Art vs. Pornography
I hate it when people try to conjure up some long, articulate sounding comment to whatever you have to say in order to seem smart and make a simple point. Now watch me be a hypocrite as I comment back via blog post! Haha, but honestly, it’s on my mind so why not? Also, the owner disabled comments so I can’t reply to it there anyway.
Deviantart is an ART site. Now I agree, there has been huge debate concerning the difference between art and pornography. I think it’s fair to say, however, that we have all grown to recognize when someone is trying to be artistic and when images are only being used for a certain purpose.
All I said on this image of a girl was;
“The fact that there was no attention to background or lighting, or any other characteristic a professional photographer would pay attention to means that the only reason for the photo is to show off the body. I don’t really think it’s artistic to post a picture searching for compliments.”
It’s fair that I got a reply to my own comment at all because well, it’s fair game, and also because it was on his comment that I put my opinion – since it touched on what he said in the first place. But I definitely wasn’t expecting a reply that consisted of a few paragraphs. It basically just repeated the whole porno versus art debate anyway.
If people would care to remember, this debate came up in the first place because the world wasn’t nearly as sexually open as it was now. I mean, show an art piece with a boob in it a century ago and people would gawk at it in amazement
Now however, there is most definitely a clear definition of pornography because it has become an actual industry. Porn has one basic goal and that is to get your libido going; whereas art has more substance. There are people on deviantart who are only interested in views and generating comments, so a quick shot of naughty bits will do the trick. Clearly it helped in this person’s case. I noticed he said this too:
“It still got a lot of pageviews, sparked discussion and by that criteria it is guess it is ART.”
It only brought up the topic because so many don’t even consider it art and don’t think it should be on the site. Page views and discussion do not make it art. It just means it has been noticed. If page views can define art, what does that say to all the people who pour their heart out into pages of poetry and never get noticed because text doesn’t necessarily catch the eye?
Fetish models have a ton more class than this photo. Perfect example, Miss Mosh. She may be wearing latex and things that stimulate sexual thoughts, but it’s in a way that can be appreciated by more than the average male mind. She has style, grace, flexibility – and OMG NO WAY – expression.
There’s being sexy, and then there’s blunt sexual imagery.
Being an amateur doesn’t mean lacking in style or effort. The girl in the photo looked about as bored as a dead fish. I’m actually really interested to see what others have to say about it. I probably don’t get many visitors, but if those that do pass by could take the time to just give their opinion, I would really appreciate it.
It would be even MORE AWESOME if you gave the reason for your answer, in the form of a comment! Again, here is the photo I speak of.
And even more awesometastic if you agree with me. Haha, kidding! Sorta. ^_^
Image by vampire6music on deviantart
February 26, 2011 at 4:23 am
I think the guy must have just really, really sucked!
I guess this is just as artistic as he can get. :P
By the way, my eyes went O_O when I clicked on that link. I gotta make sure I delete my history. Cause I highly doubt my parents would consider that artistic either.
February 26, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Hahaha, maybe! Or he was just too distracted by the fact a woman was willing to chill in front of him naked. =P
LOL, yeah really! I showed my aunt and she was like “Um. No. I don’t think so. She looks bored.” But when I showed her pictures of Miss Mosh she was like “Oh! I like what she’s wearing. I like the pinup look.”
February 26, 2011 at 12:06 pm
I found your blog through the forums today and I voted in your poll here. I voted no. What one person may see as art another may not. Doesn’t mean it’s art or artful. However, your last image with the wickedly tattooed women IS art (in my eyes.) Even if she happened to be showing a full breast, still art (imo). Your ‘delicious’ art (imo) is not art, nor artful. Just a beautiful naked girl squating on a sofa. I like you blog. Im subscribing.
That’s my 2cents.
February 26, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Thank you very much!
I think people are too influenced by the central idea that art can be anything you want it to be. It probably came from childhood. But in reality, no, it can’t. There is most definitely certain criteria it must meet.
Yes! I agree the last image is art, because she shows her beauty in more subtle ways. It’s about how the body is a canvas, and the natural curves of a woman. It’s not so “in your face.” Even if a breast were shown, it wouldn’t be the main focus of the photo. It would just add more character and definition.
Again, thank you so much! I really appreciate it. And your blog looks very interesting as well. Your creative writing looks fantastic – I’m going to subscribe right back! : )
February 26, 2011 at 4:31 pm
I voted no, I can’t say more because then it would end up a long essay. Suffice it to say, The body IS an empty canvas but their are skilled painters, and also wanna be artists with no clue.
I loved your poem about rain. very intense.
February 26, 2011 at 4:41 pm
Haha, yeah it’s one of those topics that could end up becoming a long rant. That’s very true too, there are many people who may have technical skill in what they do but can’t really fill their work with emotion.
Thank you! I’m glad. ^_^
February 27, 2011 at 8:35 pm
That little piece you posted at the end of your blog was more of an art than what the photo of the discussion because 1) That photo cannot even be considered a tasteful nude. Only Implied nudity can be considered art and that, for one, exposed too much that it’s only provocative for sexual gratification, not for the tasteful viewing of art.
2) How much effort was put into this photo? She is a beautiful woman, no doubt about it, but really now, taking a simple photo of a nude woman could be done by anyone. She is not his work of art, her parents should be taking the credit and she herself deserve more. What he has done is simply take a photo and expose her naked body with her permission, it’s like taking a photo of a sculpture made by someone else and taking credit for the work.
3) The quality of the picture is poor and had crappy lighting, like it’s been shot using a consumer grade camera.
Sure, anybody has the right to post art no matter what form of quality it is, but this is like drawing crappy doodles on DA and shove it down peoples throat to proclaim that its art.
DA is dead to me. Most people only cares about their views more than their work of art. I find so much people suffering from peter pan syndrome, Japanophiles flock in numbers and Anime is the main form of art. Anime is not an art, it’s a pop culture.
March 2, 2011 at 3:26 pm
You think she’s beautiful? I actually don’t find her all that attractive. Maybe if she gave a bit more emotion, she would be more appealing. Haha, your point about giving the parent’s credit is pretty great! I would never have thought about it like that.
I know what you mean, about DA going downhill. But I still hang on, because you can find some really great stuff on there. I found one of the poets I really admire on deviantart. She has a self-published book out now. Some really great stuff.
The last photo on this post, of the tattooed woman, is also from DA. Anime can be art, if done properly and with reason. I mean, drawing shitloads of anime chicks with short skirts is hardly art. But you can find some really great anime stuff that’s beautiful.
March 9, 2011 at 1:02 am
In relation to the title, I don’t find pornography in anyway an artform. Even in small amounts. Tv shows and movies with nudity isn’t necessary, and I always hate having to see it. But that’s just personal preference. It doesn’t mean it’s wrong, and especially in today’s society.
I think that if nudity is in relation to art, it should be at least tasteful and show something more than just a naked body. I agree with you that a lot of the time, pictures, especially those involving nudity are just for attention or comments. I voted no on that picture as well. to me the picture was just a naked girl posed to be photographed and that was it.
March 10, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Pornography is most definitely not art. It’s an industry aimed to do one thing – that one thing being quite obvious of course. People love nakedness, and desensitizing people to it isn’t wrong, but the way society has gone about it is. Being naked is natural, but somehow society has made it something very unnatural. Somewhat invasive and tends to put a lot of pressure on people.
I think that when it’s art, then nudity part of it isn’t the main focus. And if it is, there are many other artistic aspects that go along with it (lighting, focus, making a specific point, etc.) The human body is beautiful, but it has to be presented that way in order to make it art. Obscene photos of huge breasts aren’t exactly what I would call beautiful.
March 18, 2011 at 11:35 am
THIS IS NOT ART.
This is some girl flaunting her body around, and her ugly vagina.
Thats just gross honestly.
Im a member on deviant art, and i think it is art because photography to me is art.
There is not one thing artistic about that photo.
March 29, 2011 at 1:37 pm
LOL, it really is. I mean, a little soft lighting or something could have gone a loooong way.
March 26, 2011 at 5:31 am
It seems to me that the only absolute characteristic of art is that it is made with the intent to make art. People often have trouble making the distinction between “bad art” and “not art.” The fact, for instance, that not much attention is paid to the background would, in many cases, make it bad art. So would excessive focus on sexuality (or on any other element at the detriment of the quality of the whole). Just as well, pieces that are creatively sound are not always art. The Venus of Willendorf, for example, is not art, but rather a tool that enhances fertility. It is as much art as a tractor is to us – just less effective. But creatively, it is quite something.
Now, by that definition, pornography is not art. In fact, I do not believe it is. But when someone intends to make a piece of art and fails, that means, to me, that he made bad art rather than not art. Bad art can look like porn, but still be art. Just not very good.
This might all seem like an exercise in semantics, but actually it has a very real effect on the arts community. Making something that is labeled as “not art” has a romantic and controversial feel to it, not least because that tended to be the trend in every major arts revolution – old decrepit critics calling new great art “not art.” By contrast, “crappy art” has a much less romantic feel to it. Labeling things as “not art” simply encourages crappy artists to keep making crappy art – and frankly, we don’t need any more of that. Besides, in this day and age when almost every kind of art seems to have been touched on, isn’t it about time we stopped with this “not art” nonsense? Let’s call bad, stupid art by its proper name.
March 29, 2011 at 1:37 pm
I would agree with you, if this photo were presented in a legitimate gallery. However, because it’s DA and people thrive on things like comments and pageviews in order to feel as though they’ve accomplished something, I can’t agree. It’s a ploy for attention and to feel successful at arousing any sort of comment; like they’re important, because their “art” has gained notice and invokes arguments.
It works, but at the same time, isn’t very effective considering an artist would much rather be seen as tasteful than not. I don’t think calling it bad art rather than not art makes any difference to this photographer. The attention is all that matters.
April 8, 2011 at 9:03 pm
But you have given him plenty of attention in this post. Certainly more than that piece warrants. At this point, someone could look at your post and say that his piece is art simply because it caused people to “think.” And, even though it is not my personal definition of what makes for art, I do not think that the logic of someone who would say that is less sound than yours in this instance.
Actually I know what you mean, about people simply wanting attention. But I am not a fan of classifying something as art or not art based on whether they made art for the right reasons. I think the moment a person does something for the sake of art, it is art. It can still be not worth looking at, but it’s art.
If he did it to stir someone to think about something, he clearly managed it. If he did it as a prank, it seems to have had some effect. If he did it as an attempt to get attention, he clearly got it. And frankly, I suspect he did it by simply surfing a porn site, taking a picture from there, and posting it. Pretty good return for the effort, no? :)
April 8, 2011 at 9:25 pm
Eh, look, I basically agree with you, as far as this piece goes. I honestly don’t feel this piece deserves to be defended, and if this guy posted that on some board where I also post my art I’d say something like “please be respectful to artists who post their artwork here and not post here unless you have something to post.”
But part of me feels like that can be a slippery slope. Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain was called not-art by many people. Actually, it’s still being called not art by many people. And, com to think of it, certain pieces he made were done partly for attention – and are now considered art for that purpose. Or take Chris Burden’s piece where he got shot in the arm on purpose. It was done at least partly for the shock value of it, which is a kind of asking for attention. I would say the main thing that differentiates the DA post from much better attention-seeking art is the amount of effort a person was willing to expend. In the case of this guy’s post, it was none.
I thought your post was interesting, so I responded to it. But just to make something clear, I responded to your post, not to the guy’s art. I guess I don’t think he deserved a response to begin with, even though I enjoyed yours :)
May 21, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Hot topic!!!! It never really gets old, does it? Thanks for posting this.
It was Marshall McLuhan who was the first to say that, “Art is anything you can get away with.” Inspired, Andy Warhol went on to repeat that idea later on. Raywoman is absolutely right in saying that art must meet certain criteria. You don’t have to agree with those standards but they do exist anyway. That why I voted “YES” to the poll, even though the image doesn’t particularly appeal to me. Fortunately for the shooter, art doesn’t have to be good or popular to be art. Even kitsch it art. For more on those actual standards see here ( http://themofman.wordpress.com/mof-on-nudity-in-photography/ ).
In consideration of the very title of this blog post; yes I do think it could be porn. Definitely not hardcore as a sole image but certainly softcore (aka: erotica). It would depend on the intent of the person (at least the photographer) who made the image, which I’m finding it difficult to gage nor does there seem to be any overt explanation from the source of the work (I’m extremely interested in finding out what the model thought; her expression and blah pose seems to express something unflattering about the entire attempt at making something creative). Maybe the intent wasn’t to make erotica at all. In any case, while the photographer is apparently proud of the work, I personally think a redo or even just walking away is in order.
As a lifelong visual artist, I find that people add too high a connotation to the term “art”. Art: from the studying of its history and theory to the act of producing it is unquestionably special and close to God but the product of the effort is not necessarily that special even thought its still art. For instance, the statement has been made that, “The human body is beautiful, but it has to be presented that way in order to make it art.” What is the standard for a beautiful body? I’ve heard many in today’s society openly ridicule the contorted and deformed bodies of people with physical challenges as “unsightly” and “grotesque” among other pejoratives. I have viewed photos and illustrations of such bodies and regarded the bodies, and the images as beautiful. One of my favourites is a 1971 nude called “Tomoko Uemura in her Bath” by Life and Magnum photojournalist Eugene Smith ( http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/tomoko-uemura-in-her-bath/ ). That image is a product of photojournalism and while there will be many who will forever argue that photojournalism isn’t art, the fact remains that photojournalism has long been recognized as meeting the definition and standard of fine art photography. Smith’s image is officially recognized as a work of art. Really, anything can be perceived as beautiful or ugly and still be art, even if it’s a tremendously disappointing image of a young woman with large breasts and labium.
The term “art” should not be confused with “aesthetics” which is about personal taste or tastelessness. For example, the image by vampire6music is also art, and from my aesthetic viewpoint it’s spectacular.
As for the “The Venus of Willendorf”, it may not be considered “art” for Western Art’s sake but what of the culture from where it originated? Another example; nearly all African sculpture has ceremonial, spiritual, sociological and practical purposes as with “The Venus of Willendorf” but they are still officially regarded as “art” by African and Western Art standards. You’ll also find this to be largely the case with Native American Indian and Native Canadian Indian Art whether it was made within the last 200 years or dug out of a 10, 000 BC burial site with no apparent creator.
Misha has it right. Marcel Duchamp’s “Fountain” is a product of Dadaism; semi-intentional art created with unintentional aesthetic value through intentionally sharp criticism and mocking of art standards and the artsy-fartsy art-world. That’s us, dissecting this picture in the name of art and aesthetic appeal.
Love this post!