Zorg Empire

Can Pornography be art?

Pornography, as in textual writings, visual, pictorial or any of that such.

It was according to Greeks, Romans, and people of the time before we, but do to today's pornography and intelctual level of people, it would be valued by the few who could comprehend it, but to others it would be a naked lady carved in rock. So it depends on the person to whom sees it. I believe it could be, but I have never been to an art galary so I never have looked.

Porn is art to me, but like art some is good and some is crap

Sadbutrue wrote:Porn is art to me, but like art some is good and some is crap

Lol.

I don't think the question is if porn can be art, but if art can be porn.

Is Michelangelo's sculpture of David porn because it has a penis? Is the Rape of Persephone porn because it depicts a sexual act?

It depends on where you draw the line for sensually pleasing and sexually pleasing, really. If I find a picture of a nude women as pleasing from an artistic standpoint and not a sexual one, then it is obviously art.

It varies from person to person, I think. Some people look at a sack of garbage and see art, others just see a sack of garbage. Some people see nudity as art, others see it as porn.

The David is not porn it is a masterpiece. But today's form of woman and men having fun on the internet is sick and nasty. The romans and greeks is fine because it is art, and takes a skill. Today you just need a camera and that takes no skill

raineyday5 wrote:The David is not porn it is a masterpiece. But today's form of woman and men having fun on the internet is sick and nasty. The romans and greeks is fine because it is art, and takes a skill. Today you just need a camera and that takes no skill

So you think porn it is art if it takes skill to make it say sketched in a statue?

raineyday5 wrote:The David is not porn it is a masterpiece. But today's form of woman and men having fun on the internet is sick and nasty. The romans and greeks is fine because it is art, and takes a skill. Today you just need a camera and that takes no skill

Some people see The David as a naked guy, nothing more.

Why is nudity fine for one culture, but when another uses it, it suddenly becomes "sick and nasty"? You're saying using a camera takes no skill? So I assume you can direct/edit a blockbuster film in 30 minutes? Thats all it is, camera work. So any movie or picture is not an art form, according to your statement.

You're using double standards, which is never good for your argument. You're now seen as biased and any credible evidence you may have had is now irrelevant and cannot be taken seriously.

Also, The David and many other of the well-known sculptures were not crafted by Romans or Greeks, they were crafted during the Renaissance. So you basically just told us that The David is not art, because Romans and Greeks did not craft it. You've now contradicted yourself and your argument is thrown further into question

Just so you know, I think The David and other sculptures are amazing pieces of artwork. It takes a master of the craft to create such an object, but you're being very biased in your argument and I'd like to see this debate go on further, so I'll take an opposing view for now.

I'll re-iterate my earlier statement, it depends on the individual's perspective. If I went in my back yard and sculpted a very sexual scene into marble, would it be porn or art? Why would it be that? What makes it different from a picture of the same thing?

it would be both! can i commission you to make me a sculpture of me nailing 3 pornstars? its as close i will ever got to it.

Urweirdsaysi wrote:

raineyday5 wrote:The David is not porn it is a masterpiece. But today's form of woman and men having fun on the internet is sick and nasty. The romans and greeks is fine because it is art, and takes a skill. Today you just need a camera and that takes no skill

Some people see The David as a naked guy, nothing more.

Why is nudity fine for one culture, but when another uses it, it suddenly becomes "sick and nasty"? You're saying using a camera takes no skill? So I assume you can direct/edit a blockbuster film in 30 minutes? Thats all it is, camera work. So any movie or picture is not an art form, according to your statement.

You're using double standards, which is never good for your argument. You're now seen as biased and any credible evidence you may have had is now irrelevant and cannot be taken seriously.

Also, The David and many other of the well-known sculptures were not crafted by Romans or Greeks, they were crafted during the Renaissance. So you basically just told us that The David is not art, because Romans and Greeks did not craft it. You've now contradicted yourself and your argument is thrown further into question

Just so you know, I think The David and other sculptures are amazing pieces of artwork. It takes a master of the craft to create such an object, but you're being very biased in your argument and I'd like to see this debate go on further, so I'll take an opposing view for now.

I'll re-iterate my earlier statement, it depends on the individual's perspective. If I went in my back yard and sculpted a very sexual scene into marble, would it be porn or art? Why would it be that? What makes it different from a picture of the same thing?

I have seen the David that is a masterpiece, I would like to try and make it. As of todays porn, I think it is sick and nasty what these girls and guys are doing. THe body is a beautiful thing but seeing a video of a girl and pm me if you want to hear it.

As for the sexual scene into marble that would be art because it takes skill

You're saying it as if you are the deciding factor in if it is art or not. "Sick and nasty" is based purely on your opinion, which you're allowed to have, obviously. However, because of it being an opinion, it doesn't have any sort of factual proof or evidence to support your argument. You aren't explaining your opinion, you're just just stating it over and over.

If the body is a beautiful thing and sex is natural, which it obviously is, why is sex "sick and nasty"? Either you don't actually think the body is beautiful or you think anything natural is wrong. Keep in mind porn doesn't just include hardcore, leather and chains, dominatrix stuff. A simple man and woman performing sex is still pornographic material. You seem to be thinking purely of the hardcore material and disregarding the rest as nonexistent.

And you didn't fully answer my questions. Is a painting of the same sex scene still art or is it porn? If so, what makes it different from a simple picture? If not, why is it different from a sculpture?

I'm not saying I disagree with you, I just want you to explain it.