Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Lou what reality]

Logic_ill: You thoughts are very two sided, but also reasonable and justified. So what your telling me is that porn is bad in a moral sense, but also it has taught you that porn is bad, so it's so bad.... but that isn't pornography's intention. But I can understand a lot of your logic, on the last paragraph are you telling me that porn can make people happy about their own relationships? I'm not sure this is how it goes, in my experience it builds hermits, is this what you meant to say or have I missed something?

Whitedragon: How do you propose you could convince directors to cut out the sex and put in some meaning? That might end up as bad as when they try to give it a story. But if they would listen, how would you show it?

[Logic_ill]

Logic_ill: You thoughts are very two sided, but also reasonable and justified. So what your telling me is that porn is bad in a moral sense, but also it has taught you that porn is bad, so it's so bad.... but that isn't pornography's intention. But I can understand a lot of your logic, on the last paragraph are you telling me that porn can make people happy about their own relationships? I'm not sure this is how it goes, in my experience it builds hermits, is this what you meant to say or have I missed something?

Whitedragon: How do you propose you could convince directors to cut out the sex and put in some meaning? That might end up as bad as when they try to give it a story. But if they would listen, how would you show it?

No, in the last paragraph im saying that one of porn's possible effects is treating others as sexual objects for our sexual pleasures. Under porn's influence some people are driven to see the other for their sexual potential, and fail to see or even care about other aspects of their personalities. They may also fail to understand that the other has made their own sexual construction, so it may take time for them to be compatible. In some of these cases porn might be the culprit because the porn watcher thinks people behave as the characters they see in porn. Then, there's also that the others willingness or unwillingness to do certain sex acts should come about naturally. But both society's and the expectations derived from porn may influence the overall asessment of the first sexual encounter to the point of misinterpretation of the other.

Yeah, porn can create a hermit or be a substitute too. I think it depends on each individual and their circumstances. I'm just kind of shooting in the dark because I don't really know if the people I've encountered or have told me stories are being directly influenced by porn, society, their previous experiences, etc, and to what degree...

So, while I don't think porn is an art generally, although someone might make it artsy, I think it may have negative effects on some people, but I don't know exactly how.

When I started seeing porn, I was sexually active, and I don't think it had a terrible effect on me. I do think it might have increased my overall distrust in men. I had more innocent notions of sexuality in general, and porn kind of made me realize that the feelings or thoughts behind certain sex acts may not be as innocent as what I had in my mind. And it made me wonder if the person that was with me was interested at all in my personality, or was it purely sexual? Porn took my innocence.

[Rez]

Despite the turn this discussion has taken, I feel that as an artist and photographer myself, I should give my two cents on the initial question.

I don't think the argument should be based on content, as there have already been an abundance of examples of erotic work being portrayed as art, whether that be film, photography or any other media. Instead I feel it's about context and performance, but even then the water is a little murky, erotic and fetish photography for example has a function to arouse, as does porn, but what makes us judge them from the face of it initially without discussion such as this?

Within context you could easily have a very erotic scene during a film, and it will only enhance the artistic element of the film as a whole. I feel the same can be said for execution, a candid shot vs one of Helmut Newton's? There's a very fine line between them, and I think that line changed from person to person, culture to culture.

I'll end my comment with a quote from Robert Green Ingersoll that i've always found interesting.

“The undressed is vulgar - the nude is pure”

[Lou what reality]

“The undressed is vulgar - the nude is pure”

That quote is a very good one and It practically covers the whole point of this thread. kudos to you for finding that, I look forward to further discussions with you as well as some new people in the scene.

Best of luck, Lou

[Hughsmith23]

Does pornography qualify as art?

First, let me propose that pornography is voyeurism. I'll offer the TheFreeDictionary explanation of the predominate use and therefore current meaning of that term. I hope one does not disapprove I have not linked something along the lines of a Oxford dictionary explanation of the word. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/voyeurism

What is interesting here - perhaps overlapping with a philosophy of psychology inquiry - is that the typical person would feel abnormal and think himself acting unethically if he indulged in the voyeurism we term "Peeping Tom," but he feels perfectly fine and within appropriate boundaries to indulge in the viewing of pornography. Here by pornography I am largely referring to the cinematic kind.

But perhaps the typical person - and his culture at large - tend to arrive at the conclusion pornography is art and therefore qualitatively different from the "Peeping Tome" indulgence? Cinematic porn does after all make a claim to using actors and actresses, scripts, and theatrics.

But if pornography is indeed an art what kind of art is it, and are the effects positive or good? Can pornography when judged from a secular point of analysis even be an amoral or a-ethical issue?

You argue that pornography is voyeurism, but that pornography is not experienced as voyeurism. I think this has to do with privacy rather than aesthetics. Pornography occurs in private - there is no relationship between the individual and the subject, because the subject is on screen. So there is no chance of the glance of the subject (in the film) catching the eye of the observer. Further, pornography tends to be used in isolation - in the bedroom. If people were forced to watch pornography, and masturbate, outside, I think they would be less inclined.

I don't think many people who use pornography consider it art. I'd say that scripting and theatrics was increasingly rare in porn - in the 1960s, when porn was only available as cinematic - e.g. in theatres - there was a greater concern to put porn in the context of narrative - in film. I think this is because it was public, at least to some extent - you would go to a theatre and watch porn with others, so the aesthetic gestures (narrative, acting, script) would soften your embarrassment - the embarrassment of acting with the sole motive of sexual gratification.

There is certainly, however, erotic art, but I think you'd need to find a proper conceptual distinction here. Why is erotic art not pornography? Some possible explanations:

1. It does not erase the personality 2. It does not reveal everything - it maintains mystery 3. It arouses sexual interest without fulfilling them

These three points interrelate. If erotic art maintains mystery, it does not erase the personality; even if the personality is not shown, the mystery can be seen as the "left over" personality. For example, you watch an erotic film, in which a "mysterious women" (her face is hidden) is dancing in her room. Something is left to the imagination - the viewing himself imagines the personality of this woman. In pornography, the woman is shown completely, and there is nothing left to be contributed; the woman is nothing more than a sexual object.

Is it possible, then, that erotic art is valid and has a social function, if its purpose is to "arouse", rather than be the termination of sexual desire and gratification - e.g. to make relationships between people interesting - to prevent boredom? The prevention of boredom is a valid social goal as boredom leads to crime; boredom can lead to art or crime, I think. These are the only end points of boredom. Erotic art can perform the opposite function of pornography, by reintroducing the unknown into sex; this is all the more important given that pornography has attempted to "show everything", to "leave no stone unturned". Sex should be mysterious, I think - but this is not obvious to everyone. Erotic art is the resistance of sex to being wholly visible, and is therefore a valid form of art. This mystery can be maintained by 1. keeping the personality (what is more mysterious and rich than the human personality when properly represented?) and 2. stressing arousal, excitement, rather than "finality" - pornography races to the end point of sex - ejaculation - rather than hovering at the beginning of sex, which is, I think the proper location of erotic art.

[Belinda]

Pornography may be categorised as art but whether it is so categorised or not, it remains bad art. Good art tries to tell whole truths but pornography tells part truths or near -lies. This is why it is important to keep pornography away from children especially hard core.

This is also why it is important to get schoolchildren thinking about what is good truthful art and what is escapist or worse, lies. Pornogeraphy no more depicts sex than a purple plastic phallus depicts a penis. Sorry! The alliteration just happened

[Logic_ill]

I agree with hughsmith on most points mentioned. Erotic art may be artistic, whereas hard core porn is simply a sexual act featuring good looking individuals, although not always good looking. The latter almost encourages people to skip their imaginations, and theres that absence of longing for the other, more like a jumping on the other. Theres no build sexual build up.

[Hughsmith23]

I agree with hughsmith on most points mentioned. Erotic art may be artistic, whereas hard core porn is simply a sexual act featuring good looking individuals, although not always good looking. The latter almost encourages people to skip their imaginations, and theres that absence of longing for the other, more like a jumping on the other. Theres no build sexual build up.

I don't think hardcore porn is simply a sexual act - it almost the absence of the sexual act, at least; what is depicted as a sexual act in hardcore porn is a far from the reality of a sexual act as we can imagine.

The sexual act in hardcore porn is: repetitive, brutal, takes place in the open, has no beginning or end (imagine: the reality of sex, in the evening, between a couple, should include (to be real) the whole ennui of the preceding day...), has no purpose, even; the purpose is not pleasure of the participants, nor reproduction. Is hardcore porn really sexual?

One could define the sexual act as being centred around either (often both) of these functions; pleasure of participants and reproduction. Usually there is neither in pornography, though there may be elements of pleasure, but I imagine the pleasure is individuated; the pleasure of the participants of porn is not contingent on the feelings of the other person in the movie; this, mutual pleasure, could also be a definition of the "simple sexual act".

I definitely agree; there is an absence of longing; and there is absence of whatever "comes after sex" - conversation, a cigarette, rest, sleep, boredom.

But I wonder what you mean by "erotic art may be artistic" - we need a definition of art!

[Thinking critical]

At best I would say Porn is dis-tasteful art, I see it as more entertainment than art. Perhaps it is the reason people chose to watch it in the first place which influences why or how it could or couldn't be perceived as art. There's also different forms of porn to consider as mentioned prior ranging from soft, sensual, erotic to the hard core nasty stuff.

Hughsmith23 wrote:

I don't think hardcore porn is simply a sexual act - it almost the absence of the sexual act, at least; what is depicted as a sexual act in hardcore porn is a far from the reality of a sexual act as we can imagine.

I disagree, there's only varying degrees of sex starting from sensual love making all the way through to raw lustful, emotionless hard core f******. People pretty much rein act hard core porn scenes on a regular basis as if it's nothing.

[Belinda]

there's only varying degrees of sex starting from sensual love making all the way through to raw lustful, emotionless hard core f******. People pretty much rein act hard core porn scenes on a regular basis as if it's nothing.

Yes, but only if the thinking brain is the penis. Tantric sex which seems to be currently fashionable is successful because it involves intelligence.

[Hughsmith23]

At best I would say Porn is dis-tasteful art, I see it as more entertainment than art. Perhaps it is the reason people chose to watch it in the first place which influences why or how it could or couldn't be perceived as art. There's also different forms of porn to consider as mentioned prior ranging from soft, sensual, erotic to the hard core nasty stuff.

Hughsmith23 wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


I disagree, there's only varying degrees of sex starting from sensual love making all the way through to raw lustful, emotionless hard core f******. People pretty much rein act hard core porn scenes on a regular basis as if it's nothing.

Okay - thats true.

You could argue that sex is something cannot be represented; in contrast to say, nature. Because the way we engage with nature is visual, it is possible to represent nature visually. But isn't sex the most interior and private experience? How can we represent the experience of "orgasm" - it is the experience of absolute interiority, the experience of the self as nothing other than the self, the experience of the irreducible.

(that is slightly off topic)

I think the real issue that remains here is the question of art; what definition of art do we need to think effectively about the status of pornography as an art? I think art should be defined as the celebration of the possible; as opposed to philosophy, art does not seek an "end", but the proliferation of what is possible. That is why art is hopeful. As I said, in hardcore porn, the possible is excluded; there is only repetition.

If, as someone has said, boredom is the mother of art, it could make sense to define art as the opposite of repetition; the opposite of hardcore porn.

There is still the question; is porn with narrative, script, acting, genuine engagement of the actors, art?

-- Updated August 20th, 2013, 4:31 am to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)

What do you mean? My impression was that tantric sex involved restraint / self control / following rules? Of course these could be understood as kinds of intelligence but perhaps you mean something else.

[Logic_ill]

With due justice to porn, especially the hard core variety, it manages to depict a personality or mood. People who go for hard core may have already constructed fantasies, so that the porn gratifies the sexual build up. These people may want to go for the raw clear cut depiction because of a prior arousal, and the immediacy is what they are looking for.

I still don't think it's very artful to present people in the sexual act because the act speaks for itself, theres not that much involvement from the artists, but capturing the act on film, having the characters dress up, then undress to do their thing. I wouldn't consider myself an artist if I was any of the people involved.

If I'm filming it, I might have good techniques, but they are not unique skills. Others can accomplish the tasks fairly well. If I'm directing, maybe the sequence, the positions, the dialogue, can be considered a craft. If done craftly. The actors and their looks, chemistry,combination, projection can make it more or less appealing, but I think this is a give in because it happens spontaneously for both the actors and the viewers, and may be reliant on nature itself or natural skills, not purposeful artistry.

[HugBeam]

...And then there always is those weird fetish images everywhere, labeled as "art".

[Ablity]

Does pornography qualify as art?

First, let me propose that pornography is voyeurism. I'll offer the TheFreeDictionary explanation of the predominate use and therefore current meaning of that term. I hope one does not disapprove I have not linked something along the lines of a Oxford dictionary explanation of the word. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/voyeurism

What is interesting here - perhaps overlapping with a philosophy of psychology inquiry - is that the typical person would feel abnormal and think himself acting unethically if he indulged in the voyeurism we term "Peeping Tom," but he feels perfectly fine and within appropriate boundaries to indulge in the viewing of pornography. Here by pornography I am largely referring to the cinematic kind.

But perhaps the typical person - and his culture at large - tend to arrive at the conclusion pornography is art and therefore qualitatively different from the "Peeping Tome" indulgence? Cinematic porn does after all make a claim to using actors and actresses, scripts, and theatrics.

But if pornography is indeed an art what kind of art is it, and are the effects positive or good? Can pornography when judged from a secular point of analysis even be an amoral or a-ethical issue?

I hate to be the one but if we are going to answer the question we would need to defined art. In Willia Cather's My Antonia, see has one of her charters say: "There would be no poetry, if there were no girls like them." Which this line was very hard for me to understand but my English teacher thinks it means, poetry comes from yarning for something. In other words, desire for something we cannot have.

Thus, art is related for beauty, because we find things beautiful that we want desperately, things that are hard for us to get. This is why your wife is so beautiful on the weeding night, and then 2 month later she is just that woman that will not stop talking. When we do not have something we want, we think that thing is beautiful.

Thus, art is that which is beautiful is my definition, and pornography is very beautiful to me, quick, purposeful, and most of all, no fear of rejection.

[Hughsmith23]

(Nested quote removed.)


I hate to be the one but if we are going to answer the question we would need to defined art. In Willia Cather's My Antonia, see has one of her charters say: "There would be no poetry, if there were no girls like them." Which this line was very hard for me to understand but my English teacher thinks it means, poetry comes from yarning for something. In other words, desire for something we cannot have.

Thus, art is related for beauty, because we find things beautiful that we want desperately, things that are hard for us to get. This is why your wife is so beautiful on the weeding night, and then 2 month later she is just that woman that will not stop talking. When we do not have something we want, we think that thing is beautiful.

Thus, art is that which is beautiful is my definition, and pornography is very beautiful to me, quick, purposeful, and most of all, no fear of rejection.

What is your definition of art here?

I think you are saying

1. Art is what is beautiful 2. What is beautiful is what is desirable 3. Art is a product of desire for the beautiful

But there are some problems

1. What is the difference between art and the beautiful? 2. Is everything we desire art - we desire food and water, is that art?

You say that pornography is beautiful because it is quick, purposeful, and without fear of rejection. But so is walking to the shop. If I walk to the shop, I can walk quickly, I have a sense of purpose (to buy something), and I have no fear of rejection - I have enough money to buy whatever it is. But is walking to the shop beautiful?

Usually the beautiful is defined in opposition to the ordinary, and it seems like the characteristics you provide are typical of the ordinary - purposeful, quick, etc.