Are Adult Performers Artists? (page 4)

Author	Post
Sexy Sadie All-Star Member I came to turn on everyone 978 Posts 6/10	Posted - Jan 24 2017 : 3:08AM BlackSix wrote: Sexy Sadie wrote: 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. Click to expand 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 Click to expand And isn't that response a tired regurgitation of accepted established academia? Aren't you indulging in the very thing you purport to be critiquing? Explain why my interpretation is 'wrong', within the heuristic I am employing. Do you cherry pick to contribute, or to win the pissing? I fully expect you to parade your extensive reading list. [edit: quote added because new page] Edited by - Sexy Sadie on 1/24/2017 3:33:34 AM [Link]
misspornUSA Senior Member I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13	Posted - Jan 24 2017 : 11:00AM Edited by - misspornUSA on 1/24/2017 11:29:30 AM [Link]
fanofman Senior Member 2053 Posts 9/15	Posted - Jan 24 2017 : 11:23AM ^Yes. I posted that video link when I created the thread. :) [Link]
misspornUSA Senior Member I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13	Posted - Jan 24 2017 : 11:29AM ^Oops! I'll delete that. [Link]

BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Jan 24 2017 : 8:12PM Sexy Sadie wrote: And isn't that response a tired regurgitation of accepted established academia? Aren't you indulging in the very thing you purport to be critiquing? Explain why my interpretation is 'wrong', within the heuristic I am employing. Do you cherry pick to contribute, or to win the pissing? I fully expect you to parade your extensive reading list. [edit: quote added because new page] Click to expand Nope, that is not the accepted interpretation, at least as far as I'm aware but I don't read much academic writing on modern art because it strikes me as mostly bullshit. If you don't want anyone to disagree don't bother posting. I think my response was respectful, yours is not. In terms of your petty reading list comment I often mention books in relation to subjects because it is near impossbile to have a meaningful discussion on complex subjects online and I think one is better off reading about it if one wants to think on it. So my intention is the opposite of your implication that I'm parading my 'book learning.' I find dueling google experts on the net tiresome and would rather direct people to those who have thought a lot and researched the subject rather than pretending to expertise I don't have. [Link]
killbillvol69 All-Star Member ^Lucy Pinder 18634 Posts 4/08	Posted - Jan 24 2017 : 8:54PM BlackSix wrote: ...dueling google experts... Click to expand I like that line. I'm going to have to remember that one. [Link]
LPee23 All-Star Member Better to be pissed on, than to be pissed off. 248 Posts 1/15	Posted - Jan 24 2017 : 9:02PM ^^^^^Since you guys mentioned Duchamp's Fountain, I will throw in my two cents. Fountain was a work of art. The idea was both to present mass produced objects as works of art, and to separate the creation of art from the creation of an object. You can debate his motives, maybe to test the limits of what is art, but many other artists followed along is a similar vein. Interestingly, since Fountain was lost shortly after it's initial display, it was through Stieglitz's famous photo of Fountain that most people were acquainted with the work. Since part of the point of Fountain was to elicit a reaction in people, then does the work in a way live on as a joint work of art through Stieglitz's photo? Also, if Fountain still somehow exists, it would be the world's most expensive toilet. [Link]
Dragon Sign Deactivated User 3381 Posts 12/13	Posted - Jan 25 2017 : 3:20PM It takes artists to create shit, be it what ever the fuck. [Link]
Dragon Sign Deactivated User 3381 Posts 12/13	Posted - Jan 25 2017 : 3:21PM Body of work = done by an artist. [Link]
vanessadelriolover Member I woke up today and everything is still everything! 403 Posts 1/09	Posted - Jan 27 2017 : 11:22PM BlackSix wrote: LCF wrote: 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. Click to expand 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 Click to expand BlackSix......an absolute mic dropper, spot on I could not have said it better so I just agree big time! [Link]
vanessadelriolover Member I woke up today and everything is still everything! 403 Posts 1/09	Posted - Jan 27 2017 : 11:26PM vanessadelriolover wrote: BlackSix wrote: LCF wrote: 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. Click to expand 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 Click to expand BlackSix......an absolute mic dropper, spot on I could not have said it better so I just agree big time! Click to expand Just a comment to every single person in this thread! Awesome discussion and what I love to see when I visit this site. Impressed by you all, thanks for letting me be a small part of it! [Link]
LPee23 All-Star Member Better to be pissed on, than to be pissed off. 248 Posts 1/15	Posted - Jan 30 2017 : 5:35PM There is plenty of fetish material, including pee fetish, in art photography. Granted, most models are not "adult performers," but I think it applies to this thread. See this article below for an example. It is not peeing in a sexual context, but definitely an intimate one. Emmet Gowin's 1971 portrait of his wife, Edith, peeing in a barn [Link]
Dragon Sign Deactivated User 3381 Posts 12/13	Posted - Feb 2 2017 : 5:17AM Now, they're probably sacked steel workers. Miners. Trying to make Americas Great Again. [Link]
CummingLinguist All-Star Member 5908 Posts 11/11	Posted - Feb 19 2017 : 10:49AM I think we need to deal with some concrete examples. I like porn that engages the viewer, so I consider this art. I love the idea that the girls in porn are just a bunch of nymphos, so this is definitely art. Themes of dominance and submission don't appeal to me as much, but others might consider this art. Beastility doesn't do it for me... ...but I find this highly artistic. Rape porn is pretty controversial, but it's been a longstanding theme. Some of it is quite well done. This piece lacks the craftsmanship of some of the others, but it is still much better than anything I could produce. I would consider it art. Of course, this begs the question: Were the models who posed for these works artists? [Link]

Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14595 Posts 3/02	Posted - Feb 19 2017 : 10:55AM CummingLinguist wrote: Of course, this begs the question: Were the models who posed for these works artists? Click to expand Probably not, as they are props, essentially. On the other hand, performers have to bring the work to life. If they do it well then we can be persuaded to accept the result as reality, well, we can accept its internal consistency, anyway. If they do it badly then we complain about how unbelievable it is. [Link]
LPee23 All-Star Member Better to be pissed on, than to be pissed off. 248 Posts 1/15	Posted - Feb 19 2017 : 11:25AM ^^Nice! Many of those paintings were accepted within the conventions of their time because they showed nudes within the context of classical scenes. Nonetheless, some people criticized paintings like those, just like they criticize porn nowadays. Here is another painting. People still debate whether this one is truly art, porn, or both. It was made on commission for a private collector, and not for public display. Gustave Courbet (1819-1877) The Origin of the World 1866 Oil on canvas [Link]
Gore Gore Girl Doctor of the Erotic Arts 7238 Posts 1/09	Posted - Feb 19 2017 : 11:54AM ^ I have seen that in person and it's gorgeous. As a child, I found this scandalous and offensive. It's a beautiful piece of art, though: I like what Hardware says about blaming performers for a crappy scene. That sums up a lot. [Link]
LCF All-Star Member Non Prevalebunt! 10364 Posts 1/05	Posted - Feb 19 2017 : 12:24PM ^ I'm pretty sure it's a fanasy of some kind possibly related to its tentacles , an actual octopus has a very sharp and pointed beak in its mouth it would be like getting literally eaten out with some razor blades CummingLinguist wrote: Beastility doesn't do it for me... ...but I find this highly artistic. Click to expand I assume you are the one on the back... the other one is Greek Mithology the cob is actually Jupiter who shifted to a beautiful shape to seduce the woman (Leda if I recall well) it's symbolic the cob represents a beatiful creature with a long "neck" the artist took the very essence of it look at the cob's neck and what it looks like Edited by - LCF on 2/19/2017 12:30:49 PM [Link]
CummingLinguist All-Star Member 5908 Posts 11/11	Posted - Feb 19 2017 : 11:42PM ^ Yes, it's Leda and the Swan. [Link]
Dragon Sign Deactivated User 3381 Posts 12/13	Posted - Feb 22 2017 : 3:56PM You're so nailing the big issue here by asking whether the models in real life was artists or not. That's why I find my trust in directors. It's really up to them to figure out if things will land in an artistic landscape or not. I so not find webcamera people artists, but good directors they are on a good day. [Link]
Dragon Sign Deactivated User 3381 Posts 12/13	Posted - Feb 22 2017 : 3:58PM They "paint" pictures layers by layers. Maybe not so much of today, but in 2004, 2005, 2006 there were pretty high standards. [Link]
Melvyn Senior Member 2797 Posts 12/12	Posted - Feb 25 2017 : 10:51AM The longer it lasts, the more artistic merit I would suggest it has. If something lasts, we have to examine the reasons for it. What did the creator do with it to make it stand out? I wouldn't say adult performers (we're talking about pornstars right?) as a rule are precluded from being regarded as artists, or at least performance artists. I would just ask how can a given performer really stand out? I don't see a great deal of latitude here. Directors on the other hand surely can be artists, and often are. All the really matters to me is does it demonstrate a level of effort and significant amount of time going into it to create? What elevates a porn scene IMO to the level of "art" is whatever demonstrates that the amount of care and effort exceeds the essential effort in simply shooting people having sex. Take Lansky for example. He puts HOURS and HOURS and HOURS of time and energy and overall great effort into creating scenes that may only last 30 minutes. That's exponentially more effort going in than it takes to simply observe or for any casual viewer to replicate on their own. Anyone can just set up a tripod and have sex. Maybe they'll spend a few minutes editing. But lack of effort shows, just as abundance of effort shows. I genuinely do believe that what Lansky and others like him are doing is elevating the essential effort required to just churn out porn to a level of art. Is it so de-legitimized to the point of being invalid because it becomes sexually explicit? If that was the case, then what if you edit one of his scenes to effectively make it non-explicit. Obviously that would end up omitting the bulk of what is there, but what remains would still be well photographed depictions of passion and romance. I just really dislike the lazy way critics would automatically dismiss something the moment it becomes sexually explicit. But if it was graphically violent, somehow that's automatically suitable for mainstream broadcast... maybe people still would not regard it as "high art" but they would be a lot more open to accepting it as a form of art, or potentially artistic. [Link]
Draxxx Senior Member 3831 Posts 2/07	Posted - Feb 26 2017 : 9:17AM Dragon Sign wrote: You're so nailing the big issue here by asking whether the models in real life was artists or not. That's why I find my trust in directors. It's really up to them to figure out if things will land in an artistic landscape or not. I so not find webcamera people artists, but good directors they are on a good day. Click to expand Your opinion is your opinion and your welcome to have it but consider... What if that director you think highly of did a webcam? would he stop being a "artist" just because he/she did a webcam? What would happen if the webcam people had access to all equipment and staff the director had? Is it not possible for them to perhaps rise to "artist" director status? I don't think it's fair to judge on such an unlevel playing field. [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Feb 26 2017 : 5:06PM Some forget that in mainstream film a director's real job is to direct the actors. They work with the actors to craft the scene. They may also direct the DP and work with the editor but not always. Similarly, in a porn scene a director is working with the performers to craft the scene. All of them are essential to the process but in fact I'd say great performers may on rare occasions produce a great scene despite the director but a director can't produce a great scene without talented performers. Bad mainstream films can contain great performances and good to great films can survive weak performances but it is near impossible to pull off a great sex scene with poor performers. Not sure what that would even look like, if anyone has an example let us know. For example, I've seen a performer like Gianna do what would usually be a bog-standard gonzo scene but lift it far above the aversge with her performance. If she had a great partner to work with like Ferara, Stefano or Blue her scenes could really sing but she often seemed to engage even merely okay mopes. Of course the opposite can also be true, I think most of us have seen Ferrara or Stefano bring out the best in girls who often seem to just be phoning it in. And we've all seen scenes where a poor director, Chico Wang and whoever that braying jackass who use to shoot for Bang Bros is, can ruin what should be a hot scene with great performers. Edited by - BlackSix on 2/26/2017 5:09:28 PM [Link]

Dragon Sign Deactivated User 3381 Posts 12/13	Posted - Feb 26 2017 : 6:20PM Danny Case directed on contract a DVD each week back 2005, 2006, 2007 for Third Degree. These are great DVDs. He's known as Pat Myne, too. Each time I watch BTS and I see him, or other fellas directing great DVDs, I know I see artists. They're so into the details, the little things. They're like controlfreaks, maybe not always now as in today, but back then, sure. Making jokes, having fun, staying cool, keeping focus, being in the zone, acting like kinda high, talking cool messages all the time, having things lined up. Having a vision. Always in for the little details. Getting the best angles. All of a sudden telling people what's best to do next. Leading mopes to do the right stuff. Talking in pre-time, whether it's Vince Voyeur, Jake Malone, Mike Quasar, Jonni Darkko, Juan Cuba, Michael Stefano and friends, they do not follow the script all the time, but they know what they're doing. So they do what they gotta do. Sometimes they even make up things. Maybe they throw in some pink furnitures and make up funny things, like Stoney Curtis do, or is it Chucky Sleaze. They don't do what they're being told from some office downtown. And they don't tell no one what they're really doing around the NeXT corner. And they don't tell everybody all they know. Sometimes they're some silent mysteries just walking around. They work early and late, and will go for a ride. But you better believe their capability of bringing out some great products from time to time, something which no one could ever really expect from no one. And that's what freakin' artists do. These days Jules Jordan holds the trone I believe, he's seen as an artist longtime over here at this forum. Statement was not argued some three years back in a thread speculating in what's up. Edited by - Dragon Sign on 2/26/2017 6:23:16 PM Edited by - Dragon Sign on 2/26/2017 6:26:19 PM Edited by - Dragon Sign on 2/26/2017 6:29:19 PM [Link]
Dragon Sign Deactivated User 3381 Posts 12/13	Posted - Feb 26 2017 : 6:24PM Double post Edited by - Dragon Sign on 2/26/2017 6:26:04 PM [Link]