Art vs. Pornography

  • Thread starter Thread starter ddarko
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Porn is fornication or prostitution. It falls outside of any reasonable standard for art.

Respectfully, we’re not all artists. Art schools would close tomorrow if it were true.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Porn is fornication or prostitution. It falls outside of any reasonable standard for art.

Respectfully, we’re not all artists. Art schools would close tomorrow if it were true.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
We are all artists, just different sorts and some are less trained than others. I am a fine artist who has been trained in it. Anyone can make a painting, even if they are not trained… it may not be considered “good”, but not all art is good. I went to art school and the more I learned about art the more liberal my definition became. If what you say is true, then the cave art wasn’t art, because they weren’t trained and didn’t go to art school.
 
Also Ed, are you one of those that don’t recognize non-objective art as not art?
 
Also someone can paint a photo realistic, amazingly rendered pornographic image. They may be an awesome artist, creating a very well executed piece of art, that happens to be pornographic. People have the tendency of stripping the title of art away from pieces they don’t like or see as immoral.
 
JoArtist said:
Also Ed, are you one of those that don’t recognize non-objective art as not art?
Click to expand...
After attending Wayne State University, I came face to face with the fact that I was dealing with a brainwashing program. In Art Appreciation, the instructor put up a slide of a clear lucite block with metal rods sticking out of it. We were told, with great emotion, that this was a man’s life!

Art is a communications medium. Even cave art was meant to portray and communicate. And I don’t doubt the painters had fun with it.

For my final exam in the Advanced Painting class, I handed in one of those pieces of non-representational art. I just took a piece of canvas board, and used the paint out of the tube with no mixing. I was done in 15 minutes. My instructor was impressed: "Why haven’t you been doing this all along?’ Exit - stage left.

That and going to the nearby art museum and spotting a little white card on the floor next to a spiral of duct tape; “Please do not remove. This is art.” Obviously, someone had to warn the uninitiated lest they scrape it up off the floor as a spiral of duct tape. I asked my instructor about it, and he gave me this elaborate story of some man’s life.

Peace,
Ed
 
JoArtist said:
Also someone can paint a photo realistic, amazingly rendered pornographic image. They may be an awesome artist, creating a very well executed piece of art, that happens to be pornographic. People have the tendency of stripping the title of art away from pieces they don’t like or see as immoral.
Click to expand...
Every artist is responsible for his or her work. We will all be held accountable at the time of judgement.

If you look at the Fine Art world, it is controlled by art critics. They decide what is and isn’t art. They decide who gets the word ‘important’ put in front of his name. There is a hierachy among gallery owners and art museums.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
After attending Wayne State University, I came face to face with the fact that I was dealing with a brainwashing program. In Art Appreciation, the instructor put up a slide of a clear lucite block with metal rods sticking out of it. We were told, with great emotion, that this was a man’s life!

Art is a communications medium. Even cave art was meant to portray and communicate. And I don’t doubt the painters had fun with it.

For my final exam in the Advanced Painting class, I handed in one of those pieces of non-representational art. I just took a piece of canvas board, and used the paint out of the tube with no mixing. I was done in 15 minutes. My instructor was impressed: "Why haven’t you been doing this all along?’ Exit - stage left.

That and going to the nearby art museum and spotting a little white card on the floor next to a spiral of duct tape; “Please do not remove. This is art.” Obviously, someone had to warn the uninitiated lest they scrape it up off the floor as a spiral of duct tape. I asked my instructor about it, and he gave me this elaborate story of some man’s life.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I am a well trained painter, but I hate doing representational art, honestly I find it boring. Just because you don’t like a piece of art does not strip it from art… there is such thing as poor art. Just because something is done quickly, it does not strip it from being art…My sister can draw amazing realistic drawings in a matter of minutes. Sometimes the thought put in a piece adds to art. In my art the texture, color, painterly strokes, all symbolize something or speak emotionally. I find non-objective art as a high form of art because it is more original, you are not copying anything you see in real life, which I think is more original and artistic,than copying what you see in your surroundings.
 
edwest2 said:
Every artist is responsible for his or her work. We will all be held accountable at the time of judgement.

If you look at the Fine Art world, it is controlled by art critics. They decide what is and isn’t art. They decide who gets the word ‘important’ put in front of his name. There is a hierachy among gallery owners and art museums.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I never said that art was moral. It is immoral art, but still art, so obviously you think something that is pornographic can be art.
 
Just because something is immoral or pornographic does not take away from the fact that it is art it is just immoral, pornographic, or poor art.
 
GEddie said:
First off, “nude” is simply a genre of human representation: the body natural and uncovered. “A nude” is just a depiction of said human body. Nudes may be artistic or pornographic.

The rules for photography, IMNAAHO, are the same as for drawing or for painting. It just uses light instead of ink, lead, paints, etc.

If the body in a nude photo is arranged so as to call attention to the sexual organs, that would be porn. If the nude bodyform does not call forth such attention, it’s just art.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
So the fact that the sexual organs are still included in the picture is ok? Why not leave it out in the first place? Paint/photograph the person wearing clothes instead of having them out in the open?

My point is that if its ok to have sexual organs displayed in the picture, then it is a matter of the viewer if someone gets drawn to the sexual organ or not. As long as the sexual organ is included, wouldn’t anyone will look at the sexual organs simply because it is not normative to see sexual organs of people out in the open? So it appears that having the sexual organ in a painting or photo by it-self is calling attention to it. There is also the issue of concupiscence.

God Bless 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top