Philosophy Discussion Forums

Well put, Belinda. I will Emphasize on the "play" part of the phrase. I will do so because i think that despite the fact that we share similar traits to other mammals and may have subconscious sexual drives and impulses, we are beings that need to transcend that for the sake of social harmony and loving relationships, which are also subconscious and sublime desires in humans...

Logic, yes ,but our urge to be social beings has the dark side that social beings jostle for power, and just as for other social species, the weaker individuals either get killed or they succumb to the elites. This happens on small scales like in universities, schools or the local church coffee hour just as it happens in national and international politics.


The good is the cultural message of love plus reason which pertains to the civilised world.

The battle between the two forces of competition and cooperation is all around us all the time .

Suggest people interested in this question study the work of Robert Mapplethorpe. Unquestionably pornography; unquestionably art.

I stand by my comment that there is a world of difference between pornography and erotic art. They key word is 'erotic', which, as I said before, pornography could not be less so. Eroticism denotes strong desire, I.e. emotion. It's important to clarify here that I am not talking about ultra vanilla 'love making' and romancisticsm, because as great as that is, that is not what all sexuality is about; sexuality is also about the thrill & illicit nautre of meeting a handsome/beautiful stranger in that cocktail bar and going back to their hotel room for a one night stand only to disappear the next morning without ever learning their name. It is more than possible to portray the more taboo nature of sex & sexuality without being totally disconnected from any kind of emotion whatsoever; read any written or listen to any audio erotica that's well paced, and you'll see it is incredibly easy. The listener/reader is taken through the emotional journey of the protagonist in a very intimate way, allowing them to feel everything that they feel. This is no different from any other literature, except that the emotion in question is sexual desire.

The film industry has also taught us that it is possible to translate emotional connections of literature into film through good scripting, directing & acting. A good film is one that allows the audience to partake in the experiences of the film's characters. One would think that all of this would be blindingly obvious, and yet pornography has a staggering ability to fail utterly at comprehending this most basic of concepts. At best, the emotion that porn evokes in me is anger, because porn is very good at insulting me on many fundamental levels. It is insulting because is seems to deliberately show absolutely no regard for the audience whatsoever.

I could go on at length, but the three main problems with porn are thus: 1- Zero emotional connection between actors & audience (their characters are so inane & impossible to identify with that I couldn't care less what they're pretending to experience) 2- It has no concept of a 'turn off' (everyone is different, and whilst porn does recognise this, it only recognises 'turn Ons' i.e. throwing as many fetishes into one scene as possible and ignoring the fact that any one person will almost certainly be 'turned off' by 90% of what they're seeing), 3- Corruption (This is not entirely porn's fault alone, more the media's for making porn as taboo as it is and thus forcing it into underground circles where all manner of unpleasantness dwells I.e. human & drug trafficking---this also means that the only ones bold enough to seek it, are usually the ones into such things as hardcore BDSM, anal, spitting, deepthroat, fisting, golden showers, incest & rape fantasies, which dominate the porn industry. Porn also knows that it doesn't need to be the best quality if it's the only product of it's kind, & knows that people will pay absurd prices for little to no effort on the director's part, hence why the quality of film making leaves a lot to be desired, they deliberately make it as cheap as possible, yet another insult to the audience.)

Quality erotic art does exist, but it is extremely rare and is usually done not just for profit, but because the artist actually gives a damn about the needs of his/her audience. Erotic literature is the most common, and is good because the reader's imagination is always more erotic than anything they're likely to see. That said, however, less mental effort is required for the audience when said literature is adapted for audio by a talented and sexy sounding voice actor, and less still if it's translated into film and given a pace that reflects the growing excitement of the audience. Eroticism is all about the build up. Porn is like being brutally attacked & raped.

“Art is the lie that enables us to realize the truth.” said Picasso.

Sure pornography lies :airbrushed bodies of fashionable perfection : implications of sexual behaviours that neither typify nor describe what is really going on between real sexually active people in the real world.

What then is the truth that pornography tells? Deliberate misinformation for a commercial purpose is as much or more a lie than the half truths of sentimental escapism, which is quite bad enough. Good God! Unwitting kids view those lies and mostly remain unprotected by decent sex education.

Belinda wrote: Sure pornography lies :airbrushed bodies of fashionable perfection : implications of sexual behaviours that neither typify nor describe what is really going on between real sexually active people in the real world.

I think you could say the same for most feature films produced by Hollywood. Actors are often 'airbrushed' in post production, and I have heard many people argue that, say, the romantic comedy genre, offers up a lie about how women and men behave and what a 'normal' romantic relationship is.

Saying that, I also don't think pornography is art, whereas I would say almost all feature films are art. I think it goes back to the definition of art someone made earlier in this thread, regarding skill and depth. Whilst you may think some films e.g a Judd Apatow film, are hardly 'deep', the writers and actors cannot help but bring personal experience to the project and even a film like 'Knocked Up' is extolling a certain premise . An awful lot of skill also goes into making a feature film.

A post earlier in this thread compared pornography to horror films, in particular The Exorcist. Well, firstly, the 'genre' of horror is huge and encompasses everything from B-move slasher films to 'high horror' like The Shining, Psycho, Let the Right One In. Taking The Exorcist as an example though, this film was made with a lot of skill - it has a gripping narrative, the actors play their roles with enough conviction for you to believe for two hours they are real people, and the lighting, special effects etc etc create a sufficiently spooky atmosphere. Also, the film has en enduring legacy: it is one of the most influential horror films of all time, therefore I think it qualifies as art: it is made with skill, has depth and is innovative.

What I object to are horror films such as Hostel, the Saw films and the vile Human Centipede which are often categorised, interestingly, as 'torture porn'. The violence in these films is so extreme that it obliterates the narrative and, I think, reaches out to the basest instincts of certain people who, for want of a better phrase, 'get off' on this violence.

Whilst it takes a certain amount of skill to make any full length feature film, I feel these films have no depth whatsoever because the whole rationale for the film is to show this extreme violence, and so they are art not, in my view art, and this is where they are like pornography.

'Acting' is a rather rich word to use for porn performers, they bring little skill to their roles, and porn films, as far as I know, have exceedingly low production values. There is no deeper meaning to a porn film, it is merely about the image on the screen, and, although I am making an assumption here, most people who make porn have no intentions beyond making money. No one sits down and thinks about what the premise of a porn film is going to be. They do not wish to convey a message through their work to the world, they merely want to turn people on because then they spend more money on more porn. I think it's the same with 'torture porn films' - The Saw franchise gets more violent with each sequel, so those turned on by that kind of thing will go and watch the next one. It's more akin to the most basest form of advertising (is some advertising art? that is another question) than a seminal, well-crafted horror film like The Exorcist.

Supine wrote:Does pornography qualify as art?

Well, aren't all arts pornographic at some level? When you stand in front of a painting that moves you, don't you get a tinkling sensation somewhere in your body? Is that what art supposed to be, to get you excited, that is?

Spiral_pedia wrote:

Supine wrote:Does pornography qualify as art?

Well, aren't all arts pornographic at some level? When you stand in front of a painting that moves you, don't you get a tinkling sensation somewhere in your body? Is that what art supposed to be, to get you excited, that is?

I think you are confusing erotic (erotica) with pornography, though from a legal standpoint the word would be obscenity.

HalfWit wrote:
Suggest people interested in this question study the work of Robert Mapplethorpe. Unquestionably pornography; unquestionably art.

Likewise, a good comparison might be Tracy Emmin's 'My Bed', which has sold for £2.5 million. To some it is just the sullied bed of a twenty something women which could be found in many homes, but it is art.

It has intention. Its introspective. It reflects life. That, to me, is art.

Porn is such a wide field and with so many levels. Obviously much of it is not introspective in the slightest but it could be. It's what you make it.

Is the naked human body, sexual, or is it just the naked human body? Is the naked statue of "David" pornography or art? Is the sexual act, natural or obscene?

Everything depends on how you define art and pornography. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

As a young man, I could appreciate the artistic beauty of the photo's in a playboy magazine. The lighting, hair highlights, settings, truely accented the inherent beauty of the female form. I thought of it as art, but will admit that when I imagined myself in the same room as the model, my thoughts would often turn pornographic, in an artistic way, of course.

Supine wrote:

But can porn ever be only an amoral and a-ethical issue in the secular world if in fact it is only art? Currently, even photo images of girls in bathing suits are not allowed in work places and I doubt even this online philosophy site allows links and images from web porn sites.

The difference between Pornography and Art is akin to the difference between a funny joke and unfunny joke, which is to say the Scientific Method cannot decide the matter one way or the other. The Nude is a legitimate artistic form whose purpose is to celebrate the male/female adult form, and I think the intangible "Nude" vs. "Naked" makes a lot of difference. I Googled a few Robert Mapplethorpe prints and all I can say is that the difference between art and obscenity depends on who the viewer is. Some of them made me feel inadequate ...

Pornography is indeed art, provided that someone, at some time has jacked-off to one of Raphael's nudes. Come to think of it, give me, say 10 minutes and I'll make it official.

Does Pornography Qualify as Art?

When does art cross the line to be something made solely for merchandising? Do mass produced cloths that have "Aeropostale".....or "Old Navy" printed on them qualify as art? Maybe porn is a product based on an art form?

Still I think it is funny that if you pay someone to have sex it is prostitution and a crime .....but if pay them to have sex and film it or take pictures of it ..... Well then it is a freedom protected by the Constitution and even artistic

Either way I am not in favor of giving up freedoms. Only a fool would give up a freedom they already have. Freedom of speech and the press and artistic expression is an important right. Even if it is difficult to compare a compilation of money shots to the" Venus de Milo" or Hieronymus Bosch's "The Garden of Earthly Delights"

Platos stepchild wrote:Pornography is indeed art, provided that someone, at some time has jacked-off to one of Raphael's nudes. Come to think of it, give me, say 10 minutes and I'll make it official.

If it is not orgasmic, is it art really?

Are you equating flat-out pornography with art?