Originally posted by PawnokeyholeWell they've always said that the beheading of important historical figures such as Kings, Queens and other such potentates constituted a form of high drama or theatre, so by inference, as the theatre is an arena that usually promotes art, any spectacle however gross could be presented as art
Is there anything that can't be art?
Originally posted by kmax87But what about this...
Well they've always said that the beheading of important historical figures such as Kings, Queens and other such potentates constituted a form of high drama or theatre, so by inference, as the theatre is an arena that usually promotes art, any spectacle however gross could be presented as art
"Erotic art covers any artistic work including paintings, sculptures, photographs, music and writings that is intended to evoke erotic arousal or that depicts scenes of love-making."
"Pornography (from Greek πορνογραφία pornographia — literally writing about or drawings of prostitutes) (also informally referred to as "porn," "pr0n," or "porno"😉 is the representation of the human body or human sexual behaviour with the goal of sexual arousal, similar to, but distinct from, erotica, though the two terms are often used interchangeably."
What would be the difference between SEXUAL and EROTIC arousal?
Originally posted by jareyesThe function of a work of art, including the erotic variety, is to do more than produce sexual arousal, and just what that something is that can be debated. However, the function of pornography, indisuptably, is just to produce sexual arousal.
But what about this...
"Erotic art covers any artistic work including paintings, sculptures, photographs, music and writings that is intended to evoke erotic arousal or that depicts scenes of love-making."
"Pornography (from Greek πορνογραφία pornographia — literally writing about or drawings of pr ...[text shortened]... d interchangeably."
What would be the difference between SEXUAL and EROTIC arousal?
But if, boringly, anything can be considered a work of art, then pornography can also be considered art. What an intellectual breakthrough!
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeLet's define art, then 🙂
The function of a work of art, including the erotic variety, is to do more than produce sexual arousal, and just what that something is that can be debated. However, the function of pornography, indisuptably, is just to produce sexual arousal.
But if, boringly, anything can be considered a work of art, then pornography can also be considered art. What an intellectual breakthrough!
I am still dubious when it comes to the universality of the concept "art", for it allows a lot of berett-wearing, pot-stinky wannabes to splat some paint on a surface and call it 'art'
1 edit
Originally posted by Pawnokeyholeart is left for the viewer to decide its significance. One persons boredom is another persons fascinating insight into the minutiae of another persons life. art is like history in the sense that it tells more of the person producing the spectacle than the transcendant entertaintment it hopefully introduces.
The function of a work of art, including the erotic variety, is to do more than produce sexual arousal, and just what that something is that can be debated. However, the function of pornography, indisuptably, is just to produce sexual arousal.
But if, boringly, anything can be considered a work of art, then pornography can also be considered art. What an intellectual breakthrough!
In this sense pornography when observed past its obvious sexually provocative content also contains a narrative of the attitudes the performers engaged in the observed graphic acts share with you the viewer however unintentionally of their view on life, their bodies and their control of the same. Where one person may see a degrading spectacle that dehumanises and enslaves another may see a fearless celebration of spirit by a group of performers untrammelled by our need for them to conform to our normalised views of decency.
As such pornography can be considered one of societies highest art forms.
Originally posted by kmax87I catch your point... here is where I am heading
art is left for the viewer to decide its significance. One persons boredom is another persons fascinating insight into the minutiae of another persons life. art is like history in the sense that it tells more of the person producing the spectacle than the transcendant entertaintment it hopefully introduces.
In this sense pornography when observed past its ...[text shortened]... d views of decency.
As such pornography can be considered one of societies highest art forms.
"Erotic experience is a human good. Mature, consenting adults should be able to explore the erotic realm freely, without outside interference. Pornography is illicit and destructive. But what is the real difference between the erotic and the pornographic? Is there a bright line? In our attempts to regulate pornography do we run the risk of infringing upon the erotic freedoms of consenting adults?" (Anne Ashbaugh)
Sontag has also a very interesting point on it.
What do you think?
Originally posted by kmax87Or simply an excuse to look at titties...
art is left for the viewer to decide its significance. One persons boredom is another persons fascinating insight into the minutiae of another persons life. art is like history in the sense that it tells more of the person producing the spectacle than the transcendant entertaintment it hopefully introduces.
In this sense pornography when observed past its ...[text shortened]... d views of decency.
As such pornography can be considered one of societies highest art forms.
1 edit
Originally posted by jareyessure, lets define art. this is the domain of value theory in philosophy and it covers both aesthetics and ethics. there are many different definitions of art that vary from "if the artist intends for it to be art then it is" to "if it is a certain arrangement of colors and shapes that evokes a particular aesthetic response then it's art" to "if it is recognized as legitimate art by significant members of the artistic community then it's art." this is a small sampling - so which do you like? how does one reconcile marcell duchamp's urinal with davinci's mona lisa? what about pollock or rothko or any non-representational art? what about photography? my personal favorite definition comes from wittgenstein and it is the family resemblance definition. think about games. what sort of definition covers every concievable activity known as games from olympic track to tic-tac-toe (naughts and crosses for you brits ) to bouncing a ball off a wall to card games and board games? there really isn't one. there is however a family resemblance not based on one trait but on many overlapping traits present in some but not all of the activities.
Let's define art, then 🙂
I am still dubious when it comes to the universality of the concept "art", for it allows a lot of berett-wearing, pot-stinky wannabes to splat some paint on a surface and call it 'art'
the analogy to games is the best way to explicate it quickly. how would you define games so that the definition covers every concievable activity that we call a game? if you cannot find one trait that they all critically share but that excludes non-game activities, what do you then do? what is/are the necessary and sufficient condition(s) for something to be considered a game? if there are no such conditions then it may be helpful to consider that all games are related to some other games by various characteristics. these characteristics do not remain constant through the whole of "games" though. but as long as you can meaningfully relate an activity to a body of other games then you can consider that activity a game. this definition works just as well for art and unlike other definitions it is very hard to find a counter-example.
Originally posted by jareyesWhat do you define as 'pornography', and why do you consider it to be illicit and destructive?
I catch your point... here is where I am heading
"Erotic experience is a human good. Mature, consenting adults should be able to explore the erotic realm freely, without outside interference. Pornography is illicit and destructive. But what is the real difference between the erotic and the pornographic? Is there a bright line? In our attempts to regul ...[text shortened]... lts?" (Anne Ashbaugh)
Sontag has also a very interesting point on it.
What do you think?