|
|
Post by Lord_Buscemi on May 22, 2018 14:05:32 GMT
I was unsure of which board this should go on but decided to drop it here in the hopes that it'll generate discussion, feel free to move it if it doesn't belong, though. After watching In The Realm Of The Senses, I was thinking: can pornography be art? What makes something have artistic worth anyway? And don't give me that broad "anything can be art" response, be more precise and break down how something can have meaningful value. Even if a piece of pornography is technically accomplished, like being well shot, would that constitute as being artful despite porn itself deriving from superficial, fleeting pleasures? Does something need to be intellectually stimulating/challenging after-the-fact in order to be viewed as having substantial merit?
When making Love, Gaspar Noe said "there is no line between art and pornography. You can make art of anything, anything that is shot or reproduced in an unusual way is considered artistic or experimental", and whilst I'd agree you make art out of anything, I'd argue that you can only use such material as a basis, like how In The Realm Of The Senses is a psychological drama. Here's /ourguy/ Orson Welles giving his rundown on the matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on May 22, 2018 15:04:04 GMT
I don't see any reason why not. I've seen porn that has resonated longer with me than a heck of a lot of mainstream films, and many award winning films. Art for me has always been about the artists expression of emotion, and the viewers emotional response to it. People have emotional responses to porn, so from that perspective I would have no trouble classifying it as art, both bad art and good.
I guess public opinion, which varies so widely and is so subjective that you could argue again that "anything can be art". One man's trash is another man's treasure will always be a truism for a reason.
I would say yes. I watched a porno called LA Zombie (2010) once, and of course your had your 4 or 5 hardcore scenes, but it was interwoven with some nice visual ideas and expressions, solid cinematography and great make-up work. I would actually argue that this had significant artistic merit, because it tried to bring more to pornography than just people fucking. I would rank at least a dozen films from 2010 below it.
No. I've never been on board with this idea. I'd accept that it's advantageous to be "intellectually stimulating/challenging", but it's far from necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on May 22, 2018 15:12:58 GMT
if you can con people into thinking it is, then it is. Art is usually in the eye of the beholder, unless you're a good salesman... then you can convince everyone that everything you do is magnificent.  Someone spent $82M on that, I shit you not. So again, if you can convince people it's art and that it's good then me clipping my fingernails is just a couple of good publicists away from being the next Tilda Swinton sleeping in a glass box. |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 22, 2018 15:30:47 GMT
This is a great question and Welles speaks to it, eloquently and correctly imo.
There is such a thing as great pornography but its different to me - it serves a different set of aesthetics to me. Where it gets confusing is it sometimes mirrors the aesthetics of something else (i.e. you can see great acted porn, you can be deeply emotionally affected by it too)
A lot of the discussion is really based more on "good" vs. "bad" which is itself a different argument really - you can argue good or bad on a much more complicated, and specific level than just "Art" or "not-Art", the second argument generally boils down to "I know it when I see it"
|
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on May 22, 2018 15:34:07 GMT
This is a great question and Welles speaks to it, eloquently and correctly imo. There is such a thing as great pornography but its different to me - it serves a different set of aesthetics to me. Where it gets confusing is it sometimes mirrors the aesthetics of something else (i.e. you can see great acted porn, you can be deeply emotionally affected by it too) A lot of the discussion is really based more on "good" vs. "bad" which is itself a different argument really - you can argue good or bad on a much complicated, and more specific level than just "Art" or "not-Art", the second argument generally boils down to "I know it when I see it" You know what's a great pornography with great aesthetics? When they DON'T do the whole camera right behind a dude's taint and linger there for more than a few seconds. That to me is a great porno (and why POV is literally the best thing to happen to porn since birth control). |
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,535 
Likes: 1,626
|
Post by Javi on May 22, 2018 15:43:12 GMT
Not everything is art (obviously), but anything can be transformed into art.
The artist is always working with pre-existing stuff (it's all we've got) and giving shape to it... so yes, "pre-existing stuff" includes explicit sex scenes, stains on a wall, etc.
The difference between a hack and an artist, to me, is that the hack will use the "everything is art" card to justify the crap he's made, while a real artist will give his material shape, meaning, texture, etc. (Maybe I'm old-fashioned though).
|
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on May 22, 2018 16:03:20 GMT
Considering how much of art throughout all of human history deals with the naked form and matters of sexuality, I don't see why porn can't be considered art and the rules some people have tried to impose to disqualify it from being art would in turn also disqualify other works of art (and it's ironic since subverting rules has traditionally been a huge component of art). For example, Orson Welles discusses how sexual excitation is different from exciting the audience via narrative but then what of non-narrative films, are they also not art? I've seen other people talk about emotional resonance and intellectual stimulation but those are subjective matters. If a porno displays passion in such an intense and genuine way or the setup and character dynamics cause one to think more deeply about the sexual politics at play, does that make it art? If for that same person, a Godard film seems like an utterly dull exercise in fucking around with the film form in a way that totally disconnects it from any grounding in humanity, does that mean it isn't art? Is public opinion all that separates the two? What are the implications of hitching our wagons on mere public opinion - do we really want to deal with restraining art to mob rule subject to change at a whim?
|
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on May 22, 2018 19:45:11 GMT
Yes. Any open-minded person should have this view. This isn't the stone age. If it were, all of us would all be liking nothing more than a bunch of corny old Hollywood movies. Once upon a time on IMDB, that's all a bunch of grumpy people liked. Hard to imagine, but that part of IMDB history did exist.
You can argue sometimes that something has a lack of effort, like a blank canvas or something can be called art. And then you'll call a majority of Brakhage and Snow art. Not that a lack of effort is invalid criticism if that's what you truly see. There's so many ways of looking at it that you can't really have a definitive grasp on the definition.
As far as pornography goes, I never really thought about this whole "pornography is art" thing. Not saying it can't be, just that I never really put the mind to thinking about that.
|
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on May 22, 2018 19:53:14 GMT
Everything except your posts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2018 21:49:29 GMT
Sure, pornography can have a place in art, but pornography isn't inherently art anymore so than someone eating a sandwich is. You'd have to have a very, very loose definition of what constitutes art, which is fine I guess - people can classify stuff however they want, I don't care - but I'm not sure it's an overly interesting or meaningful idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on May 23, 2018 0:55:12 GMT
I'm feeling a bit lazy to talk about it in a language that's not my mother tongue, but in a few words, yeah, anything can be considered art. Notions like "art" and "culture" are a way of validation for a set of traditions, values, habits... Every time a civilization wanted to "impose" their costumes, they'd take over the notions of art and culture to make it seem worthy. So yeah, you can call anything art or culture.
This post is an unfortunate reminder to read some things for college, ugh.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on May 23, 2018 12:41:46 GMT
Sure, pornography can have a place in art, but pornography isn't inherently art anymore so than someone eating a sandwich is. You'd have to have a very, very loose definition of what constitutes art, which is fine I guess - people can classify stuff however they want, I don't care - but I'm not sure it's an overly interesting or meaningful idea. but one must accept that making a sandwich is one of the purist forms of art in our modern world. |
|
no
Badass
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 423
|
Post by no on May 23, 2018 15:46:50 GMT
|
|
no
Badass
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 423
|
Post by no on May 23, 2018 17:29:35 GMT
Sure, pornography can have a place in art, but pornography isn't inherently art anymore so than someone eating a sandwich is. You'd have to have a very, very loose definition of what constitutes art, which is fine I guess - people can classify stuff however they want, I don't care - but I'm not sure it's an overly interesting or meaningful idea. but one must accept that making a sandwich is one of the purist forms of art in our modern world. Subway even has a position called "sandwich artist" |
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on May 23, 2018 21:00:12 GMT
I think for art you need to have an artist. Art is an expression of the artist. If a dog takes a shit in the street it's not art, but if someone claiming to be an artist puts a piece of shit in the street to try and express some thought or feeling then that can be art, sure.
When it comes to porn (or for that matter any movie made by committee via test audiences or video games) I think the art is in the craft. The shooting and the lighting, and the costume, that's art. What's going on within the frame 'narratively' is entertainment. They're trying to give you a buzz, it's like a rollercoaster or something.
Can you call that art? Debatable. Some might say that anything that isn't scientific, anything that isn't simply black or white, determined by a yes or a no, a right and wrong could be termed art.
|
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on May 23, 2018 21:08:27 GMT
I think for art you need to have an artist. Art is an expression of the artist. If a dog takes a shit in the street it's not art, but if someone claiming to be an artist puts a piece of shit in the street to try and express some thought or feeling then that can be art, sure. When it comes to porn (or for that matter any movie made by committee via test audiences or video games) I think the art is in the craft. The shooting and the lighting, and the costume, that's art. What's going on within the frame 'narratively' is entertainment. They're trying to give you a buzz, it's like a rollercoaster or something. Can you call that art? Debatable. Some might say that anything that isn't scientific, anything that isn't simply black or white, determined by a yes or a no, a right and wrong could be termed art. Oh so dogs are incapable of art now? I'll have you know my doggie makes beautiful art twice a day, three times if he gets too many treats! You canincist |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2018 10:17:56 GMT
anyone who doesnt think pornography as an artfrom needs to get on the meyerowitz stories asap
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on May 24, 2018 10:47:05 GMT
I think for art you need to have an artist. Art is an expression of the artist. If a dog takes a shit in the street it's not art, but if someone claiming to be an artist puts a piece of shit in the street to try and express some thought or feeling then that can be art, sure.  |
|
