Go back
Porn as art

Porn as art

Debates

Vote Up
Vote Down

There's only so much one can do when one is suffering from dehydration and explosive diarreah...

But I'll see what's possible.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by stocken
Now, you're not just saying that to feel good about your physical predicament; obviously talking about the less sophisticated parts of your anatomy? Are you?
[sarcasm]Obviously... obviously...[/sarcasm]

2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Wonderful satire of phallocracy disguised as aesthetic utilitarianism...splendid auto-deconstruction...waffle waffle...
Wonderful witty language used to convey insults or scorn of radical feminism disguised as appreciation for the beauty of whatever brings the biggest happiness to the largest number of people... splendid auto-exposure of the underlying meaning... pausing in hesitation...

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Tetsujin
[something irrelevant here][b]Obviously... obviously...[/and something irrelevant here][/b]
I knew it. 😏

Vote Up
Vote Down

Say more about Sontag.
I'm guessing that part of what you find interesting is that she has been against the part of Art that requires we interpret it?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Particularly, Sontag's belief that, i.e. Sade's {quintessential pornographic/erotic (?) artist} descriptions are too schematic to be sensous. I wonder if the repetitiveness diminishes the creative value of pornography, substracting any artistic meaning for arousal is achieved by repetition.

However, contrast this with the statement that the pornographic imagination tends to make one person interchangeable with another and all people interchangeable with things. Then, isn't that the point - and both actions {arousal & repetitiveness} meet at some point?

Vote Up
Vote Down

... plus, I somehow feel uncomfortable with that, based on the mere assumption that language {our distinctive tool within the animal kingdom} is the interpretation bridge providing meaning to the society itself.

Ends up being a paradox.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Art is never decoration, embellishment; instead, it is work of enlightenment. Art, in other words, is a technique for acquiring liberty.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Tetsujin
Will you marry me? đŸ˜”
Let's do it. I'll dress up as Britney Spears.

(Has anyone read Gary Indiana's hilarious Rent Boy? It has a spoof Pasolini wedding to die for!)

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by stocken
... splendid auto-exposure of the underlying meaning...
You've given me an idea for a bit of concept art. I'll put on an enormous shabby coat, tape a disposable camera to my groin, and loiter in public places to take surprise "exposures" of people while simultaneously "exposing" myself. I'm sure you're already looking forward to the documentary footage of this piece, provisionally entitled "Flasher".

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by jareyes
Particularly, Sontag's belief that, i.e. Sade's {quintessential pornographic/erotic (?) artist} descriptions are too schematic to be sensous. I wonder if the repetitiveness diminishes the creative value of pornography, substracting any artistic meaning for arousal is achieved by repetition.

However, contrast this with the statement that the pornographic i ...[text shortened]... Then, isn't that the point - and both actions {arousal & repetitiveness} meet at some point?
I wonder...
ask yourself if the repetition of other forms of art diminish its creative value for you...

it not, isn't it possible that you're equating the aesthetic value of erotic art with it's ability to arouse you?

going further...is this possibly proof that pornographic/erotic art has no other function?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by kmax87
Most feminist authors totally denounce pornography as it entrenches sexual inequality, objectifies women as sexual ornaments, which serves only to uphold the established male hierarchy.

Pornography is not just an observed experience whereby our lusts are gratified, but allows for the continued enslavement and exploitation of women as chattel, who are expe ...[text shortened]... rresting as pornography but that if contemplated long enough would lead to a similar conclusion?
Ooo...now I'm really interested to see what you think about the following (as introduced by jareyes):
http://marquis.rebsart.com/erotica.html
There's plenty of dominance, no male penetration that I can find. But is it erotic?

Take a look at all of the overtly sexual things in each drawing (e.g. oral sex and/or the implication of it). Can the author still prove his point without these scenes? Seems like they're just randomly thrown in there....so then, if you agree with that, does that disqualify this as erotic art? Does it make it pornographic? Neither?