You can basically break art down into two things: Technical skill Concept value
I'd definitely concede that porn can be art. And technically it may even be superb. But the concept is always going to be terrible, because it's the least original subject matter since the dawn of time. It exists for the genitalia and not the mind.
And yes, this is why I'm not too fond of even the most brilliantly conceptual modern art... it's basically the reverse problem of porn.
Please stop. I'm so tired of hearing "art is subjective" and "art" is what ever each individual out of 7 billion human beings wants it to be. Stop trying to force every hobby in the universe that has to do with imagery into the word 'art'. Let porn be porn and quit trying to call it art. What's the point. It doesn't elevate porn. It doesn't make porn more likeable. It doesn't cure world hunger. It's just stupid
I've never been to art school or anything, and my knowledge of art comes from a couple years of high school art classes, so all I'm really judging from here is my own instinct of what looks good and what doesn't. Sorry if I'm way off base when I say this but...
I'm pretty sure that there's a pretty distinct line between Artistic Nude and porn.
This is porn:
This is art:
At least for me it's pretty easy to tell the difference between a piece of art and a crappy digital camera shot of a couple of slutty chicks with self respect issues. But, then again, I'm no real artist so I might be way off base.
Art can be erotic to a point such as the subject manner of Manet's work. And yes, monotone rectangles are art. Take the work of Marc Rothko. He did nothing but swatches of color. GIANT swatches of color that captures your senses, sucking you in and creating a space for the viewer to become lost in or what about Piet Mondrian? He did simple black and white with primary colors paintings. Many of these are pulled from the subconscious and by analyzing, we can gain insight into the artists mind.
However, I've yet to see intercourse magnificently RENDERED. It's often in a cartoonish style, which can be impressive, but cheapens the act...therefore porn.
Call me out when you have had a proper art education classes and learn how to do proportions (even anime proportions) properly.
Well you non "art educated" folks don't understand that the sexualized human form has been around since the dawn of time and has only been considered art from those of Neolithic background. and if i remember correctly, porn is not an art movement, such as that as impressionism which you are speaking of. Impressionism was a dramatic shift in aesthetics that was brought on with the invention of photography and no longer having the need to portray the world in it's natural state and of course if they were in obscurity, we wouldn't know about them would we? Within the same century it was considered Avant garde and highly popular, enough to screw up Van gogh until a few years after his death. Also, Because of the impressionist movement breaking the bonds of realism, Picasso was able to become excessively famous in his lifetime.
So tell me, If it's SO ARTISTIC why hasn't the art community at large considered it art if it's been around for so long? Why aren't pornographic spreads being shown in museums? Show me art articles from legitimate art professors, critics or writers about how playboy spreads are the new Warhols of the age?
I haven't been to a college art exhibit, regardless of the theme, where there wasn't a painting of an old naked lady. You're making my point, these art educated folks that think they're above reproach, stifling artistic expression, and mean look at deviant art and the arbitrary rules separating erotic art from porn
Oh yeah, there's nudes, but there is a difference between Nudes and Naked women. Nudes are without clothes to show the beauty of the human form, to give them an ethereal presence ( such as a venus or mythological creature), or to express innocence or helplessness. Naked ladies are exploitative for purpose of lust In that exhibit did you see a blatant vagina shot? or a close up of intercourse? Look at Francois Boucher...Rococo art in general. Many of those paintings were erotic; However The sexual aspects are not slammed over your head like a 2x4 in a bar fight. Porn is. You cannot delve very deep into porn. That is my point. Art is be analyzed and critiqued. Porn is just an image or sequence of images that say "LOOK! LOOK! WE'RE FUCKING! LOOK AT ME! I'M NAKED! DO WANT ME!? I WANT ATTENTION BECAUSE I HAVE POOR SELF ESTEEM AND NEED TO BE VALIDATED BY YOUR LUST!"
If i stifled artistic expression, I would be protesting the showing "Piss Christ" I've seen the Madonna painted as a monkey is gaudy clothes.
Excepting this , I have never seen such a collection of vapidly empty facial expressions. Even the classic porn look, with it's undertone of "I'm doing this because I hate myself and my daddy molested me, and this is my sexy hiding-the-pain look" has more depth.
Seriously, if you're doing more edgy, artistic nudes, tattoos on the models is not enough. Not if their mental span doesn't go further than "I like cupcakes".
She just kept saying "fuck me, fuck me harder" and when you thought he couldn't fuck her any rougher and harder, he COULD! At one point I thought "there is no way you can tag that FUCKIN' PUSS any better than that" but then he flipped her into a pretzel, put one foot on her face, and deepfucked her ass so gorgeously that I cried as I blew my load, almost as if I was hearing a beautiful piece of classical music.
I really pissed myself off when I tried to wipe my tears with my hand afterwards.