Originally Posted by naturephoto1
There is no subject that is iherently excluded from being depicted in art.
but what about the way it is depicted?
I believ that porn can be done with great artistry. Robert Marplethorpe certainly, in my opinion, was able to do so. Of course there will be those that will not consider any of his work porn and some others which will consider it not to show artistry. There will also be people that will become extremely upset with viewing such work..so upset that it might as well have a swaztika in it.
Claire (Ms Anne Thrope is in the darkroom)
Personally I believe that what we call "porn" stimulates one area of your brain that has to do with physical sexual arousal, while what we may call "art" stimulates a part of the brain that has to do with mental arousal.
A healthy mixture of both in moderation makes the world go round.
Sometimes you feel like a nut and sometimes you don't.
It's all good.
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
"The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" astonished me by being at once, stupidly scary, and incredibly well and beautifully photographed. It's shot in a rich black and white that contributes immeasurably to it's ability to shock , but also to its' aesthetic value. High art and base content...go figure...
So, can pornography, whatever it is, be artistic as well as erotic? I'm sure it can. It's just that I've yet to see pornography where anyone bothered to even try.
Yep, I think "authenticity" was the key concept, and not the kind of bleeding heart authenticity, but the more matter-of-fact one that is at the same time more profound.
Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera
One other work it makes me think of, at least partly, is the Alan Moore/Eddie Campbell graphic novel "From Hell." It's not my favorite work, but there are a few instances of explicit sex in it that are properly woven into the story.
Perhaps there was a medium-specific argument in what JCM was doing: in a literary fiction, when the characters have sex, it's real sex within this fictional world. Cinema however has the particular feature of being able to break through pure make-believe and go into the actual world. I don't want to bring the whole photo-is-real-is-not-shut-up-no-you-shut-up bickering, but suffice it to say that the way we make movies (or photo), we can represent actually happening acts, and that's where it's unsettling and powerful. (Of course there is also simulation in cinema, but everyone already knew that...)
Using film since before it was hip.
"One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal
, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11
My APUG Portfolio
Before we can have "Artistic XXX" we must decide what "Artistic" means... (after all, if I asked you to make motor-oil jello, you'd need to know what motor oil and jello are... before you might combine them)
Thus - I must declare this endeavor null and void, for we all know we cannot possibly decide what Art is..
OTOH - this subject makes me think of this site:
NOTE - EXPLICIT CONTENT - moderate yourself! ('cause we soooo don't want to hear you rant)
Last edited by Pastiche; 11-03-2006 at 06:47 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: adding emphasis to the *NOTE*
I find some wars, particularly a current one, pornographic (i.e. in its actual definition obscene) and, for example, much of Mapplethorpe's work, rampant or otherwise quite beautiful.
Damn, might as well get slaughtered here, I even find some of J-PW's work artistic. Now where did that thread go?
It's about personal definition of words and for me pornography means obscene and, er, artistic doesn't. That's not to mean that I like everything artistic, there's a lot of crap about. Just my humble opinion.....
There are 10 types of people in this world - those who understand binary and those who don't.
Just to make it clear, the respondents stated specifically that the statue was pornographic. They were not asked questions about a criteria, and the statue met that criteria. They directly stated that "Michelangelo's David is pornographic" Yes, simply amazing, but Utah is a little behind the midwest. In illustration, most recently an Auguste Rodin exhibit was allowed, but the work was draped. I find that attitude far more revolting than pornography.
Originally Posted by Bromo33333
That's just, like, my opinion, man...