Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Art, pornography and exploitation


Recommended Posts

Someone said something to me that sparked a thought about just what it is that indicates the difference between art and pornography. Some people seem to think there are clear-cut lines drawn, but it's become apparent to me that many draw their own lines. And sometimes it IS difficult, in spite of one's own feelings, to argue against some of them. This never really seemed to be much of an issue until the advent of photography. Yes, there were pornographic oil paintings in the past. But by the standards set in those times, the lines were more clear cut. It took several decades for any photography to be considered art. And even then, there are those who make distinctions between photographic art, and just plain snapshots. Some would claim that to be truly artistic, photography must be in black and white. Others take issue with it. And now, it comes down to what photography can be considered art, and which photography is pornography. What was thrown at me was the photography of Mapplethorpe. Someone called some of it "child pornography." And, I suppose that to some, it could be called just that. Indeed, the nude photographs of children in what might be construed as provacative poses would give many, me included, that impression. I also react with disdain of such as an example of child exploitation. Now, a lot of people consider all pornography to be exploitative. But as Webster defines exploitation in one context as using somebody or something for personal gain, I fail to see how it fits. For one, most pornography is created with the express consent of adults, who are not only paid, but also considered to be of an age to be able to make those distinctions and decisions. But, as most child pornography consists of children either forced, tricked or otherwise intimidated into it, and as they are not of an age to make those distinctions and decisions, I feel it is also blatantly exploitative. And therefor more heinous. Even if given the permission of these children's parents, who in most cases have no idea this may be going on, the fact that it is the parents, and not the children, who will reap personal gain from the activity, makes it no less exploitative. But, what if I were to take a photo of a nine year old girl, fully clothed and sitting among a field of daffodils. At her age, she cannot legally sign any modeling contract. Yet, if I pay the parents for this permission, how is anyone to know if the child model ever recieves a dime? And, if I make $100,000 dollars through sales of this photo, and the child gets nary a cent, am I any less exploitative than the child pornographer? In the matter of pornography versus art, some would reason that porno is simply explicit photos of the sex act. Yet, there are many that would dismiss any nude photography as pornography. Indeed, many "nude art" photographers claim that only COLOR nude photography is pornographic. Why? A photographer named Wesson once shot a nude photo of a woman descending a staircase wearing nothing but a hat. In black and white. And, many consider it a masterpiece of "nude photographic art." But if the same picture was shot in color, and graced the pages of Playboy, rather than the walls of the Guggenhiem, it would be called "porno." Someone might ask, "What's the difference?", and I would be hard pressed to articulate a response. Heading down a different track, if I were to take a photo of a woman having sex with a swan, most would call it "beastial pornography" in either black and white OR color. But, when an artist, whose name I don't recall, depicted the same scene in oil paint on canvas, it's not only considered art, but a masterpiece as well. And again, someone might ask, "What's the difference?", and again I'd have trouble articulating a response. But nudes, in color, abound in art museums and given much reverence. How is it that oil paintings of nude women AND men are granted the distinction of being art, yet color photographs of the same are simply smut? Some nude color photography is done as tastefully in pose and subject matter as most of the oils. But, people argue over the designation of "art" to the photos, but never the oils. Once again, the man can ask, "What's the difference?", and I'd STILL be tongue-tied! The arguement that the photos are designed to titillate the viewer, and the oils are not is moot. Two or three centuries later, we have NO idea of the painter's intent. He, too, may have intended to give someone their jollies with his nudes. It is to my understanding, that there WERE minor flaps about it at the time, but not much was really made of it. So, it comes down to this. Have we actually come to the point where we can clearly reach a consensus about what constitutes art, and what differentiates it from pornography? Or do we still have much to learn? Whitefang
I started out with NOTHING...and I still have most of it left!
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 21
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I'm sure that plenty of people would look at Classical Greek art and see "pornography." A painting of a young woman with her hair exposed might be viewed as pornography by zealots in Iran, for example. But by the same token, it's not purely a distinction made by the viewer. Larry Flint never claimed to make "art." He developed a product that was meant to get men hot and bothered enough to lay down their dollars at the register so that they could go home and experience that feeling over and over again. Sexual arousal is implied, not just inferred. That's different than showing the beauty of the human form. But there's a lot of room in the middle. I've seen pieces of art that I found arousing. Was that the artist's intent? Maybe. Maybe not. No way to tell. I still considered it art, though.

The Black Knight always triumphs!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of all the provocative OT posts I've seen, this is the most interesting. Whitefang, I have to hand it to you. You've outlined many sides to the issue. Fine work. I don't have a black and white answer for you, and there probably isn't one to find. Values are defined by masses of people under specific historical and cultural circumstances. As Dan South stated, some societies are far more sensitive to certain images than others. At this point in time, in the U.S., we've become hyper-sensitive explicit or anti-social behavior and examples of such. I know this is both very good in some cases and extremely bad in others. I've seen self-described porn that was far more artistic, IMO, than many, "works of art," displaying nudity or sexuality. Does this make the former worse or better, morally, than the latter? I'd have to say the examples I'm thinking of ARE more artistic, IMO. My concern is that [i]somehow[/i] we come to a consensus on some standards to define nasty from beautiful when it comes to the NEA divvying up my tax dollars to artists in the form of grants. That Maplethorpe created his art, which I find completely repulsive, with tax dollars is adding insult to the injury of his flag piece. I can think of lots of art I would not like that STILL deserves a shot at existing gov't grants, but I don't want a repeat of the Maplethorpe controversy. I'm not sure we, as a melting pot society, are up to the challenge of making moral standards for this type of thing that even MOST citizens would agree on. The unkindest cut of all is the idea that, if we can't agree on standards, we might have to consider getting the gov't out of this artistic grant business and leave it to private investors to provide for these artists. That would end both mediocre as well as some brilliant careers that have thrived on gov't grants. It's a complex issue that seems easy enough to define, until you examine other belief systems in comparison/contrast to your own.

It's easiest to find me on Facebook. Neil Bergman

 

Soundclick

fntstcsnd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Count dracuBunny: [b]Super 8, I think you're looking for the "I Am Clueless" thread! ;) [/b][/quote]Not until Anifa either admits she's at least Bi curious, or starts posting some pics of herself! And I think Gypsy Tiger needs to go back to her 'butt' avatar! End rant...

Super 8

 

Hear my stuff here

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What defines art? First: whatever defines art must be applicable on [i]all[/i] forms of art. The definition of art has nothing to do with taste or personal preference, it is purely a philosophical subject. The creators/artists original intention and purpose with a particular piece of art/work is what defines the difference. It is NOT about the definition of quality or good/bad taste according to what might be socially acceptable at any given time. An example: 1. An ad for Campbell's canned soup is made for exploitation purposes, therefore it is not art. 2. A Warhol painting or screen print featuring a can of Campbell's canned soup is made to illustrate an artistic statement and/or expresssion. Artistic intent exists here, therefore it is art. In either case, any wiever can spot the visual similarities and assume a number of things, what he/she is experiencing is not what defines if a certain image is to be considered as art or something else. Another example: If you, with artistic intent, make a recording of a jackhammer or a quiet room, then it will be piece of art. It will still be art even if no listener on the planet would agree. /Mats

http://www.lexam.net/peter/carnut/man.gif

What do we want? Procrastination!

When do we want it? Later!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mats is right, it's the intent which is important, NOT the audience's opinions. Warhol is a good example; he made a film called either [i]Fuck[/i] or [i]Blue Movie[/i], depending on which book you pick up. It's a film about two people engaging in foreplay, having full penetrative sex and then cooking and eating a meal together. Is this porn? Or is it a film, starring two of his friends, made to show Warhol what sex between two consenting hetero people actually looks like? The U.S. Supreme Court definition is that porn is something that has no artistic merit and causes sexual thought (I'm paraphrasing) which is completely fucking stupid, as far as definitions go. Who says something has no artistic merit? a judge? Does that mean, as an artist, I'm qualified to work as a judge then as they seem to be so adept at doing my job? The basic premise is that porn appeals to the pruient interest and the purient interest only. Even so, there is porn out there (created as porn, with no intent to be anything other than porn) which appeals to both the purient and and the artistic interests. Is it still porn? Does [i]Basic Instinct[/i] appeal to anything other than the purient interest? In terms of art it is a fucking shockingly bad film whichever way you look at it ;) What I'm trying to say is that you have any opinion you want about a certain object/film/painting/whatever but that doesn't matter. The intention of the creator is the only thing that matters ... if Duchamp wants to put a urinal in a gallery and point to it saying, "I declare this to be a work of art" then I'm not going to argue with him.
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." - Banky Edwards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some LEGAL descriptions relative to pornography... Federal Laws [url=http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2257.html]Sec. 2257. - Record keeping requirements [/url] [url=http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pIch71.html]Obscenity Laws[/url] Excellent article that outlines and defines the differences between ART and OBSCENITY... [url=http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/refarticle.aspx?refid=761568395]Encarta Encyclopedia[/url] [url=http://www.usps.com/postalinspectors/kid-porn.htm]United States Postal Service on Child Porn[/url]

You can take the man away from his music, but you can't take the music out of the man.

 

Books by Craig Anderton through Amazon

 

Sweetwater: Bruce Swedien\'s "Make Mine Music"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the replies, so far, have only illustrated the maisma this topic creates. You've all been quick to give your own personal take on what makes art or porn, and a couple even tried to impress the attempts by congress and the Supreme Court to sort it all out. There are films, photos, and paintings that could easilly be construed as either/or. But, what I was addressing at heart was the seemingly huge grey area in the matter. But I wasn't drawing any conclusions, nor was I asking what the guidelines SHOULD be. Just musing on how difficult it would be to DRAW such guidelines that would be universally acceptable. The Supreme Court once tried to find settlement in the ruling that what's considered profanity should be left up to the standards of "the community". And all THAT amounted to, was a fancy worded way to pass the buck! And no one yet has addressed my dilemna in my example of exploitation. This, too, can be quite a morass. Whitefang
I started out with NOTHING...and I still have most of it left!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by whitefang: [b]You've all been quick to give your own personal take on what makes art or porn[/b][/quote]Like the devil reads the bible... /Mats

http://www.lexam.net/peter/carnut/man.gif

What do we want? Procrastination!

When do we want it? Later!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between art and pornography is in the lighting. :) ------- "So, it comes down to this. Have we actually come to the point where we can clearly reach a consensus about what constitutes art, and what differentiates it from pornography?" No, I don't believe so. The definitions are far too blurry to ever have concensus, especially among a population with wildly differing belief systems, concern about children, and aesthetic differences.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your question is an excellent, thoughtful one, and demands an equally thoughtful answer. Unfortunately, after having given your question even more thought, I don't believe that I can define the differences even for myself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Rog Angus Scrimm: [b]Mats is right, it's the intent which is important, NOT the audience's opinions. Warhol is a good example; he made a film about two people engaging in foreplay, having full penetrative sex and then cooking and eating a meal together. Is this porn? Or is it a film, Who says something has no artistic merit? if Duchamp wants to put a urinal in a gallery and point to it saying, "I declare this to be a work of art" then I'm not going to argue with him.[/b][/quote]Rog is COMPLETELY on target with this. I would however differ with his statement that [b]"intent which is important, NOT the audience's opinions."[/b] I understand what Rog is saying there, but I feel there is a factor of "audience opinion" that was not accounted for. Hopefully the following point-of-view will make some sense : Art is like a liquid. It's pretty much amorphous. But our standards, expectations, beliefs, morals, and so on, serve as the 'containers' for art. Art -like a liquid- conforms to the container it is poured into. This is important, because without the 'container' which conforms art, we would have no medium to express art -and art would simply remain an emotion. We need to have containers to serve as a point of reference. Without them, there is no expression. This is a simple concept. The area we're dealing with in this thread is the point where things stop being simple. Liquid fills and conforms to it's container. But liquid is not content to conform. It is exuding pressure in all directions against the limitations of it's container . If there is any kind of recess or nook in that container the liquid will fill it. If there is even a small hole or crack, the liquid will fill it, and flow out. Liquid conforms to it's boundaries, but it also pushes against those boundaries. It NEVER takes them for granted. In my opinion, art functions pretty much the same way. It conforms to it's boundaries yet also strains outward against them. If you say that Pornography isn't art, you have established a boundary that art can't cross. But art will always push in that direction. If you remove or alter the boundary art will not stay fixed. It will flow outward until it hits and conforms to the next boundary. Where I differ with Rog is the role of public opinion in how art's boundaries are set. He says: "[b]Who says something has no artistic merit? if Duchamp wants to put a urinal in a gallery and point to it saying, "I declare this to be a work of art" then I'm not going to argue with him.[/b]" I would argue that the only reason the urinal is there in the first place *IS* due to public opinion. Public opinion placed the boundary. Art pushes against it. If public opinion accepted it as art the boundary wouldn't be there, and the urinal probably wouldn't be on display. It's the same with Pornography, and anything else. If you say smashing a guitar on stage isn't art, you've placed a boundary for art to push against. If you accept it as art, the boundary is gone and art flows to the next boundary. Public opinion confines art, by attempting to define it. Art is amorphous -it knows no definition. So it puts pressure against it's boundaries and will not remain confined if it is allowed to escape.

Super 8

 

Hear my stuff here

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once we have all seen and are bored of all the different states, levels and styles of pornography, what will we be left with? - No guilt? - No pornography? - No market for pornography. - No direction to go but in the direction of loving the person instead of the body? - A society with true equality between men and women? Why do we repress Pornography anyway? Wouldn't it be best to just let it all happen and be responsible for communicating with our children and lovers. We would have no choice then right? We would have to be open about sex. I think the whole thing sucks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the difference between art and porn is the intent.

"Meat is the only thing you need beside beer! Big hunks of meat and BEER!!...Lots of freakin' BEER."

"Hey, I'm not Jesus Christ, I can't turn water into wine. The best I can do is turn beer into urine." Zakk Wylde

 

http://www.hepcnet.net/bbssmilies/super.gif

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/15_1_109.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many movies, books, and songs that I would not think appropriate for my neighbor's (or anyone else's) children, but have much artistic value and merit. Some art is meant for adults only. I think TV ads like the one for the video game "Hitman 2" are horrendous and should not be shown in a generic public broadcast. Even more so with the sniper activities in the DC area. Should someone wish to purchase that crap, it's up to them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Duhbyuh: [b]In my opinion, the difference between art and porn is the intent.[/b][/quote]It's a good point, but how do you feel about the interpretation aspect? That's why this is so difficult to try and define, at least for me. Say there's someone who feels that some beautiful black and white picture of a woman with no clothes on, done really artfully, is pornography. Does that make it pornography? Say tha majority of people in a town feel it's pornography -- does that make it pornography? What if only the artist feels that it's "art"? What then? It's a slippery thing to define, in my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...