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

[Sculptor1]

Good porn is art. It takes skill and technique to act, direct, and set scenes in any type of film art. I do not see why you would want to exclude pornography from this category.
The thread started by placing porn as "voyeurism". Surely if you are going to categorise porn from the perspective of the end user, then surely ALL narrative film is voyeuristic. Film gives us all a view into activities of people dramatised in ways impossible to see in normal circumstances.
What people do with porn does cannot be used to denigrate the efforts it takes to make it.
Diogenes famously wanked over a statue of a naked female. His act did not make the statues any less art. If a person were to wank over the Mona Lisa that too would not change the fact that it was art.

[UniversalAlien]

Good porn is art. It takes skill and technique to act, direct, and set scenes in any type of film art. I do not see why you would want to exclude pornography from this category................

TRUE! - In my opinion - And what people do with it does not change it.......

When I was younger, much younger, I may have watched this genre of art and been highly stimulated by it
in a very sexual sense - But today I find it more stimulating to my mind - so called porn 'erotica' can be a
very philosophical stimulant to philosophers with open minds - It is at the root of the creative force that
generates all - My opinion.

Of course it an be a dangerous force, not only because it is addictive to many people, but because it
generates an open mind - More dangerous to some of the powers that be than anything else.
- But when Liberal justices on the Supreme Court admitted that 'obscenity' is in the mind of the beholder,.
and then virtually legalized the entire genre - the Word changed, freedom triumphed.

But the 'so-called' conservative creeps of the past have not given up - Now that they have a Conservative Supreme Court not only are they trying to overrun 'Roe v. Wade', the ruling that gave women the right to own their own body - But with a little luck, and the truly dirty corruption that drives than - maybe they can
now again outlaw all the erotica that they consider to be filth - And as spirituality decadent as these
moralist really are...........All creative freedom, and the very Constitution of the United States is
under a very dangerous attack - More dangerous than any foreign power.

[Hereandnow]

Scultor1
Good porn is art. It takes skill and technique to act, direct, and set scenes in any type of film art. I do not see why you would want to exclude pornography from this category................

But because it takes skill and technique does it therefore qualify as art? Isn't it that the art of the thing lies in one's ability to receive it AS art? This rug is a utility and nothing more as I walk from the living room to the bedroom. But if I attend to its patterns and colors and, perhaps, historical context and take in all the significant form As art, it becomes art, otherwise it is at best latent art. Pornography, as it is "used" by a person is not art at all. But if, as you say, attention is put to the skills and the rest, there is art the production's artistic dimensions that come forth, though this would be a rather loose interpretation of art. Not so much, I would argue, in the production's techniques in the human form, the curves, movements, etc., like appreciating a Rodin. But then again, it could be that this is what the technical appreciation is about. And yet again, though: These "artists", photographers and others, are not intent on creating aesthetic form, but erotic form, and the art in what they do is usually accidental.

[LuckyR]

Scultor1
Good porn is art. It takes skill and technique to act, direct, and set scenes in any type of film art. I do not see why you would want to exclude pornography from this category................

But because it takes skill and technique does it therefore qualify as art? Isn't it that the art of the thing lies in one's ability to receive it AS art? This rug is a utility and nothing more as I walk from the living room to the bedroom. But if I attend to its patterns and colors and, perhaps, historical context and take in all the significant form As art, it becomes art, otherwise it is at best latent art. Pornography, as it is "used" by a person is not art at all. But if, as you say, attention is put to the skills and the rest, there is art the production's artistic dimensions that come forth, though this would be a rather loose interpretation of art. Not so much, I would argue, in the production's techniques in the human form, the curves, movements, etc., like appreciating a Rodin. But then again, it could be that this is what the technical appreciation is about. And yet again, though: These "artists", photographers and others, are not intent on creating aesthetic form, but erotic form, and the art in what they do is usually accidental.

Very true, but by definition if something is usually something then it is occasionally something else. Thus pornography is art on occasion.

[UniversalAlien]

But because it takes skill and technique does it therefore qualify as art? Isn't it that the art of the thing lies in one's ability to receive it AS art? This rug is a utility and nothing more as I walk from the living room to the bedroom. But if I attend to its patterns and colors and, perhaps, historical context and take in all the significant form As art, it becomes art, otherwise it is at best latent art. Pornography, as it is "used" by a person is not art at all. But if, as you say, attention is put to the skills and the rest, there is art the production's artistic dimensions that come forth, though this would be a rather loose interpretation of art. Not so much, I would argue, in the production's techniques in the human form, the curves, movements, etc., like appreciating a Rodin. But then again, it could be that this is what the technical appreciation is about. And yet again, though: These "artists", photographers and others, are not intent on creating aesthetic form, but erotic form, and the art in what they do is usually accidental.

Very true, but by definition if something is usually something then it is occasionally something else. Thus pornography is art on occasion.

But, and then again, to the artistic mind, everything is art, and its duplication and technique is the

artists work - focus on an aspect of a World that is creative art in play.

So pornography {sex} is art, making horror movies, mystery, sci-fi, etc., all of it art.

Even good philosophy is an art - What makes Nietzsche so interesting, even today, is not so much his
ideas, many or which go back to the Ancient Greeks, but the way he expressed them, he made
many classical ideas in philosophy come to life - that too ia an art.

And the film maker as pornographer, making Human sexuality seem more exciting than it actually
is - definitely an art.

[LuckyR]

Very true, but by definition if something is usually something then it is occasionally something else. Thus pornography is art on occasion.

But, and then again, to the artistic mind, everything is art, and its duplication and technique is the

artists work - focus on an aspect of a World that is creative art in play.

So pornography {sex} is art, making horror movies, mystery, sci-fi, etc., all of it art.

Even good philosophy is an art - What makes Nietzsche so interesting, even today, is not so much his
ideas, many or which go back to the Ancient Greeks, but the way he expressed them, he made
many classical ideas in philosophy come to life - that too ia an art.

And the film maker as pornographer, making Human sexuality seem more exciting than it actually
is - definitely an art.

I agree that the label of art is applied by the audience, not the producer.

[Hereandnow]

UniversalAlien
And the film maker as pornographer, making Human sexuality seem more exciting than it actually
is - definitely an art.

It does raise an interesting question: art is not assessed any longer by the beautiful, the sublime or any of those classical aesthetic ideas. It has become truly open as to what an aesthetic response to art is. Is Piero Manzoni's Can of Human **** art. I guess so. I was appalled to hold it in my hand. Was that the point and was that an "artistic" response, being appalled?
What a weird world the art world has become. So, I wonder after all if having a sexual response to something can qualify as an artistic response. Is erotica as such aesthetic? Is being appalled as such aesthetic? I have always thought we make art by conceiving something AS art, the same way we see a cloud and call it a camel or a poodle; but then, camels and poodles are not problematic concepts, aesthetics is. The only way to understand this is to think as George Dickie did: that art is an institution with no boundaries at all, save the associative gathering of things called art. The principle of their association is now entirely open. If someone is an artist and s/he calls X art, then it is art. The only grounding i can see in historical.

I don't agree with this AT ALL. But this is what art has become.

[LuckyR]

UniversalAlien
And the film maker as pornographer, making Human sexuality seem more exciting than it actually
is - definitely an art.

It does raise an interesting question: art is not assessed any longer by the beautiful, the sublime or any of those classical aesthetic ideas. It has become truly open as to what an aesthetic response to art is. Is Piero Manzoni's Can of Human **** art. I guess so. I was appalled to hold it in my hand. Was that the point and was that an "artistic" response, being appalled?
What a weird world the art world has become. So, I wonder after all if having a sexual response to something can qualify as an artistic response. Is erotica as such aesthetic? Is being appalled as such aesthetic? I have always thought we make art by conceiving something AS art, the same way we see a cloud and call it a camel or a poodle; but then, camels and poodles are not problematic concepts, aesthetics is. The only way to understand this is to think as George Dickie did: that art is an institution with no boundaries at all, save the associative gathering of things called art. The principle of their association is now entirely open. If someone is an artist and s/he calls X art, then it is art. The only grounding i can see in historical.

I don't agree with this AT ALL. But this is what art has become.

Of course you could turn the thought experiment around. If someone gets sexually aroused from the Venus de Milo, does it change from art to merely erotica?

[UniversalAlien]

I think what has been mostly overlooked in this entire discussion, is how religion has influenced the art concept.

From the Western Judaeo-Christian view the open depiction of sexuality is usually viewed as vulgar and obscene
- hence the old laws banning 'so-called' pornography and actually sending people to jail for making or displaying it.

But the World has changed, and maybe in some ways is returning to its original pagan roots.

Among Pagans of the past licentiousness, bacchanals, and orgies were often practiced as part of certain
pagan religious rights and celebrations.

And let us never forget Witchcraft - in fact the term Witch has many meanings from practitioners of the
religion of Wicca to women who are prostitutes - And pornography, more than any other medium, allows
for certain Witches to express themselves.

And in today's World the battle between these ideologies continues - A battle between right wing so called
conservative religions of the Western World vs. the Eastern {mainly Hindu] and Pagan / Witch philosophy of
its adepts.

Pornography art? - Yes, it is art - But it is a lot more than art - Today's pornography is a war for freedom
of expression and for a religious ideology that goes back to the Ancients

[detail]

From the practical viewpoint , yes. It would even qualify as an application !!!!

[Hereandnow]

UniversalAlien
I think what has been mostly overlooked in this entire discussion, is how religion has influenced the art concept.

From the Western Judaeo-Christian view the open depiction of sexuality is usually viewed as vulgar and obscene
- hence the old laws banning 'so-called' pornography and actually sending people to jail for making or displaying it.

But the World has changed, and maybe in some ways is returning to its original pagan roots.

Among Pagans of the past licentiousness, bacchanals, and orgies were often practiced as part of certain
pagan religious rights and celebrations.

And let us never forget Witchcraft - in fact the term Witch has many meanings from practitioners of the
religion of Wicca to women who are prostitutes - And pornography, more than any other medium, allows
for certain Witches to express themselves.

And in today's World the battle between these ideologies continues - A battle between right wing so called
conservative religions of the Western World vs. the Eastern {mainly Hindu] and Pagan / Witch philosophy of
its adepts.

Pornography art? - Yes, it is art - But it is a lot more than art - Today's pornography is a war for freedom
of expression and for a religious ideology that goes back to the Ancients

Excellent point. Consider: From this point of view our exclusion of sex from art has been based on a kind of Christian neurosis and metaphysic that sex lies outside of God's grace and this has put the kibosh on sex in art, and certainly sex as art. Let's not forget Tantra art!!It is interesting to note that sex was considered a means to and end by Tantra Buddhists: it was to gather divine energy (or shakti) and being it to the head for achieving liberation.
But the art world cares little for such ideas. Sex is now ubiquitous in art, for art has become all things and sex is a big, well, thing, with us. The question is, what does this do to art as a concept: if all is art, then what makes something not art; if you can't this this, it trivializes the idea altogether.

[Felix]

Hereandnow: It is interesting to note that sex was considered a means to and end by Tantra Buddhists: it was to gather divine energy (or shakti) and being it to the head for achieving liberation.

That is incorrect, the point of it is to transcend the senses, and attachment to sensual pleasures, and discover the sensor (and the censor too I suppose). Who is it that senses, that knows pleasure and pain? What you described is an ignorant corruption of the practice.

If one accepts the legal definition of pornography, i.e., "expression with no redeeming social value," than pornography could not be art but art could be pornographic.

[UniversalAlien]

Felix wrote:

....... If one accepts the legal definition of pornography, i.e., "expression with no redeeming social value," than pornography could not be art but art could be pornographic.

I'll accept your legal definition for now - BUT "expression with no redeeming social value," would be, and
is, impossible to define in any absolute sense - Hence the Supreme Court stopped trying to define it
- And soon after so-called porn became mostly legal in most if not all of the US.

And just what do you mean by 'social value'? - Sounds like some kind of myth that still remains a fantasy.

[Hereandnow]

Felix
That is incorrect, the point of it is to transcend the senses, and attachment to sensual pleasures, and discover the sensor (and the censor too I suppose). Who is it that senses, that knows pleasure and pain? What you described is an ignorant corruption of the practice.

No, it's not an ignorant corruption of anything (but thank you for those harsh words all the same). It is a paraphrasal of a text I read long ago. And besides, and this is a big "besides", your account of what Tantra is really about in no way contradicts what I said. Think about it, and if you still think otherwise, then be more specific.

[Felix]

Sorry, I didn't mean that to sound pejorative....

Hereandnow: It is a paraphrasal of a text I read long ago. And besides, and this is a big "besides", your account of what Tantra is really about in no way contradicts what I said.

You mean what you said about it being a means to an end? I would still say that such an ego-centric goal oriented attitude towards spiritual practice is a symptom of ignorance, it's not like training for a marathon or something.