Is porn attractive

[cacian]

please help complete the survey
porn may be gratifying pleasing to a functional need
but
is it aesthetically easy on the high attractive you would want to paint it or a write a poem about it?

any added comment is most welcome

[The Atheist]

It all depends on what it is, and the eye of the beholder.

Hardcore porn doesn't really have an attractive side to it, with scenes more textbook than aesthetic.

Some soft-core porn can be incredibly beautiful.

Less is more.

[cacian]

It all depends on what it is, and the eye of the beholder.

Hardcore porn doesn't really have an attractive side to it, with scenes more textbook than aesthetic.

Some soft-core porn can be incredibly beautiful.

Less is more.
you mention hardcore.
is there just porn?
I mean soft or hardcore just makes it difficult to tell.

[The Atheist]

The grading of porn is in the eye of the beholder as well to some degree, but I'd class it this way:

Erotic photography: naked but no direct genital views = softcore porn
Sex acts & graphic content = hardcore porn
Then there's extreme porn, most of which is illegal

[cacian]

The grading of porn is in the eye of the beholder as well to some degree, but I'd class it this way:

Erotic photography: naked but no direct genital views = softcore porn
Sex acts & graphic content = hardcore porn
Then there's extreme porn, most of which is illegal

it is illegal because??

[The Atheist]

Featuring illegal acts and abuse. Rape, bestiality - if you think of it, there is porn of it.

[cacian]

Featuring illegal acts and abuse. Rape, bestiality - if you think of it, there is porn of it.

of course. I am surprised the risks people take to get to this. it is extreme behaviour.
I think it is hard to put a limit to what porn can do. it is not possible to control illegal materials I don't think.

[stlukesguild]

porn may be gratifying pleasing to a functional need
but
is it aesthetically easy on the high attractive you would want to paint it or a write a poem about it?

Why not take this question further and ask: "Can porn be Art?" "Is porn Art?" "Can good... even great Art be pornographic?"

[cacian]

porn may be gratifying pleasing to a functional need
but
is it aesthetically easy on the high attractive you would want to paint it or a write a poem about it?

Why not take this question further and ask: "Can porn be Art?" "Is porn Art?" "Can good... even great Art be pornographic?"
sexographic art? I have never come across it. But then would I want to? I think not.
however I once went to the Tate gallery in London I was with my mum. there a projected image of dancing naked man on the wall. I was horrified. but It was a lucky escape because my mother managed to miss it. we walked pass before we got the room where the image was.
that is as far as I got with art projected nudity.
but
I could never link the two simply because porn is actively fast and art is an image still.
I project art to be unusual never seen before.

[stlukesguild]

So by your definition "porn" is film or video, while "art" is a still image? So that means that Vertigo and Citizen Kane are not art and "porno mags" are not porn?
Perhaps you might need to clarify your definitions of "Porn" and "Art" a bit.

[tonywalt]

[QUOTE=cacian;1264031]sexographic art? I have never come across it. But then would I want to? I think not.
however I once went to the Tate gallery in London I was with my mum. there a projected image of dancing naked man on the wall. I was horrified.

Once I was at an night club and this physically attractive girl stripped down to her thong while she was dancing. I was horrified and so were the guys I was with. It's not the same as pornography, but it was my first and only taste of such, well - depravity.

Have any guys on litnet witnessed anything similiar and reacted in horror?

[cacian]

sexographic art? I have never come across it. But then would I want to? I think not.
however I once went to the Tate gallery in London I was with my mum. there a projected image of dancing naked man on the wall. I was horrified.

Once I was at an night club and this physically attractive girl stripped down to her thong while she was dancing. I was horrified and so were the guys I was with. It's not the same as pornography, but it was my first and only taste of such, well - depravity.

Have any guys on litnet witnessed anything similiar and reacted in horror?

I was with my mother. I did not want to see a naked man dangling from an image while she was with me.
I thought it was an art gallery not a stripping box. that was poor taste in my opinion.
common sense dictates I do not want to see such things in the presence of my parents.
I do not know about you. but that is me.

the other thing is this : why would a girl strip down to a thong if she was attractive at the first place?
depravity from her part is maybe or something else she is not telling.
not everyone who go to night clubs wants to strip to their tongs. that is not what music and dancing is about.
the meaning of attractive does require one to take their clothes off.

[cacian]

So by your definition "porn" is film or video,

porn is an act that requires two people simulating sex. it is a pretence not the truth. an allusion.
and therefore where there are people engaged in making such an act there is action/movement.

while "art" is a still image?

art depicts an idea ideally a one never seen before. that is my idea art.
art does not require two or more to create it and it does not involve a movement to project. it is drawn or painted and it is a visual that transmit a feeling or another idea. it is preferably still if one is to see it fully.


art is an exhibition of an inhibition but in a positive light.


So that means that Vertigo and Citizen Kane are not art

I consider these to be films with a genre. they are for the purpose of showing actions undertaken by actors. again film falls under allusion pretence. actors pretend.
a film is a creation of a realism that is unreal subjective not objective. it may have artistic attributes ie talents/skills imaging and language of the finest but it is an active scenario. a book but with sound. a film is a visual under a stimulus. without sound or moving images it is not a film. it is a picture
it has a beginning and an end.

art is unspoken without sound/movement because it is a visual of its own right. it has not a beginning nor end an end. it just is.



are not art and "porno mags" are not porn?

a porn mag is not porn. it simulates the idea of porn ie upon buying them one may go and watch or engage in the act of sex. porn mag sells sex to become slightly more then active.
porn mags''appetisers'' for sex. they allude to the act of sex.


Perhaps you might need to clarify your definitions of "Porn" and "Art" a bit.
porn is an act of sex under a magnifyed lense.
porn exaggerates sex and so it is not new.

art is an image of something new never seen before.
ideally art exhumes an exaggeration to become an admiration.

you can create art because you need to.

you make films because you have to.
there are actors to be had.
scripts to be said.
scenarios to be told.
there is a whole affiliation of responsibility to be fulfilled in making a movie,

there is none towards creating art. it is an independent free from creativity. it is fuss free.
that is the main difference the only difference albeit it a very basic one it draws the line between an artist and a film maker.

[Frostball]

I think porn is definitely art. It may be bad, or very low brow art, but it is definitely art. Pornstars are actors--albeit very bad actors most of the time. Directors do make artistic decisions--albeit easy and perhaps mostly pointless ones most of the time. So we have actors, we have people making artistic decisions, and we have an audience that enjoys watching it. We even have people arguing over whether it is art or not, which if you ask me, is a clear sign that it probably is.

As far as people being shocked to see nakedness out in the world.. I actually think that's pretty silly to be at all upset about. Ever since I was a child I never understood what was the big deal about showing our bodies. There is nothing weird or offensive about a penis or a vagina, they are just body parts like an arm or a leg, and it's only culture that beats the idea into us that these things are shameful. I personally have no revulsion to seeing any naked body, male or female, fat or skinny, ugly or attractive. It's just a person's body, I do not see the big deal.

[cacian]

I think porn is definitely art. It may be bad, or very low brow art, but it is definitely art. Pornstars are actors--albeit very bad actors most of the time. Directors do make artistic decisions--albeit easy and perhaps mostly pointless ones most of the time. So we have actors, we have people making artistic decisions, and we have an audience that enjoys watching it. We even have people arguing over whether it is art or not, which if you ask me, is a clear sign that it probably is.

As far as people being shocked to see nakedness out in the world. I actually think that's pretty silly to be at all upset about. Ever since I was a child I never understood what was the big deal about showing our bodies. There is nothing weird or offensive about a penis or a vagina, they are just body parts like an arm or a leg, and it's only culture that beats the idea into us that these things are shameful. I personally have no revulsion to seeing any naked body, male or female, fat or skinny, ugly or attractive. It's just a person's body, I do not see the big deal.
it is not the shock factor as much as it is an exhibit of body parts that is out of context.
there is also space and privacy.
we don't all like to stare at each others bit. I'd rather not.

nudity that is out of context is random and makes no sense to me.
if one is having a shower then yes nudity makes sense. in this instance it has a context.
everything has a place and a time and so does nudity.
I mean it is like a PM reciting Shakespeare in a middle of a political debate about the credit crunch.
people would think it random not normal because the content does not reflect the context.
the language does not match.
so the act of appearing nude around those who have clothes on is to me random.

[Frostball]

it is not the shock factor as much as it is an exhibit of body parts that is out of context.
there is also space and privacy.
we don't all like to stare at each others bit. I'd rather not.

nudity that is out of context is random and makes no sense to me.
if one is having a shower then yes nudity makes sense. in this instance it has a context.
everything has a place and a time and so does nudity.
I mean it is like a PM reciting Shakespeare in a middle of a political debate about the credit crunch.
people would think it random not normal because the content does not reflect the context.
the language does not match.
so the act of appearing nude around those who have clothes on is to me random.

What's the difference between an exposed arm and an exposed penis? Isn't an exposed arm out of place? What's the point of an arm being visible? Just because you can see a person's arm does not mean you have to stare at it; the same goes for genitals. You hit the nail on the head when you say "we don't all like to stare at each other's bit", which is exactly why we wouldn't, even if it was visible. It's not like you can't control what you look at, really. If it was something you saw every day walking down the street, you wouldn't even think twice about it. It's the very fact that it's always covered up that makes it seem so strange in the first place. If people commonly walked around naked, the genitals wouldn't be any different than an arm.

Just my opinion, I understand you and most people probably disagree with me, and I respect your opinion while disagreeing.

[cacian]

What's the difference between an exposed arm and an exposed penis?
one is useful and the other is private.
useful one may need their arm to lift something help someone else to do something/write/eat.
it is functional at all times.
private ie functional only behind closed doors.
exposed it does nothing.



Isn't an exposed arm out of place?
What's the point of an arm being visible? Just because you can see a person's arm does not mean you have to stare at it;

not it is not because it is useful to be out and about.
you would need it to function in everyday life.

the same goes for genitals.
they are not the same.
their only purpose is when they are functional ie bathroom or bedroom.
they are therefore private.


You hit the nail on the head when you say "we don't all like to stare at each other's bit", which is exactly why we wouldn't, even if it was visible. It's not like you can't control what you look at, really.
i prefer to look at people faces.
it is more interesting and it has many things to say.
in order to communicate with someone one need to look at their faces to hear and read their expressions.


If it was something you saw every day walking down the street, you wouldn't even think twice about it. It's the very fact that it's always covered up that makes it seem so strange in the first place. If people commonly walked around naked, the genitals wouldn't be any different than an arm.

I would because it looks out of place. it does not make sense to walk down to road with no clothes on it looks random..
one takes their clothes off to go to the bathroom shower or have sex.
that is for the reasons to go nude.
again it is a bit like speaking out context.


Just my opinion, I understand you and most people probably disagree with me, and I respect your opinion while disagreeing.
sure and thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
I believe body parts have each a function and a place
to keep to them so that it makes sense.
but that is my opinion. :)

[stlukesguild]

porn is an act that requires two people simulating sex.

Does it? A lot of what is deemed "porn" involves only blatant sexual display... or masturbation even. The basic definition of "pornography" is: the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual arousal. There is nothing about two people or the simulation of sex... and by the way, most porno-films involve the filming of real sex... not a simulation.

The question then becomes how do we define that which is portrayed for the purpose of sexual arousal... and are all images/text with the intention of arousing the audience "pornographic"? How do we separate the "erotic" from the "pornographic"?

Ultimately, if pornography is to be defines as "the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual arousal" as another has stated, Pornography is simply a genre or subject matter... like landscape, or still-life, or religious narrative... with clear intention. Some is more explicit... some less so. Yet one need only look to some of the sculptures from India or the Japanese Shunga or some of the drawings of Egon Schiele or prints of Picasso to recognize that art can be quite sexually explicit... "pornographic".

porn is an act that requires two people simulating sex...

art depicts an idea ideally a one never seen before...

moving images it is not a film. it is a picture...

art is unspoken without sound/movement because it is a visual of its own right...

a porn mag is not porn...

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

Indeed!:eek2::shocked::eek6:

[mortalterror]

Porn is an artform generally practiced by people who are mediocre artists. It has the potential to be high art, and in the past sometimes it was. Think of Caligula with it's unsimulated orgies, a script by Gore Vidal featuring Malcolm McDowell, Peter O'Toole, and John Gielgud. There's In the Realm of the Senses an art film with real sex scenes by the great Japanese director Nagisa Oshima. Lars Von Trier has done... I think two films with unsimulated sex scenes in them. And then in the non-cinematic or photographic eras, I think it's safe to assume that any porn drawn or painted by a master could be considered art. There are the erotic statues at Khajuraho. The Japanese call erotic art Shunga and Utamaro and Hokusai both dabbled in their creation. Corregio's Jupiter and Io is at least a little tantalizing and suggestive. As is Clodion's Satyr and Nymph sculpture, Woman With White Stockings by Gustave Courbet, etc. The Reeves Tale by Chaucer in the Canterbury Tales might be considered erotica, though maybe not to the extent of Anais Nin's Delta of Venus, or Fanny Hill. I haven't read Pietro Aretino's works but they have the reputation of being quite filthy and quite literate.

[cacian]

Does it? A lot of what is deemed "porn" involves only blatant sexual display... or masturbation even.

is it?
so when one is on a nudist beach or a nude party exposed does that mean it is porn?



The basic definition of "pornography" is: the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual arousal.
sexual is mentioned twice in this definition.
what is sex?



There is nothing about two people or the simulation of sex... and by the way, most porno-films involve the filming of real sex... not a simulation.

really? an actor is someone who pretend.
an intimate relationship that involves two people in love or otherwise lovers is by definition a sexual relationship.
a film is undertaken by actors professional imitators who under instruction simulate an act for the profit of entertainment and therefore is a show not reality.


The question then becomes how do we define that which is portrayed for the purpose of sexual arousal... and are all images/text with the intention of arousing the audience "pornographic"? How do we separate the "erotic" from the "pornographic"?

to arouse means one may wants to act in a sexual fantasy. he or she wants to imitate what he or she has seen but it is not necessarily in the same way. porn is the stimulus.

erotic to me a thought function that arouses one to fantasise in a sexual innuendo that is not necessarily physical nor possible.
porn is physical.


Ultimately, if pornography is to be defines as "the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual arousal" as another has stated, Pornography is simply a genre or subject matter... like landscape, or still-life, or religious narrative... with clear intention. Some is more explicit... some less so. Yet one need only look to some of the sculptures from India or the Japanese Shunga or some of the drawings of Egon Schiele or prints of Picasso to recognize that art can be quite sexually explicit... "pornographic".
again sex is mentioned twice here.
sex is not subjective it is objective. it is objective in the sense it gets from a to z and then it stops. until the next time.
a landscape /still life is continuous it is always there. it does not start nor end.
a sculpture rounds up an idea of sex. it may shows a sexual position or depicts a sexual image. it is implicit.
sex is explicit. and intimate at the same time
that is how I see it or feel about it.
everyone is different.

I]'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'[/I]

Indeed!:eek2::shocked::eek6:
humpty dumpty sat on a wall
humpty dumpty had a great fall
but how did humpty dumpty fall
is something that we need to talle/tell
and it will be put it together and all.
:eek6::hurray: :D


if a word has many meanings it is its own master.
like a chameleon it changes colours all the time but it is one and only.

[stlukesguild]

SLG (quoted)-Does it? A lot of what is deemed "porn" involves only blatant sexual display... or masturbation even.
is it?

so when one is on a nudist beach or a nude party exposed does that mean it is porn?

You seem to struggle a bit with the differentiation of "art" and "reality". The nude display one might see on a nude beach... or when in an intimate situation with a lover, for that matter, is not a representation.

The basic definition of "pornography" is: the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual arousal.

sexual is mentioned twice in this definition.
what is sex?

I believe that's something you'll need to discuss with your parents.

There is nothing about two people or the simulation of sex... and by the way, most porno-films involve the filming of real sex... not a simulation.

really? an actor is someone who pretend. an intimate relationship that involves two people in love or otherwise lovers is by definition a sexual relationship.

The sex is real. Whether the couple involved are in love is irrelevant. Sex without love has been known to happen in the past.

a film is undertaken by actors professional imitators who under instruction simulate an act for the profit of entertainment and therefore is a show not reality.

The actors may simulate certain scenarios... but the sex is not simulated. The couples are actually f*****g.

The question then becomes how do we define that which is portrayed for the purpose of sexual arousal... and are all images/text with the intention of arousing the audience "pornographic"? How do we separate the "erotic" from the "pornographic"?

to arouse means one may wants to act in a sexual fantasy. he or she wants to imitate what he or she has seen but it is not necessarily in the same way. porn is the stimulus.

Humans may be aroused by many different things. A 15-year old boy can be aroused simply by the word "thighs". Art has many different intentions. Some art is clearly erotic in intent... and yet also displays other values... aesthetic and otherwise.

erotic to me a thought function that arouses one to fantasise in a sexual innuendo that is not necessarily physical nor possible.
porn is physical.

The "erotic" (from the Greek ἔρως, eros—"desire") is defined as that which causes sexual feelings, as well as a philosophical contemplation concerning the aesthetics of sexual desire, sensuality and romantic love. Pornography (derived from the Greek words πόρνη [pornē "prostitute"] and πορνεία [porneia "prostitution"] and and the Greek word γράφειν (graphein "to write or to record", or illustrate/draw). Pornography involves the explicit representation of sexual display or sexual acts. The Erotic need not. Some may find certain clothing, music, a person's voice, scents/perfumes, images that do not involve involves the explicit representation of sexual display or sexual acts to be "erotic". Georgia O'Keefe's paintings of flowers were famously thought to be "erotic":

http://bostonartsdiary.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Nymphomaniac_OKeefe_grey-line-with-black-blue-and-yellow_1923_18.jpg

... as are the paintings by the contemporary, Leonard Koscianski:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3CfF1MKhqdQ/UXcZhz-9pTI/AAAAAAABThI/u3yPD_799MQ/s640/Leonard+Koscianski+_+paintings+(2).jpg

Ultimately, if pornography is to be defined as "the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual arousal" as another has stated, Pornography is simply a genre or subject matter... like landscape, or still-life, or religious narrative... with clear intention. Some is more explicit... some less so. Yet one need only look to some of the sculptures from India or the Japanese Shunga or some of the drawings of Egon Schiele or prints of Picasso to recognize that art can be quite sexually explicit... "pornographic".

again sex is mentioned twice here.

And your point is...?

sex is not subjective it is objective. it is objective in the sense it gets from a to z and then it stops. until the next time.

What...?:crazy:

a landscape /still life is continuous it is always there. it does not start nor end.

It is?

http://www.oceansbridge.com/paintings/artists/recently-added/paul-cezanne/big/Paul-Cezanne-XX-Apples-and-Biscuits-1880.jpg

These apples are still there? Cezanne didn't eat them? They didn't rot?

What does permanence have to do with Art? Artists represent all sorts of temporal and transitory experiences.

a sculpture rounds up an idea of sex. it may shows a sexual position or depicts a sexual image. it is implicit.
sex is explicit. and intimate at the same time

Again... What!? :crazy:

[cacian]

stulukes I guess as a woman /lady I consider sex to be an action with much reaction.
and I consider art to be a reaction to something.
one if for doing and the other is for looking.
one is feasible and the other is doable.
I keep things like that tidy in my head.
it makes sense to me and life is easier to manage that way.

I guess you are a male/boy/man and consider sex to be of a different view.
may be that is it.
masculine views on sex are different from that of a feminine view but then I cannot be sure.
I would not like to generalise.
I am speculating.

oh I enjoyed the paintings but not so sure about the idea of referring plants to body parts. I am not sure nature would like that. :D

[The Atheist]

Have any guys on litnet witnessed anything similiar and reacted in horror?

Yes, and no respectively.

[Frédéric Moreau]

please help complete the survey
porn may be gratifying pleasing to a functional need
but
is it aesthetically easy on the high attractive you would want to paint it or a write a poem about it?

any added comment is most welcome

I think that porn is rude and nasty intrinsically, if it is not that way it should be called eroticism. Compare Je t'aime moi non plus to the current performances of that former Disney star, whose name I don't want to remember, and you will notice the difference. I suggest that you read an essay by Vargas Llosa entitled 'La civilización del espectáculo'. There the whole decline of culture -and its replacement for mere show- is brilliantly explained.

[cacian]

Yes, and no respectively.

how do you mean?

[cacian]

I think that porn is rude and nasty intrinsically, if it is not that way it should be called eroticism. Compare Je t'aime moi non plus to the current performances of that former Disney star, whose name I don't want to remember, and you will notice the difference. I suggest that you read an essay by Vargas Llosa entitled 'La civilización del espectáculo'. There the whole decline of culture -and its replacement for mere show- is brilliantly explained.

I guess for me porn declines sex it does not elevate it. porn has a nasty streak to it.

[Frédéric Moreau]

I guess for me porn declines sex it does not elevate it. porn has a nasty streak to it.


The book I talked about is a collection of articles, of which one is devoted to this concern. You can read it freely, legally and in Spanish here: http://elpais.com/diario/2009/11/01/opinion/1257030012_850215.html

I translated the beginning -which is quite enlightening-. If you are interested in reading the whole text I may translate it later. I quote him (my translation):

“There are so many ways to define eroticism, but perhaps the most appropriate one is to just call it “the humanisation of physic love, its conversion -throughout time and on account of the advance of freedom (with culture’s influence in the arts and private life)- of the mere fulfilment of an instinctive impulse into a creative and shared chore which prolongs and sublimates the physic pleasure by surrounding it of rituals and refinements that, finally, attain to turn it into a piece of art."

Perhaps in no other activity than sex has been established such an evident border between what is animal and what is human, difference that at first did not exist, shrouded in the mists of time, when both human and animal components were entangled in a pairing without further depth, flair, softness or love. The humanisation of men's and women's lives is a huge process in which the advance of scientific knowledge, philosophic and religious ideas and the development of arts and letters have a main role, but in which nothing changes, or it is heightened more, than sexual behaviour. This last one has always been an igneous ferment of artistic and literary creation, at the same time that painting, literature, music, sculpture, dance and all artistic manifestations of human imagination have, reciprocally, contributed to the prosperity of pleasure throughout sexual practice. Therefore, it is not abusive to highlight of eroticism its being a crucial element of civilisation and among its determinant constituents. In order to figure out how primitive a society is, or to what extent his civilizing process has contributed to its development, there is nothing like, by plunging into its bedroom secrets, find out how love is made.”

[stlukesguild]

I suggest that you read an essay by Vargas Llosa entitled 'La civilización del espectáculo'. There the whole decline of culture -and its replacement for mere show- is brilliantly explained.

The same Mario Vargas Llosa who penned In Praise of the Stepmother and The Notebooks of Don Rigoberto two highly explicit erotic novels that a good many might deem as "pornographic".

Of course, as member Mortalterror already pointed out, the history of literature and art is laden with examples of explicit eroticism that many might and have defined as pornographic. One need only read parts of Catullus, Propertius, Ovid, Martial and Juvenal; certain tales from Chaucer, Boccaccio, and the Arabian Nights; John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, Petronius' Satyricon, Swift, Swinburne, baudelaire, Rimbaud, Verlaine, Mallarme, Soupault, Pierre Louys, Apollinaire, Jean Genet, Andre Breton, Jean Cocteau, the Marquis De Sade, etc... The same is true of art:

(Do not open these links if you are easily offended)

http://zoom.mfa.org/fif=sc2/sc224305.fpx&obj=iip,1.0&wid=568&cell=568,427&cvt=jpeg

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-71834276129357_2227_664750027.jpg

http://www.crystalinks.com/RomePainting2.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2485/4094855062_12fe9826ef.jpg

http://madamepickwickartblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/pompeii15.jpg

http://coolstuffontheweb.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/perverts-have-been-prominent-throughout-human-history-e1393711923441.jpg

http://thinkingparticle.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/node-gallery-display/Sculptures%20on%20the%20outer%20walls%20of%20Kanda riya%20Mahadeva%20temple.JPG

http://www.christies.com/lotfinderimages/d51867/d5186777l.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cxjUrkX1Zfo/UQ3SDR_gOQI/AAAAAAAAEcE/n1OXzQQenDI/s1600/couplesexnexttooldman.jpg

http://www.divianarts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/pompeii14-1024x864-634x535.jpg

http://cfs16.tistory.com/image/22/tistory/2010/07/13/09/55/4c3bb977319f9

http://www.lessingimages.com/w2/330106/33010635.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Thomas_Rowlandson_(2).jpg

http://media.vam.ac.uk/media/thira/collection_images/2006BC/2006BC8178.jpg

http://www.horimatsu.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/irezumi-japansk-tatuering-shunga-erotic-art-erotic-prints-ukiyo-e-japanese-tattoo-japan-ume%C3%A5-senju-madako-fuji-x-pro1-matti-sedholm-ingela-sedholm-sverige-sweden-horimatsu0092-1030x728.jpg

I've only gone up to the 18th century... and barely skimmed the surface. A number of the works here are by highly respected artists (Fuseli, Rowlandson, Romano). If Western Culture (and it appears the East isn't immune to the pleasures of sex) is going to hell in a hand-basket... its been headed there for quite some time now.

[The Atheist]

*Tips hat to stlukesguild for comprehensive and impeccably sensible answers in the thread.*


how do you mean?

Yes to "have I been somewhere where a woman disrobed in a public place", and no to "was I disgusted by it".

[Frédéric Moreau]

I suggest that you read an essay by Vargas Llosa entitled 'La civilización del espectáculo'. There the whole decline of culture -and its replacement for mere show- is brilliantly explained.

The same Mario Vargas Llosa who penned In Praise of the Stepmother and The Notebooks of Don Rigoberto two highly explicit erotic novels that a good many might deem as "pornographic".

Of course, as member Mortalterror already pointed out, the history of literature and art is laden with examples of explicit eroticism that many might and have defined as pornographic. One need only read parts of Catullus, Propertius, Ovid, Martial and Juvenal; certain tales from Chaucer, Boccaccio, and the Arabian Nights; John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, Petronius' Satyricon, Swift, Swinburne, baudelaire, Rimbaud, Verlaine, Mallarme, Soupault, Pierre Louys, Apollinaire, Jean Genet, Andre Breton, Jean Cocteau, the Marquis De Sade, etc... The same is true of art:

(Do not open these links if you are easily offended)

http://zoom.mfa.org/fif=sc2/sc224305.fpx&obj=iip,1.0&wid=568&cell=568,427&cvt=jpeg

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-71834276129357_2227_664750027.jpg

http://www.crystalinks.com/RomePainting2.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2485/4094855062_12fe9826ef.jpg

http://madamepickwickartblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/pompeii15.jpg

http://coolstuffontheweb.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/perverts-have-been-prominent-throughout-human-history-e1393711923441.jpg

http://thinkingparticle.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/node-gallery-display/Sculptures%20on%20the%20outer%20walls%20of%20Kanda riya%20Mahadeva%20temple.JPG

http://www.christies.com/lotfinderimages/d51867/d5186777l.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cxjUrkX1Zfo/UQ3SDR_gOQI/AAAAAAAAEcE/n1OXzQQenDI/s1600/couplesexnexttooldman.jpg

http://www.divianarts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/pompeii14-1024x864-634x535.jpg

http://cfs16.tistory.com/image/22/tistory/2010/07/13/09/55/4c3bb977319f9

http://www.lessingimages.com/w2/330106/33010635.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Thomas_Rowlandson_(2).jpg

http://media.vam.ac.uk/media/thira/collection_images/2006BC/2006BC8178.jpg

http://www.horimatsu.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/irezumi-japansk-tatuering-shunga-erotic-art-erotic-prints-ukiyo-e-japanese-tattoo-japan-ume%C3%A5-senju-madako-fuji-x-pro1-matti-sedholm-ingela-sedholm-sverige-sweden-horimatsu0092-1030x728.jpg

I've only gone up to the 18th century... and barely skimmed the surface. A number of the works here are by highly respected artists (Fuseli, Rowlandson, Romano). If Western Culture (and it appears the East isn't immune to the pleasures of sex) is going to hell in a hand-basket... its been headed there for quite some time now.

The essay not only talks about eroticism, it is a wide-range analysis on the current trivialisation of everything.

That examples are not pornographic, though a puritan may regard them as so. And we have also to take into account that the moral in the times of Petronious was not the same that rules us now. I remember that at the end of Satyricon -which is believed to have had more than 3000 pages-, a poet called Eumolpo rapes a little girl, whose care had been entrusted to him by her mother, who took him as a wealthy dying man and hoped to be at length benefited. In that scene Emolpo rapes the girl at the same time that he tries to seem disabled, he orders thus an slave to jerk the mattress while copulating. That is not narrated in a pornographic way, which is the key. It is more a matter of shape than content. Je t'aime moi non plus recreates an orgasm, an it is a great piece of art and not pornographic at all.

This is what really is pornographic:

http://uk.eonline.com/resize/300/222/www.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/2013730/rs_1024x759-130830150850-1024..miley-cyrus-twerk-vma.ls.83013_copy.jpg

[Frédéric Moreau]

[COLOR="#B22222"]The same Mario Vargas Llosa who penned In Praise of the Stepmother and The Notebooks of Don Rigoberto two highly explicit erotic novels that a good many might deem as "pornographic".

Yo mistake eroticism for pornography.

[Lykren]

But Frederic, how are we to judge whether a work crosses the line between tasteful and pornographic? For example, I find the picture of Miley Cyrus you posted to be approximately as tasteful as the picture of the greek vase stluke posted. I see little difference of note between them. So even if we agree that "porn is tastelessly treated sexual subject matter, erotica is the same subject matter done tastefully", it seems to me that such a distinction is so vague as to be completely meaningless.

I think mortalterror's point that pornography is an artform that has not attracted a large number of skilled practitioners is a good one. Also, even if we say that pornography is material intended solely to facilitate masturbation, then we must also recognize that ANY material can be used to facilitate masturbation. It just depends on people's taste.

[stlukesguild]

Yo mistake eroticism for pornography.

No... I don't I've already posted the dictionary definitions of both "pornography":

The "erotic" (from the Greek ἔρως, eros—"desire") is defined as that which causes sexual feelings, as well as a philosophical contemplation concerning the aesthetics of sexual desire, sensuality and romantic love. Pornography (derived from the Greek words πόρνη [pornē "prostitute"] and πορνεία [porneia "prostitution"] and and the Greek word γράφειν (graphein "to write or to record", or illustrate/draw). Pornography involves the explicit representation of sexual display or sexual acts. The Erotic need not. Some may find certain clothing, music, a person's voice, scents/perfumes, images that do not involve involves the explicit representation of sexual display or sexual acts to be "erotic".

Most individuals come upon their own definitions of "pornography" and define where the erotic ends and "porn" begins based upon their own values or standards. Based upon the definitions above, pornography is simply an artistic genre like any other, albeit one in which the subject matter is an explicit representation of sexual display or sexual acts. Even this is open to debate.

By the classic definition above, all the following might be defined as "pornographic":

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/hermes_by_praxiteless_zps3fb1675c.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/hermes_by_praxiteless_zps3fb1675c.jpg.html)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/2483553171_49607d9a22_zps136dd5c5.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/2483553171_49607d9a22_zps136dd5c5.jpg.html)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/donatello-david2_zps514818ab.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/donatello-david2_zps514818ab.jpg.html)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/michelangelos_david1small_zps5bf5490b.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/michelangelos_david1small_zps5bf5490b.jpg.html)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/titian_zpsa374a7dc.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/titian_zpsa374a7dc.jpg.html)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/M84_191_zps94492223.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/M84_191_zps94492223.jpg.html)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/BeFunky_Franccedilois_Boucher_Marie-Louise_OMurphy_de_Boisfailyfinalversionmed_zpsbfa3 f80a.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/BeFunky_Franccedilois_Boucher_Marie-Louise_OMurphy_de_Boisfailyfinalversionmed_zpsbfa3 f80a.jpg.html)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/brigitte1-lanue-schiele_zps56c332ca.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/brigitte1-lanue-schiele_zps56c332ca.jpg.html)

All of the above involve the representation of explicit sexual display.

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/fulldwpvenusproj-b410c9f0ff44529998076a1fb15c253a_zpsdf797cbb.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/fulldwpvenusproj-b410c9f0ff44529998076a1fb15c253a_zpsdf797cbb.jpg.h tml)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/2013GG5601_zps474fc201.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/2013GG5601_zps474fc201.jpg.html)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/satyr_zpse76f6800.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/satyr_zpse76f6800.jpg.html)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/rodin_eternal1_zps91bfa6bf.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/rodin_eternal1_zps91bfa6bf.jpg.html)

All of the above works, on the other hand, represent sexual acts. Clearly I chose the most tame, but there are plenty of more "explicit" works, whether Greek vases, Indian temple sculpture, Shunga prints, or more contemporary works.

By the proper definition, a vast number of artists have created "pornographic" works. Many more Puritanical individuals would agree that Michelangelo's David and all the other works above are indeed "pornographic". Indeed, one might point out that the pin-ups of the 1950s were quite often far less "explicit" than the paintings by Boucher or Renoir:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/pinup5_zpsa5fe4a00.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/pinup5_zpsa5fe4a00.jpg.html)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/ldquoAllSetrdquobyGilElvgren1956_zps5ab75896.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/ldquoAllSetrdquobyGilElvgren1956_zps5ab75896.jpg.h tml)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/BeFunky_diana-getting-out-of-her-bath-1742smaller_zps45661b87.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/BeFunky_diana-getting-out-of-her-bath-1742smaller_zps45661b87.jpg.html)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/Pierre_Auguste_Renoir_REP003_zpsa69465fb.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/Pierre_Auguste_Renoir_REP003_zpsa69465fb.jpg.html)

So even if we agree that "porn is tastelessly treated sexual subject matter, erotica is the same subject matter done tastefully", it seems to me that such a distinction is so vague as to be completely meaningless.

Indeed... yet we most certainly do tend to think of "pornography" in terms of personal taste or values... and so most would define all that I have posted as "erotic art"... if that... forgetting that stripping away the aesthetic brilliance and the perfume of history these works are still all about sex.

The essay not only talks about eroticism, it is a wide-range analysis on the current trivialisation of everything.

Is our culture really more "trivial" than others? That is also open to debate. Obviously we live in a culture where popular culture and the masses dominate the arts... but are we really more decadent than the Romans of the late Empire, the Rococo, the fin de siecle? That is all open to debate.

Is Miley Cyrus twerking pornographic? Or is it just bad taste?

[cacian]

upon thinking about everything that has been said in here about erotic and porn this is what I think:
erotica pornographic images promises sex but does not deliver. one may titillate but that is all you are getting.
sex however is an act that delivers. it is the doing that counts.
and so I feel art is better off without these images because the idea of art is contemplation and wonder that would leave one fulfilled and inspired.
If I want sex then I will go and do it.

[stlukesguild]

upon thinking about everything that has been in here about erotic and porn is this
erotica and pornographic promises sex but does not deliver. one may titillate but that is all you are getting.

Cacian, what are you drinking when you come up with these absurd thoughts? I suppose we should also eliminate paintings like this:

http://cfile2.uf.tistory.com/image/174D69474FEBCB042DE65D

or this...

http://www.squarecylinder.com/wp-content/uploads/image/THIEBAUD_WAYNE/BOSTON%20CREMES.jpg

... because they titillate us with a promise of food... but they don't deliver. I can't eat them.

And certainly these have to go...

http://www.oceansbridge.com/paintings/artists/recently-added/july2008/big/The-Garden-of-Eden-xx-Roelandt-Jacobsz-Savery.JPG

http://cfile9.uf.tistory.com/image/195648434F09AFD6378F41

... because they promise some earthly Utopian garden of Eden yet I'm still living in the city.

and these also are a no-no...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Charles_I_of_England_-_Van_Dyck.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Louis_XIV_of_France.jpg/600px-Louis_XIV_of_France.jpg

http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lezqi1nx881qdj6pxo1_500.jpg

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/tumblr_lksepb1f9u1qidnqfo1_500_zps68eb54d9.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/tumblr_lksepb1f9u1qidnqfo1_500_zps68eb54d9.jpg.htm l)

They speak of great wealth and power... but have yet to deliever, either.

And certainly these have to go:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Rubens-Androm%C3%A8de2.jpg

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/ring61med_zps39c70e5f.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/ring61med_zps39c70e5f.jpg.html)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/BeFunky_Annunciationsm_zpsc944079f.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/BeFunky_Annunciationsm_zpsc944079f.jpg.html)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/BeFunky_Ezekielsm_zps1c2abec6.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/user/StlukesguildOhio/media/BeFunky_Ezekielsm_zps1c2abec6.jpg.html)

Gods and Godesses and Angels and superhuman mythological heroes... haven't seen any of them in my day to day life recently.

You seem to have a rather difficult time with the idea that ART IS NOT REALITY. The very word ART is related to ARTIFICE and ARTIFICIAL. ART involves invention, fantasy, the suspension of disbelief.