the artist creates, but it's not art until it finds an audience, and it's not good art unless someone reacts.

[Link]

However, using the "porn is art" thing is an excuse and you shouldn't have to make excuses for anything you do. If you like watching porn, you don't need any excuses. The fact that you enjoy it should be enough for her.

[Link]

Doing almost anything exceptionally well is art.

[Link]

For me, good, colourfull and positive porn can be art, because it entertains and arouses me on a high level.
Like our dutch "Video Art of Holland" porn movies, for me its art, for my mother its trash, because she hates porn.
For the average male porn consumer, its just a good porn movie, nothing more or nothing less.

[Link]

FRESH MEAT: A GHOST STORY (Directed by John Leslie)

PARTY DOLL-A-GO-GO (Directed by Rinse Dream)

CAFE FLESH (Directed by Rinse Dream)

STORY OF THE EYE (Directed by Andrew McElhinney)

IN THE REALM OF THE SENSES (Directed by Nagisa Oshima)

FASHIONISTAS (Directed by John Stagliano)

Zen

"...you must be ONE! ONE with your DICK!" - Jose Duval, The Pillowman

[Link]

btw: is it a poll?

[Link]

Steve Holmes

[Link]

Edited by - threesomebody on 5/3/2007 8:16:28 AM

[Link]

Edited by - conquistador on 5/2/2007 6:24:59 PM

[Link]

In addition to the examples that Zen Master 2007 mentioned, there's also "Hidden Obsessions" and all of Andrew Blake's other movies. Blake is one director who had definitely made porn (and movies in general) to be an art form. "Girlvana" is another great example. And there's also many other examples, but there are too many to mention.

[Link]

I think porn can be art. Some is, most isn't. True gonzo is certainly an art form. It's good to see pornographers being artistic (like Belladonna) but i guess if you can't whack to it, what's the point?

Edited by - Tinaka on 5/2/2007 6:55:26 PM

[Link]

It is related to several more conventional branches of art, such as cinematography and performing arts such as drama and dance (and in addition, I consider some performers 'works of art').

IMO, art should meet most of the criteria below:

- it should require some specific (technical) skill(s) which can be developed
- it should also require an amount of 'talent', i.e., an innate ability which is not present in every person to the same extent
- it should somehow express or reflect the personality and individuality of the artist(s) and as such non-reproducible (even though it can be copied).
- it should be both intended and perceived as a product whose primary objective is to provoke an emotional response in the viewer or (or listener etc), which can be rated according to some 'aestethic' norm.

I think all four of the above elements are necessary, but not sufficient, for a work to qualify as 'art'. The weight accorded to these elements will vary according to the viewer/consumer.

In porn, 'art' element may include (a combination of) visual arrangement, dramatic structure, textual elements, and 'audio' (voices, music choices), originality, and pacing; and performer looks, charisma, chemistry, energy, and acting skills.

[Link]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=391_1178060828&c=1

Edited by - fundo on 5/2/2007 11:48:33 PM

[Link]

Some have said that because porn is made exclusively to get you off that it isn't art. Really? What if someone gets off to the Mona Lisa? Oh but of course, it wasn't intended to be erotic. Or was it?

Photography is often referred to as "painting with light" because that's what it is, essentially. You can't just aim a camera in the general direction of what you want to capture and expect a good result. At least half of the time, what you'll get with that technique will be garbage that nobody will want to watch. You must think about how you want it to look. The simplest of things can be seen many different ways through the lens of a camera. The photographer generally shows you the world the way he sees it....or the way he wants you to see it. The angle of the camera, the angle of the light. The color and character of the light. The shadows. The depth of the shadows. Someone who is skilled with a camera can use all of these elements to show you things that amaze you, excite you or, indeed, get you off. But it most certainly isn't something that any dipshit with a camcorder can do well. That is why it's art.

[Link]

I don't think quality is the overriding factor, I've seen art made from human bodies which is there to shock people. Does this add any value, i don't think so, how could it!

If quality and refinement determine if its art of not then look at Jules Jordan, Mike John and John Stagliano they value their productions both with the use of camera angles and the finished product. Surely this must be art.

[Link]

So also, I fear, with porn. Because all porn is made to that single purpose of getting the viewer off it must always fall short of art. I hope I am wrong. I hope that porn can be art. But I cannot convince myself of it.

[Link]

the general definition of pornography seems to say that it contains little to no artistic merit.

if art is a construction, replication, or imitation of beauty, then porn can be art.

and that sounds like a conservative judgement to me.
if pornography is explicit sex in print or on film, and then if stanley kubrick had penetration in his films, then porn would be art. art would be porn.

technically. by definition.

if you're going to use loaded terms like 'art' and 'pornography' you will not come to a satisfying answer. you need to be more specific.

[Link]

Webster says:

Edited by - Clam Digger on 5/3/2007 10:50:22 AM

[Link]

As I mentioned I have mused muchly on this question before now so I could post pages worth. I will try and limit myself.

Here I want to address the point that the making of effective pornography requires a rare degree of skill and that this is evidence that porn can be art.

I agree that effective porn-making demands skill. I think this is wholly irrelevant to the question of whether porn can be art.

Many professions, from doctor to lens-grinder, monumental mason to plumber, depend on a considerable base of physical and technical skills in the manipulation of materials but we do not call such people artists except as a rhetorical flourish.

So skill is not exclusive to art, but nor is it even necessary for art.

For much of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries it was unusual for a sculptor to carve stone or cast bronze himself. The artist made a model and a student or artisan realised it in the required material. The artist did not need to possess himself the technical skills necessary for the creation of his work. Today, Maurizio Cattelan has his ideas made flesh by a professional waxworker. The skill belongs to the waxworker; the creation of the work of art we attribute nonetheless to Cattelan.

That good pornography requires the exercise of skill proves only that the good pornographer is a good artisan, not that he is an artist.

To be an artisan is a noble calling. But it is not to be an artist.
The product of an artisan may be useful, beautiful, enjoyable, and it may have great value to its consumer. But it is not art.

[Link]

If done correctly you will eject copious amounts of sperm into your designated jizz-rag.

[Link]

And I quote:
Main Entry: craft
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, strength, skill, from Old English cræft; akin to Old High German kraft strength
1 : skill in planning, making, or executing : DEXTERITY
2 a : an occupation or trade requiring manual dexterity or artistic skill <the carpenter's craft> <the craft of writing plays> <crafts such as pottery, carpentry, and sewing>

[Link]

But what is about all the great porn paintings and sculptures over the centuries?

Steve Holmes

[Link]

Los Angeles July 2007

[Link]

The solo scene that Jonni Darkko and Gianna created for G is for Gianna is a work of art.

[Link]

J

[Link]

Of course it's art! Someone made it for someone else to look at. Duh!

If you make a doodle on scrap paper it's art.

A few points:

A piece of work does not need majority approval to be art.
It doesn't have to be reviewed in a snobby journal to be art.
It doesn't need to be "arty farty" to be art.
It doesn't have to reveal some great eternal truth to be art.
It doesn't have to have politically correct subject matter to be art.
It doesn't have to be good to be art.
It doesn't have to be elitist to be art.
It doesn't need a NEA grant to be art.
It need not have high social merit to be art.
It doesn't have to sell well to be art.
It doesn't have to sell poorly to be art.

aussie_guy77 stated the case very convincingly. "I believe its Art because its a form of expression just the same as any other art form". I agree completely.

P.S. I'm not patronising. I'm just an impatient arrogant opinionated bastard.

[Link]