pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jan 21 2017 : 2:28AM
These are pretty philosophical questions. After all we are not watching people fuck, we are watching images of people fucking. The fact we're watching an image makes the content mediated and therefore to a degree formal and therefore arguably artful. Edited by - BlackSix on 1/21/2017 2:29:34 AM
[Link]
FlacFan Deactivated User
10088 Posts 8/15
Posted - Jan 21 2017 : 2:46AM
They had live sex performances in the 70's, notably the Apollo in NY and the O'Farrell in San Francisco. Was it art? Total eye of the beholder, so it's probably a circular argument.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jan 21 2017 : 2:53AM
Yeah I thought of the live sex shows from the 70s. Undoubtfully though watching people have sex in RL and watching images of people have sex are very different experiences.
We aren't simply watching people fuck...we're watching a performance. Big difference. If you were to just capture to people banging in real life without them knowing on camera that wouldn't be "art" because they're just doing what comes natural and not trying to entertain or engage an audience. But if you told that same couple you were going to film them and they agreed to it and they made the effort to try and be entertaining to some degree or another then they're doing something that would require some sort of skill and thought. In my mind that's when it can be judged and once it's being judged based on performance makes it okay to say that's "poor" or "exceptional" and all things in between. The exceptional performances can be viewed as "art" or the exceptional performer can be viewed as an "artist" based on the skill applied even if it's not an intentional skill. But will everyone see it as such? No. Just like with music, acting, paintings, etc., not everyone has the same tastes or criteria on what makes anything great and above the norm. Then there are people who just refuse or have no interest in looking at whatever as an artistic subject. It really isn't philosophical. Some people have decided in their mind that "this" and "that" can be viewed as "art" but "those" things can't or shouldn't. If a person has decided in their mind porn can't be art or the performers can't be artists that's pretty much it for them and they might never change their stance.
[Link]
Dragon Sign Deactivated User
3381 Posts 12/13
Posted - Jan 21 2017 : 10:06AM
So many People discussing and sharing their thought take into consideration so much lousiness, maybe that's thev reason why this bar has been set so fucking low so that those same people talk about porn as if that was just a couple of slweazebags with one sticking his pathetic little limp dick half into the fat ugly obesety creature NeXT door's ass after been asked in for tea or something. No,k thast's not porn, and no, they asre njot some artists. They're just freakin' neighbors with a good relation going.
[Link]
Dragon Sign Deactivated User
3381 Posts 12/13
Posted - Jan 21 2017 : 10:09AM
And there's so much bad about it for the world to see regarding entertainment and artistic value that those spelling gone wrong above just says it all when quality and know how and creative processes AND fine surroundings should be the key values. Edited by - Dragon Sign on 1/21/2017 10:10:13 AM
[Link]
Dragon Sign Deactivated User
3381 Posts 12/13
Posted - Jan 21 2017 : 10:38AM
So what's the reason why some great DVD producers sold me some DVDs I will never get tired of watching because the content is sky high great in every measure and proportion? Is it 9-5 people working their ass off for lousy paychecks? No it's not. It's something else. Like some piece of shit on the wall people never get tired of, be it painttingor whatever, I call it not workers doing a jobh gettinmg paid, that I'll tell you. I even watch old BTSes and find thast shit to be very entertaining just because of mood those people are in. Trust me, that ain't pushing burgers.
Yes, Jenna Haze is a blowjob artist for example Dani Daniels is a pussy eating artist Manuel Ferrara is an artist in terms of knowing how to make a girl orgasm
well we must at least specify what art are we talking about , sexual arts or acting arts? Also sexual arts are meant for actual abilities or depicted abilities. I mean how is that a man stays flaccid dealing with a sexual artist? Also what do we know about the real sensations an artist is providing to her/his partner?
life's to short to watch shitty porn 51 Posts 9/16
Posted - Jan 21 2017 : 2:41PM
it's asking the question there is a mass of difference between the David and shitty hotel art.Also I may add whomever took these pictures are they artists?Cmon keep up with me here
I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13
Posted - Jan 21 2017 : 4:16PM
^But I'm not denying that abstract art is art. I'm just saying that I prefer Renaissance art. Both are art but I happen to like one more than the other.
^ Yeah, I'm struggling with this idea being put forward that 'art' is just some superior version of something else which, until it it as reached a certain level, is not art; as if technical competence is the delineating criterion. If that's the case then logically there can be no distinction between good art and bad art, since quality is already assumed when ascribing the term art in the first place.
life's to short to watch shitty porn 51 Posts 9/16
Posted - Jan 21 2017 : 5:43PM
art should move you ,make you think,sometimes in make you happy,sometimes sad ,it should make you feel something.if not it's just meh .In something like fucking that the whole world does with that criteria,we are all artists.not everyone paints or sketches,everyone fucks.It's like asking who is the best breathier? Is a runner who wins a race a running artist and the rest in the race not?your assumption of quality is different than mine,no?
I woke up today and everything is still everything! 403 Posts 1/09
Posted - Jan 21 2017 : 10:33PM
Bingo!!! Porn is acting and acting is entertainment and art; whether or not it is good is besides the point. Fashionistas is hi pornographic art and Max Hardcore maybe not so hi but Kink.com and a lot of Dana Vespoli or Belladonna's stuff does the same kind of thing in a more artistic way. The pre video porn was pretty well acted and seemed to included some level of writing sophistication while all the gonzo stuff no so much. Point being the sex in porn caters to the cameras which caters to our eyeballs and our collective imaginations. It's performance, and as a consumer in fan I like all of them and know the whats and whys about how I enjoy them. But the whole time I am suspending belief and getting absorbed into the fantasy and the actors and directors bring out the performance necessary to engage at that fantasy level.
[Link]
FlacFan Deactivated User
10088 Posts 8/15
Posted - Jan 22 2017 : 6:06AM
^ In aspects of porn, the elite level has dropped off, because there is very little done today that is anywhere near the 70's early 80's era in terms of acting quality. Sure the girls are hot and the sex is more aerobic, but the over all acting chops are well down the list. I'd compare it a lot to the Andrew Blake era of the 90's, in that it's a nice veneer to look at, but for those looking for a good story as well, there's virtually nothing underneath it. Gloria Leonard - RIP to a legend - said her criteria for good porn was if it would be a passable story were the sex not included. In terms of story line porn, I quite agree. Nothing wrong with what the studios are doing in terms of shooting for site scenes, as most people are not trying to reboot "The Devil In Miss Jones". Total judgement call if that is a lower form of art.
They're both art because painting is an art and so is sculpting , the quality of it would define the artist , with porn we don't even know what is the art in there. Acting? The use of ass? blow jobs? Extreme objects? The pleasure given? after all a sexual worker is as good as much pleasure she can give to those fucking her , isn't that so? Also porn is a cinematic and photographic form of expression, you don't compare those to figurative arts , the same way you won't compare a director to an engineer nor an architect to a painter even though both draw on paper their works
Maybe I'm coming at this from a different place. If we're talking about "The Arts", which I think is thought of as things like Ballet, theatre, Opera, classical music, and such, then no, porn isn't considered part of that. Years ago someone(s) decided to brand those things as the "Arts" and by doing so implied that those things were great works in and of themselves apparently regardless of execution. For example, for a long time acting in the theatre in a play was considered the best an actor could hope for and movies and especially tv were seen as lesser work. But I don't agree with that line of thinking because regardless that theatre productions are seen as part of "The Arts" there's been plenty of sub-par theatre productions and at the same time there have been movies that have been examples of high quality entertainment. So I and I think most people have decided that "Art" is more about the level of quality more so than a particular thing. A little kid drawing stick figures is looked at as "making art" but that kid isn't an "Artist" and didn't create true "Art" in more grand definition of the term. So I personally consider most forms of creativity, performance, and execution of a skillset possible to considered "Art" if it exceeds the norm and transcends the craft. I don't believe only a certain list of things can be considered "Art" just because someone way back when decided that was the case. So a in my mind a skilled director in Hollywood or porn can be considered an artist even if not everyone agrees with the title. A actor in the theatre and a pornstar can both be considered "Artists" within their professions. A surgeon can be an artist with a scalpel because of his skill at his craft. And so on and so on.... So that's why I think it's the skill level that makes an "Artist" and not the craft itself automatically being considered "art". My opinion.
I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13
Posted - Jan 22 2017 : 11:11AM
When in history has it been the case that all operas, ballets, etc. were considered great in and of themselves regardless of execution?I don't know that those who believe that acting on stage is a higher form of performance than acting on film mean to imply that all theatre is great by nature. Edited by - misspornUSA on 1/22/2017 11:13:45 AM
I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13
Posted - Jan 22 2017 : 11:55AM
^I'm not quite sure how to give a short answer to that but I'll take a stab. Personally I look at how I am affected by the performances and I consider how the direction, lighting, etc. affected the performances and the overall mood of the scene. That's what I do for gonzo scenes. If there's a plot and scripted dialogue then I factor those in as well. Edited by - misspornUSA on 1/22/2017 11:59:21 AM
^ I don want to argue here, I just want to establish a common basis for judgement , it can't be just a personal feeling, I mean I may not like a paint , a movie or a song, but I can't argue with the fact that whatever the result it's still art, I mean painting is an art regardless , so is acting or directing , in a movie the lights are part of the work overall and so is the soundtrack, much like lights and shades on a painting or a fresco put to enhance a color effect or an emotional response , music is an art by itself , you may like an Opera or a Symphony or a Musical but if you don't you still recognize it as a piece of art. I prefer Renaissance paintings but nobody can deny the value of an howl by Munch , it's modern art but it is really meaningful. Now for porn to be an art by itself thus not falling into any other form of arts like Cinema , it has to have something peculiar to it that you wouldn't find anywhere else. Frankly I don't see this Of course I'm like everyone else, I judge what I like based solely on my sensitivity but this hardly defines what I like as an art.
I would put adult movies in with the same category as mainstream movies and live theater. They all utilize similar techniques, lighting, sound, sets, costumes, script/choreography. Before someone says but all sex movies don't have a script, they do have choreography. You try the positions as done in the movie and see how comfortable they are. They are choreographed for the camera (the audience in theater) not for comfort or pleasure.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jan 22 2017 : 3:27PM
Porn features are pretty clearly part of cinematic art, as Flash has noted. There are a number of film critics who now study porn features as part of the film tradition, just like b-movies or horror films, the two commerical forms they most closely resemble although their relation to the musical is also commonly noted. Examples include the films of Damiano, Vincent, Weston, Spinelli, Howard, etc. Gonzo is a combination or cinematic and performance art, closer to dance and literal performance artists (eg. Karen Finley) than the acting one sees in features. A great porn sex performance can communicate passion, tenderness, love, confusion, hate, degradation, loss of self, etc. It can arouse the viewer or even move them emotionally or viscerally. Examples for me include some of the scenes of Manuel Ferrara/Kristina Rose, Gracie Glam/Brooke Lee Adams, Manuel Ferrara/Sunny Lane, Rocco/Kelly Stafford, Belladonna/Nacho, Gianna/Stefano, Annette Schwarz/Brandon Iron, ChristianX/Ms. Berlin, etc. In terms of filmed art I've seen gonzo porn praised by noted film critic David Thomson for its use of long unbroken filming that follows two of more bodies in a space. This use of mise en scene relates to (again) musicals, documentary and experimental film traditions. Edited by - BlackSix on 1/23/2017 10:43:46 AM
^ I agree with Flash , if I'm not mistaken Deep Throat went out as a regular restricted movie , the red lights theatres , the XXX rating on movies were yet to come. But still, theatre and Cinemas are completely different means some aqctor might be a great one in theatres but a bad one in a movie, some arts are good on theatre only , for example those who do mimo such as marcel Marceau or transformists playing multiple carachter with different costumes but also being the only actor on stage, ballets, musicals, the improvisation and interaction that may occur in theatrical pieces which is impossible on the movies , writers of theatrical pieces are also considered literature artists such as Shakespeare for example. It is a completely distinguished form of acting arts may be mixed up with other arts but it's still an art on its own right.Not exactly , I'm asking if porn has enough distinguished feature to stand apart among the cinematic and theatrical arts So the question is what is inherent to porn that would make it an art? I'm serious some feature movie may stand with mainstream but still they are far away from the excellence , so what actually set porn as a cinematic art apart Edited by - LCF on 1/22/2017 3:56:44 PM
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jan 22 2017 : 3:59PM
^ Arts hardly need to be 'pure' to be arts. That is a pretty discredited idea. In the past it was used to attack the novel, opera, theatre and film by those of a conservative bent. Pretty much any newish or popular form of art. You seem to be arguing that porn needs to be somehow bringing something distinct or 'new' to the form that it operates in to be art. Pornographic films don't need to 'bring something a part' to be cinematic art, why do they need to be thought of as outside the art? If one was going to try the erotic or pornographic itself would be the content. But I refuse the attempt to seperate the pornographic from the 'art' or the form or that it needs to do so to meet some standard of 'excellence.' But to just argue that point, as much as I disagree with the premise, there is a scene of a woman masturbating in Wes Craven's Angela, the Fireworks Woman, that is unlike anything I've seen or experienced in a mainstream film. The scene between Anette Haven and an anonymous Sailor in V: The Hot One is more communicative of furitive and intense sexuality than any sex scene I've seen in a mainstream film. The rape scene between Harry Reems and Laura Cannon in Forced Entry is more horrifying and scarring than any rape scene I've seen in a mainstream film. By being pornographic a piece of art can penetrate into areas non-pornographic art cannot. In terms of excellence that is like all things artistic very subjective. The films of Andy Warhol and the Vienna Aktionists somehow meet the standards of art but not the films of Wakefield Poole or Peter de Rome? Completely arbitrary and as usual drawing the line based on class and commercial assumptions. Certainly there has been some excellence from pornography in literature, not only in overtly pornographic books by Louis Aragon, de Sade and Bataille but more supposedly 'mainstream' writers like Genet, Burroughs and Roth. Edited by - BlackSix on 1/22/2017 4:18:15 PM
^ Well although the discussion switched a little encompassing the whole porn production the main question was still if a porn performer could be considered an artist , and this is what is really hard to define , the component that distinguish a porn performer from just a mainstream performer. I mean Monica Bellucci in Irreversible performed the victim of a rape so good that the scene was rather disturbing even knowing it was acted and the rapist was her most trusted real life husband. That scene was more "real" than any staged rape I've ever seen in a porn movie even though there was no actual intercourse involved The reason why I asked for something inherent to porn that separates and distinguish it from mainstream acting is exactly that, put in the same bunch porn is pretty much at the bottom of it.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jan 22 2017 : 4:34PM
Belluci is excellent in that scene but Laura Cannon's performance in Forced Entry is more powerful and even haunting. I couldn't get that scene out of mind for days afterword, it literally haunted me. The scene in Irreversible didn't evoke that reaction from me. The scene may not have the same effect on you but that shows the inherent and deeply subjective nature of all art. Greater technical skill hardly translates into more effective art either.
^ I didn't see Forced Entry and I barely could watch that of Monica , it was very disturbing ^^ To that extent even those removing the garbage are paid some more than others Edited by - LCF on 1/22/2017 4:40:51 PM Edited by - LCF on 1/22/2017 4:43:24 PM
Interesting question! I believe it all depends on the definition of art you affirm. If you consider art as "ars / techne", as a craft to master, then adult performers (like any other performers) can be artists. If you consider art as an immediate way to unveil the mistreries of being and truth, then they can not... David is a masterpiece of art that defies time since it says something about human nature. Contemporary art is (often) performative art that lasts as long as it is performed, and could be crap! Have you seen "La grande bellezza" by Sorrentino? There's a hilarious scene that clearly makes fun of M. Abramovic's performances: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMjovG2PqZM There's one bit where she sits on a chair and stares at the viewer in front of her for 10 minutes. If this can be art (watching a woman staring) then why watching a woman (for example) masturbating shouldn't? It all depends on what you mean by "art".
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jan 23 2017 : 10:42AM
^ It's David Thomson in THE BIG SCREEN: THE STORY OF THE MOVIES. He only takes a few pages to discuss modern pornography but his views are interesting.
See Greg Lansky's AVN acceptance speech. He talks again about what adult performers do being art. Note: This thread is great. Lot's of great commentary. I still don't consider adult performers to be artists. Exhibitionists yes. Entertainers maybe. Artists no.
Framing is fundamental to art. Framing calls upon the spectator to interrogate the framed object as art. In conceptual art, 'art' itself is the frame. Duchamp's seminal Fountain, among other interpretations, established that art extends beyond the instantiated object into the realms of discourse. Questions such as 'what is the point?' was the point, 'is it art?' made it art. The challenge to conceptualists is not to replicate Duchamp's strategy, like Mozart and the Beatles he had first dibs on the the 'best tunes', but to renegotiate the terms of art by inviting subjective inquiry, within the framework of the piece itself, its location in space (gallery, street, top of a mountain) and as an object in a wider discourse (whether literally a piece of shit is an appropriate winner of an art competition). Like all art, conceptual art can be unsuccessful, even on its own terms. A few years ago I was lucky enough to view an exhibition of Picasso's sketches at the British Museum. I was blown away and moved to tears at times. Now, while the sketches were technically outstanding, it was the frame of Picasso the artist that engaged me. My previous experiences with Picasso had opened me up to his artistic language and the sketches, more than being charcoal lines on white paper, were another avenue into his unique and clear-sighted aesthetic. Within the frame of Picasso the sketches had meaning. In and of themselves, if they had been been done by a superior art student, I might have be impressed at the technical proficiency but subliminally unmoved. I acknowledge this interpretation risks being little more than celebrity worship, but, hey, subjective response. The career of Robert de Niro frames his performances as an artist. He has appeared in a massive number of movies and periodising his career is fraught with risk, nevertheless, we can recognise his earlier visceral work (Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, up to, maybe, Raging Bull), his technically superb characterisation middle period (Once Upon A Time In America, Brazil, The Untouchables, Cape Fear, Goodfellas, Casino), and now his later self-referential meaninglessly ironic late period (Analyze This and That, The Fockerses, Dirty Grandpa). There are obviously exceptions to this, but the trajectory is there. The point is, that as we watch the movies, his performance and our response is framed by 'de Niro'. Thus we see that the underlying transgressive-ness of Max Cady in Cape Fear is informed by Travis Bickle, but by the time of the unclean grandfather, the transgression is little more than a career intent on breaking the fourth wall. Such a performance might be stellar from Stiller but for de Niro it's like he's losing Russian roulette for the umpteenth time. Pornstar is a frame. The kayfabe is all encompassing - in vignette scenes the 'character' being played is called by the pornstar's name, they call each other by their pornstar names when they tweetchat, and when they win awards, it is not in their real name but as their pornstar name. My current crush, Sara Luvv - in her interviews with Captain Jack, in her podcast interviews, in BTSs, in her before the scene in Shyla Loves Girls, in whatever and whenever - 'shares' an unchanging expanding story of Sara Luvv the pornstar - there may be elements of real life incorporated into it but it's not revelatory of the person not known as Sara Luvv (does Bree Mills call her Sara Luvv at home?). The point being that a frame is being created. The art inside the frame is that in, for example, Shyla Loves Girls, we are led to believe that Sara Luvv and Shyla Jennings are genuinely two young women who like each other very much and are thrilled to be having sex together for the first time. The scene plays out lovingly and sensually, and to the extent that it works, the viewer buys into this; notwithstanding, one, the fakeness of the real situation (i.e. the disrobing, the positioning and the 'action narrative' are all determined by the camera and the 'language' of porn positions), and, two, the fact it is being produced as wank fodder. The art of the porn performer is to engage the viewer's mind while their hand is engaging something else. Some do it better than others, some don't do it all. Edited by - Sexy Sadie on 1/23/2017 10:51:46 PM
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jan 24 2017 : 2:06AM
That is one reading of Duchamp but I think it is fundamentally wrong. Duchamp was a former Dadaist and Fountain was 'signed' by R. Mutt. The entire piece was a provocation, he was saying almost literally 'your art is shit' or 'I piss on your idea of art.' It was simply a joke that the art establishment in typical fashion took seriously (these are the same people who treat Warhol with po-faced importance) and has since recycled endlessly for their financial benefit and the degradation of art. One need only look at Duchamp's other works of art before and after Fountain and the way he lived his life to see this. Edited by - BlackSix on 1/24/2017 2:08:51 AM
Introducing Kalani Luana
Posted - Jan 21 2017 : 2:28AM
