Philosophy Discussion Forums

Just a brief mention of some thoughts I have on the subject.

Pornography taps into one of our strongest urges, and does so purposefully. I don't consider it art entirely, for its almost complete reliance on these feelings or urges. It is not a complex art and doesn't require much effort because it is dependent on these strong emotions, and very little, in comparison to other forms of art, on the artists dexterity.

The variety of pornography speaks to the moods, personalities, and demands of the viewers. But the viewers are who put in most of the effects because it is their fantasies, cravings or desires that are being depicted. These are rarely creations of the porn makers, but an attempt at recreations of the viewers fantasies. But the recreation is far too easy for the porn makers because as long as they have the actors willing to act out the fantasy (which is a common or general skill endowed to most of us), then they have the desired effects: arousal, stimulation, etc. It doesn't require too much effort on behalf of the film makers, directors or actors.

Then again, I think I might find it rather difficult to keep my composure as a film maker or director, so theres some "longing" or "sexual desire" control on behalf of the makers as well as the viewers. I think it proves my point, that it's not the makers efforts that make porn successful or appreciated, but our innermost urges...

Hughsmith23 wrote:

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.

My impression too. Lust is a powerful emotion, true, so restraint and self control are needed there as in other civilised behaviours. Tantric sex seems to demonstrate how intelligent self control and restraint improve the intercourse experience. Pornography is not a synonym for descriptions or illustrations of sexual behaviour but is by definition bad art.

Fleetfootphil wrote:I don't see anything stopping porn from being artful or art.

Or is it that which was not created to arouse sexual desire, a nude painting or photograph, inevitably becomes the object of sexual desire and used in a salacious manner?

Erotic art is the highest art form there is. Pornography is the lowest art form there is. Porn is not erotic art, because there is nothing erotic about porn; porn wouldn't know erotic if it kissed it passionately and gave it a full body massage, with oils.

Too often the eroticism is associated with base desires. Firstly, our sexuality is not a 'base' desire, 'base', as in 'basic' desires are those desires which are practically necessary for our own survival, e.g. Food, water, shelter etc. The other desires, e.g. the desire for entertainment, transcend mere survival. Eroticism is one of these. We do not die if we don't have sex, despite behaving as if we do, and yet it is one of, if not the the most passionate of desires. Art is associated with emotion, and there is nothing people get more emotional about than sex, and what results from having sex.

Porn, however, has nothing to do with emotion. In fact, it deliberately makes a point of trying to be as far away from emotion as is possibly can. You cannot have eroticism without emotion, eroticism means having a genuine desire for the other person, and by that I don't just mean their genitals, I mean them as a person.

Art is also associated with the idea of beauty. .... .... What on earth is beautiful about porn?! If you don't understand why I ask the question, you clearly haven't seen it before, so take a look, you'll probably regret it. Particularly the stuff coming out of Japan these days...

None of this offends me, because porn doesn't pretend that it is art, which is fine, what offends me is that porn isn't even very good at what it IS for. Its supposed to be a turn on but 90% of the time it isn't. It's not just what porn stars look like that's off putting, actually whilst most look freakish in a variety of ways, one or two are genuinely attractive, it's more the things that they do. Whilst I am not horrified at the very idea of fisting, anal or golden showers, because to each his own, neither am particularly turned on by it. However, what disturbs me most about porn is not what you can find, but what you cannot, and that is some semblance of normality when it comes to their portrayal of sex.

Unless I am very much mistaken, the point of porn is to turn the viewer on to the extent that he/she can pleasure themselves (or a partner) and to climax. To that end, there should be a wide variety of fetishes, tailored to each potential viewers personal preference, because rarely is everyone turned on by the same thing. Now, to be fair, it's not a failure to diversify porn that I take issue with, to the contrary, their creativity is actually quite impressive. The problem I have is their utter failure to understand the basics of 'taste'. You would be amazed to discover how difficult it is to find a porn scene that does not feature anal, foot fetish, oral, spitting, doggy style & facials all in the same scene, which means that if any one of those you're not into, which to my knowledge is just about everyone, then I'd steer clear of porn.

Porn is very good at generalising people's fetishes and throwing them all together in one scene just so that everyone will at one moment or another be turned on. The problem is, that doesn't work. The fact that one person is a foot fetishist, and another is into anal, does not mean that just because you have foot licking and anal in the same scene, that they will both be turned on. Why? Because there is a good chance the foot fetishist is as turned off by anal as the anal enthusiast is by feet! Porn has no concept of a 'turn off', rather it thinks its fine to just throw every possible fetish in any old how and think it'll work...it doesn't.

Porn also has a staggering lack of respect for its viewers, pumping out badly shot, badly acted and badly scripted scenes like rabbits, then expecting people to pay laughable prices with little to no actual marketing. The industry also could not be more corrupt, being associated with human trafficking, drug trafficking etc.

When I am presented with a well shot, well scripted, well acted, imaginative scene, that some effort has clearly gone into, portraying beautiful, yet vaguely normal looking, pleasant & intelligent people, having sex with emotion, passion, and, god forbid, eroticism, and indulging in those particular fetishes that I happen to be turned on by, and not ones that turn me off, then and only then do I call it erotic art, and not porn. Unfortunately, this is incredibly rare.

So maybe the measure of the artist's effort can be related to art.

How much creative input does it require to make porn? I think it may be the least of all art forms, but still very powerful because of our natures, which has nothing to do with the artist's creation. The porn makers have simply made sexual acts available on film. The quality of said film may be improved by certain factors, such as lighting, directing or scripts, if available, and the actors themselves, but it's the easiest way to achieve a powerful effect, due to the nature of the subject.

It is not necessarily equally appealing to all. I think some people are by nature or nurture perpetually stimulated, so their tendency is to sexualize EVERYTHING, and porn might make it worse, or better. It depends on each of us.

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

So maybe the measure of the artist's effort can be related to art.

How much creative input does it require to make porn? I think it may be the least of all art forms, but still very powerful because of our natures, which has nothing to do with the artist's creation. The porn makers have simply made sexual acts available on film. The quality of said film may be improved by certain factors, such as lighting, directing or scripts, if available, and the actors themselves, but it's the easiest way to achieve a powerful effect, due to the nature of the subject.

It is not necessarily equally appealing to all. I think some people are by nature or nurture perpetually stimulated, so their tendency is to sexualize EVERYTHING, and porn might make it worse, or better. It depends on each of us.

Hughsmith23 wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


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.

My very last comments are only failed attempts at comedy. However, I think the relationship between art and beauty is that art is the representation of that which is beautiful. One cannot desire something he/she already has; food is too important to survival to be considered beautiful, it is indeed to normal an aspect of life. Now Culinary Art is the creation of food that is desirable or beautiful for cooks are supposed to make something that is new, and not typical.

Pornography is beautiful just like a painting of ancient Greece is beautiful, it represents, to those who are drawled to it, something that we want, but cannot have (or so we think); something we desire

Supine wrote: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?

Perhaps in posing the question, you could give us an idea of what you might mean by "art"?

If pornography is art, we must be working with an extremely strange understanding of what art is.

Invictus_88 wrote:

If pornography is art, we must be working with an extremely strange understanding of what art is.

Right you are !

Pornography is part truth or downright lies about sexuality'

Works of art aim at truth above all else, and this fact holds for works of art through all the ages and places.

Therefore a work of pornography cannot be a work of art.


This is definitive of 'pornography' as the word is commonly used so that it is true to say "If it is a work of art it is not a work of pornography".


One may argue about the truth or otherwise in some work that has pretensions to be a work of art , but it is simply muddled use of English to say that pornography is art.

Belinda wrote:Works of art aim at truth above all else, and this fact holds for works of art through all the ages and places.

Exactly how does that statement hold any truth itself? Where does the phrase "artistic license" come from if art is all about truth? And what exactly is this "truth" in art that you speak of?

Art is as the observer finds it.

Belinda wrote:

Pornography is part truth or downright lies about sexuality'

Works of art aim at truth above all else, and this fact holds for works of art through all the ages and places.

Therefore a work of pornography cannot be a work of art.

Art does not have to be' truth' and truth is not a prerequisite for art. Is stick art or abstract art a truth about its subjects? Art is interpretations of ones experiences of life and its surroundings. However unappealing to you or me, pornography can be an art form. Art is like food, different strokes for different folks. For the atheists who say artistic aim is truth above all else, let me remind you that a huge bulk of art is from the religious realm.

Misty wrote:

Is stick art or abstract art a truth about its subjects? Art is interpretations of ones experiences of life and its surroundings. However unappealing to you or me,

It does not matter what medium or genre truth is expressed in for it to be a balanced perspective. Pornography is straightaway suspect if only because it is so very commercialised, and for good reason it is commercialised; sensation sells well.

I did not say pornography is unappealing to me or to anyone else. I am no prude. A lie is all the more effective when it appeals to reactive passions.

Explicitly sexual material is not the same as pornography and if explicitly sexual material is the genre it may still aim and even succeed in portraying a balanced perspective of what is the case.

-- Updated Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:33 am to add the following --

Spiral Out wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Exactly how does that statement hold any truth itself? Where does the phrase "artistic license" come from if art is all about truth? And what exactly is this "truth" in art that you speak of?

Art is as the observer finds it.

Please see my reply to Misty. I don't know who first said 'artistic licence'.

In any case artistic licence has nothing to with truth or lies, but has to do with use of symbolism or metaphor, exaggeration or understatement, according as the artist chooses to express an idea. The style chosen may be badly or well executed or an unfashionable style, but may regardless of any of those parameters express truth or lies.

I guess that Spiral Out confuses realism and truth.

Yes, pornography is art, because it presents an idea/simulation/expression etc (it appeals to sensations felt by an observer). But even though pornography is a kind of art, does not mean to say it is moral. But it is art.

[quote="Belinda"] A lie is all the more effective when it appeals to reactive passions.

Explicitly sexual material is not the same as pornography and if explicitly sexual material is the genre it may still aim and even succeed in portraying a balanced perspective of what is the case.[quote][quote]

Abstract art also distorts the reality of an object. What is the difference between "Explicitly sexual material" and "pornography" ? (excluding medical photography)

Will you comment on the rest of my previous post?

Hi Misty. Explicitly, i.e. realistic, sexual material may or may not be pornography. I am suggesting throughout that the sine qua non of pornography is lying distortion of the whole of what is the case about human sexuality.

I thought I had answered all you wrote, Misty. I will review your past post to see what I missed.

Misty wrote:

For the atheists who say artistic aim is truth above all else, let me remind you that a huge bulk of art is from the religious realm.

But those artists who were employed by a church to portray sacred matters were probably believers of the same creed as their employers. The truth that they deal in is their truth, the truth of their culture of belief. None of us can do better that that, not even the avant garde.

I think that any artist who contracts to supply sacred work that she disapproves of is separating body and soul , which is what pornographers do, unless there is something very incomplete or disabled with their vision.

In relation to the forum 'What is art', conclusions were made to say that art is a simulation/idea/expression. In this manner, pornography is art. Who cares whether or not it is socially acceptable? That doesn't make it not art, just because it may be considered immoral.