material is treating them as just vehicles for the watcher's desires.

edited 22nd Nov '10 7:12:10 PM by LoniJay

@EI: On that note, I don't think b*alls counts as being censored.