Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Goth on March 11, 2005, 06:51:31 AM
-
Aside from the recent incident that occured on "the other boards", I'm curious to know what constitues the difference between art and porn. Some porn I've seen looks good enough to be art, and some art I see is just porn.
Please, no pics to illustrate unless it's been Skuzzified.
-
You said it : it's in your eyes/brain.
-
an interesting story told by one of my favorite art history teachers told of one of each new pope's first responsibilities is to decide whether or not to put fig leafs over the naughty bits on the statues in rome.
they actually have these painted fig leafs with clips on the back that have been attached from time to time through history.
she swore it was true.
looks like JP2 is about to kick the bucket soon so well have to wait and see what the next one decides.
: )
personally, i have always thought suggestion was more sophisticated and sexy. film nior was classic in this manner. nothing more to turn a man off than screenwide stubblepuss...but hey thats just me. i have no idea where to draw the line, but i'll be the first to tell you if i think it is good art or not.
its really quite variable and context has alot to do with it as well.
most artists who run out of ideas but need to be famous make a run to the poop box and make something shocking. porn or not...its usually bad art because it is played out and un-interesting.
shock is art when it means something.
it is rare that it does.
but it does happen. and it can be quite beautiful.
88
what was the incident to which you refer?
-
Yup. its all in the eyes of the beholder.
Some things they call "art" to me are every bit as questionable as calling porn art.
A circle overlapping and underlapping a triangle and a square of different colors is not anything I consider to be "art" either.
One time a very very long time ago I worked at a place that was doing some rennovation and one of the things they were getting rid of was a picture just like the one I just described.
Well a buddy of mine took it downstairs and painted over it white. then took all sorts of different colored paint and just randomly spattered them all over it and presented it to the deptartment manager as a goof.
The guy loved it and asked us if he could have it.
We were like "by my guest"
A couple days later he calls us into his office to (proudly)show us he hung it on his wall and wanted to know what we thought of it.
We looked at it and almost as if we planned it that way (we didnt) we both said at the same time "Its upside down"
Far as I know he still has it LMAO
True story
-
the overlapping squares (mondrian), the splatter paintings (pollack) even solid fields of color (rothko) or a bicycle wheel stuck in a stool (duchamp) were important to thier time. they were meant to break down the way in which art could be presented. when they emerged, they were railing against the academy thinking that had drained the life out of art for ages. in many cases, when you really look at them, they are quite beautiful, but often only in context. what is great about your story is that you found something and made it into art. duchamp would have been proud. probably prouder if you left it upside down.
: )
van gogh was one of those artists which i never really cared for until i held up my hand like a telescope and blocked out everything else in the room but his landscape. it exploded in front of my eyes.
i have been more cautious in my judgement of the masters since, but not overly so.
taken in context, modernism was, and continues to be as much about production and repetition as any manufactured object. warhol put the nail in that coffin.
nowadays, the traditional artist is going the way of the dodo as new technologies emerge.
one of these technologies is video.
the difference in thier work is the same as comparing bob ross (happy little trees) to michealangelo. both types exist in our day and age and both are making art.
some make beauty. some make porn. some just dont know the friggin difference.
-
why art vs. porn?
art is art, porn is porn, even i blind can see the difference.
-
An artist takes photographs of naked women.
Where do you draw the line between art and porn?
-
bad music?
stubblemuff?
: )
i dont draw a line that i expect anyone else to follow.
i have photographed nudes, but so far i havent shoved a dildo in one.
maplethorp did that once though. nearly killed the NEA.
-
i think that truth is what makes art beautiful. it is relative, but when it rings truest it provokes the most reaction, be it
appreciation or the reverse.
-
Originally posted by JB88
i think that truth is what makes art beautiful. it is relative, but when it rings truest it provokes the most reaction, be it
appreciation or the reverse.
Good point.
If looked at objectivly
I dont see how one can be called art and one not. Its all dependant on personal tastes and current attitudes.
One would probably get in quite alot of trouble if they had some of this stuff out for public display now. but it wasnt always that way.
I'll not post the pictures on this site as someone will most certainly object to them.
Just be warned some images are graphic.
Skuzzy, Edit if you must but please visit before you edit
(You'll understand when you get there)
http://solomonsrefuge.com/secret_room.htm (http://solomonsrefuge.com/secret_room.htm)
http://www.issir.org/prod/data/bulletins/6/phallus-art.htm (http://www.issir.org/prod/data/bulletins/6/phallus-art.htm)
-
This is never as big of an issue as it's made out to be.
Art: Going to a museum or reading a book of portraits
Porn: saying "LOOK AT TEH BOOBIES!" when you post a picture of a painting containing nudity.
-
Hmmm... wasn't it Jeff Koons that used to do pornographic rococo styled sculptures?
I think that was his name... think it was in the late 80's or early 90's.
-
google "l'origine du monde"
That painting supposedly caused a riot when it came out. The most notable thing to me in person is that, to hear people speak of it, you'd think the painting was huge. When you see it, it's only 28 inches across the diagonal.
-
I can't believe the Euros are so thick they turn this into an "art vs, porn" debate, when the issue is what is work safe and what isn't.
You guys can't all be so stupid, can you?
:rolleyes:
I guess you can. LOL.
-
Or maybe some airhead forgot to read the topic.
-
Or maybe some Euro forgot to read the first line of the first post-
"Aside from the recent incident that occured on "the other boards", I'm curious to know what constitues the difference between art and porn."
Obviously Goth was talking about Staga's whine, wasn't he? You DO see that, right? Huh? Don't you???
:rolleyes:
-
Happens all the time. Something comes up and someone decides to create a new thread rather than hijack.
This thread isn't about Checksix, Euros, or bannings. Hence the word "aside".
-
If a typical hollywood movie is consider an "art", then why doesn't a typical movie depicting sex acts couldn't be described as an "art" instead of "porn"?
-
If its pink its porn.
-
Ok..
What does
issue is what is work safe and what isn't.
have to do with
Aside from the recent incident that occured on "the other boards", I'm curious to know what constitues the difference between art and porn.
Read the sentence carefully, then try to understand it.
"I'm curious to know what constitutes the difference between art and porn?"
:rolleyes:
-
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . ut I know it when I see it . .
- Justice Potter Stewart when asked what "obscene" was, 1964
-
Originally posted by Dune
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . ut I know it when I see it . .
- Justice Potter Stewart when asked what "obscene" was, 1964
That's nice, but it doesn't lead to good legislation.
-
Sandman I thought you have very simple rules already.
You can show breast - if you cut out the nipple.
You can show a fully naked woman - without nipples and labia cut out. :)
Just snip snip.. bad parts away and all is good. :D
-
Originally posted by Sandman
That's nice, but it doesn't lead to good legislation.
Judicial decisions rarely do.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Just snip snip.. bad parts away and all is good. :D
Just like Japan, the age of the actor is not an issue(I believe they actually raised the minimum to 13) as long as the pubic hair is blurred.
Gotta love Japan though, they even have vending machines for used underwear.:D
-
don't worry about what is art or porn, the NEA will tell you cause they been to school an are smart.
-
You've been to Japan mora? Way cool. That's one of the places I definately want to visit one day.
Have you seen any movies of Takeshi Kitano btw?
-
Originally posted by Airhead
I can't believe the Euros are so thick they turn this into an "art vs, porn" debate, when the issue is what is work safe and what isn't.
You guys can't all be so stupid, can you?
:rolleyes:
I guess you can. LOL.
So it's not work safe in US of A to see a painting from Rubens from your computer screen?
Have you thought about burning books and paintings yet??? :D
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Happens all the time. Something comes up and someone decides to create a new thread rather than hijack.
This thread isn't about Checksix, Euros, or bannings. Hence the word "aside".
Wow...I rarely agree with Sandman, but I would have to say he's dead on with that posting.
I was looking more for the philosophical difference between what constitutes pornography and where is that line that defines it as art. This was never designed to be about Staga's post...use the other thread for those issues.
Some people have claimed the "eye of beholder" stance. I believe that works for beauty but does not constitute art or porn. I have seen some ugly art.
I think if I had to put a definition to it...I would say art is more than simple gratification. Art, in various forms, invokes not only physical stimulus, but also piques the cerebral as well.
Porn to me is more base. It can be stimulating obviously, but on a more fundamental scale.
-
I'd say many of the Playboy photographs are closer to art than porn, for example.
They have real talent working there.
-
Thats simple, if you would not mind your daughter getting her picture taken, its art, and if you do, its porn.
-
Hmm.. she's only 1 you perv! :mad:
-
Originally posted by Staga
So it's not work safe in US of A to see a painting from Rubens from your computer screen?
Have you thought about burning books and paintings yet??? :D
Nah, that's a tatic of the Nazis and their allies, among them the Finns.
-
The difference between art and porn is *most* people respect art, and *most* don't respect porn. There is no objective test for art, porn, pretty, ugly, useful, obsolete, worth, or even good and evil (e.g., is a prey animal gulping up a defenseless hatchling evil?).
The term art and porn desribe people's reactions to a work, not the work. It also shows humans are slow learners. We wipe sometihng "evil" from the face of the earth only to discover "er, I think we needed that.."
-
I respect porn!
Hell I worship it! :D
-
>>I respect porn!
Hell I worship it!
<<
:) er *most* people - "most" being key :)
-
its a simple distinction...porn is like pirate school...art is like watching leviathan pull a reversal on someone else
-
If you whack off to it, it is porn. Not such a hard distinction to make, now is it.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
If you whack off to it, it is porn. Not such a hard distinction to make, now is it.
People have been known to whack off to the naked pigmies in National Geographic too.
also the Sports illustrated Swimsuit Edition
Didnt realise those magazine were porn.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
People have been known to whack off to the naked pigmies in National Geographic too.
also the Sports illustrated Swimsuit Edition
Didnt realise those magazine were porn.:rolleyes:
if its INTENDED to be whacked off to...
-
By definition, it is porn if you whack off to it, be it a picture of Jesus, Halle Berry or a severed head.
Art can be anything. Good art is worth money.
-
In a fight between art & porn, my money is on porn
-
Halle Berry is teh porn.
Nah, that's a tatic of the Nazis and their allies, among them the Finns.
Sometimes the name is an omen.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
By definition, it is porn if you whack off to it, be it a picture of Jesus, Halle Berry or a severed head.
Art can be anything. Good art is worth money.
LOL Have you checked out the prices of Porn movies these days?
-
Art vs Porn?
Why the "vs"? In a perfect world; Artery, pornography, living in perfect harmony.
Yeah you had it right Sand... Was Koons. Gettin' it on with that Italian slut-I-mean-politician. They're done like dinner now, but... I've had a couple beers with the dude and the entire marriage was one big act of art.... er what were we just talking about?
Anyways, yeah.
-
Heh Cicciolina was the coolest politician ever. Where else do you see topless politicians except in Italy?
-
Don't get me wrong....
I don't mean "slut" in some kind of messed up derogatory sense.
God forbid, no.
And god bless her.
-
I went to order a milk shake from a 'roach coach' today. I asked him to make it extra thick. He told me he only made 'em one way, just like the sign on the side said, "Thick Milk Shakes". I offered him more money than his advertised price, he said no. He then told me that he had sold many many milkshakes over the years out of that same truck, if he was doing something wrong, he wouldn't have had so much business.
The problem was, I had ordered a milkshake from him before. His definition of thick was far from mine. I told him that 'thick' was a subjective term, and he told me he refused to get into a discusion about how 'thick' his milkshakes really were....
...while he was making me my slightly thick milkshake....
That watermelon still tasted good though.
Oh, there was a point.
It's all subjective. You cannot define pornography as a different class than art. One mans thick shake is another mans soft serve.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... wasn't it Jeff Koons that used to do pornographic rococo styled sculptures?
I think that was his name... think it was in the late 80's or early 90's.
yep.
goddawful kitch.
and ciccolina is one ugly ugly woman even for a pornstar/politician.
but that too is subjective.
-
porn is a (cheapest) form of art, it gets down to the basic thread of humanity (humping) without all the abstract crap.
-
Skuzzy is retired? out of town or something?
-
Koons had a "art exhibition" in here not long time ago; god what awful junk...
Airhead; Here's (http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/titian_venus_of_urbino_cens.jpg) nice painting from Titian; it's also safe for (even) your work :)
-
Theres a Van Rijn crotch close-up on auction next month at Christie's
-
"pornography ... 1. writings, pictures, etc., intended primarily to arouse sexual desire." Webster's New World dictionary.
Art arouses the spirit, porn arouses the crotch.
Hence, some art can be porn, some porn can be art.
No wonder consensus is elusive.