Where do we draw a line between Art and Porn? -

[8777BB5]

At what point does nude art become pornographic? I've heard everything from the Pubic Hair argument (if the art piece has pubes it's porn) to the glass of water argument (If a glass of water is poured in real time instead of being done quickly it's porn)

 

[ICametoLurk]

All nude art is haram and thus shouldn't be allowed.

 

[skiddlez]

Porn is art. To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand porn. In this moment, I am euphoric, not because of any phony art's blessing, but because I'm cumming.

 

[ConcernedAnon]

Ask yourself a simple question, did the creator intend you to rub one out to it?

If yes; it's porn, if no; it's not porn.

 

[Tranhuviya]

To me the line is either penetration or explicit non-penetrative sex.

 

[From The Uncanny Valley]

Do balls touch?

wait

 

[RG 448]

If the librarian catches you, say it’s art.

 

[Oglooger]

none; all artists are lolcows.

 

[Galectra]

Everything if it's artistic, ia not porn. Everyone thinks, that it's porn. It's just a work of art.

 

[ES 148]

Let us look at these artworks that depict the Crucifixion of our Lord. I would like to explain something briefly with them.

http://www.reyweb.com/paintings-of-the-crucifixion/

This website has images of the Crucifixion from various artists, and I am sure that if you do a reverse image search, that you can find the artist if you are interested in such information. But for brevity, let me pull one image and explain something that is pertinent to the topic of art and pornography.

​

The data for this image says it was made by Anthony van Dyck in 1622 AD. But let us look at this image and all of the images of the Crucifixion throughout history with a critical eye. What do they all tend to have in common? What does every icon that depicts the Crucifixion of our Lord have in common? Our Lord is almost always covered by a cloth to preserve His dignity.

We should remember that Jesus was crucified naked. He was not covered when suffering on the cross. He was completely exposed. So why have artists chosen to cover Him up? I think the answer is obvious. Nudity in artwork is scandalous at its best, and pornographic at its worst.

Art, as I have said before, is that which orders us towards loving and serving God. Artists can manage that without genitalia. I could go further and relate this to the shame of Adam and Eve in the Garden, but I do not find it necessary. We know in our hearts that it is shameful to see people in the nude.

I think this sums up my opinions on the matter, albeit in a more radical fashion. You don't have to show people naked (unless the point of the piece relies on someone being naked, and even then you can portray that in non-explicit ways). It's unnecessary.

 

[BILLY MAYS]

Let us look at these artworks that depict the Crucifixion of our Lord. I would like to explain something briefly with them.

http://www.reyweb.com/paintings-of-the-crucifixion/

This website has images of the Crucifixion from various artists, and I am sure that if you do a reverse image search, that you can find the artist if you are interested in such information. But for brevity, let me pull one image and explain something that is pertinent to the topic of art and pornography.

​

The data for this image says it was made by Anthony van Dyck in 1622 AD. But let us look at this image and all of the images of the Crucifixion throughout history with a critical eye. What do they all tend to have in common? What does every icon that depicts the Crucifixion of our Lord have in common? Our Lord is almost always covered by a cloth to preserve His dignity.

We should remember that Jesus was crucified naked. He was not covered when suffering on the cross. He was completely exposed. So why have artists chosen to cover Him up? I think the answer is obvious. Nudity in artwork is scandalous at its best, and pornographic at its worst.

Art, as I have said before, is that which orders us towards loving and serving God. Artists can manage that without genitalia. I could go further and relate this to the shame of Adam and Eve in the Garden, but I do not find it necessary. We know in our hearts that it is shameful to see people in the nude.

i fapped to this is this porn

 

[Chaos Theorist]

I think its to do with the intent of why the artwork was created in the first place

 

[Coconut Gun]

Everything is art in a postmodern sense, and everything is porn if you try hard enough.

 

[Autopsy]

AReminder that stated intent can be dishonest and ever getting into the business of "reading unspoken intent" is a surefire way to fuck yourself over.
"Why does Biljana Djurdjevic make his art the way he does?"
"Why do various people prefer or collect Biljana Djurdjevic's art?"
These are two very different questions with no necessary causal link, joined only by what's visible on the page. So, if what's visible on the page is particularly edgy, questionable, or indecent, it's up to you to make the judgement call on the art itself, not a burden on the artist's intent or the collector's fancy.
Here are some decent standards for nudes and porn:

• Is there visible sexual tension implied between observer and subject, or are there characters having sex? Mostly posing here.
• Is it presented in such a way that fetishizes the subject? "yeah this artwork where a nude girl shoves her feet at the observer is totally not porn"
• If the work is about "sexual beauty", is it explicitly teasing the observer? If the work is about "natural beauty", is it conveyed with intensity and not detachment? Mostly about gaze and implied movement here.

Let's try them out on a few classics.
Olympia (Edouard Manet): There is visible tension implied between observer and subject, but it isn't necessarily sexual, and she isn't actually sexually inviting- her hand is over her crotch and the maid holds white flowers. The choices of what few clothes she has left on is odd, but I don't detect any visual appeals to a specific fetish. The work doesn't seem to have a clear intent of natural beauty or sexual beauty, and though the gaze of Olympia could be interpreted as teasing, it actually looks a lot more like stolid confidence or defiance. I would not consider this porn.
The Wave (William-Adolphe Bouguerea): There is no visible tension, the subject's pose is not even vaguely inviting, much more like how you might expect a (clothed) child to sit on a beach, enjoying the waves. While outdoor nudity is certainly a fetish, that doesn't seem to be the focus of the work. Instead, it feels like it's more about "natural beauty", given the choice of environment, and as there isn't any sexual intensity. The single intersection that might cause trouble is her gaze, which can possibly be interpreted as coy, but it looks more innocent to me. I would not consider this porn.
Les Demoiselles d'Avignon (Pablo Picasso): Yes, yes, yes and yes. Pablo Picasso had a horrible habit of using pornography as a baseline to work on his art studies, but it remains pornography, even if no one can tell under his obtuse style. I would consider this porn. Cubists can fuck right off.
That isn't to say there isn't tastefully conveyed pornography that is art (see: anything by Beardsley), but if I could expunge only one of these three from a fifth-grade artbook, it'd be Les Demoiselles d'Avignon every time. Sure, some of the less naive kids might still fantasize about the beautiful female body presented by Manet and Bouguerea, but they're not going to fill their heads with poorly drawn hookers. Any sexuality is of their own invention.

 

[Unsuspecting Koala Bear]

art is disgusting, of course its art

 

[Thelostcup]

I think this sums up my opinions on the matter, albeit in a more radical fashion. You don't have to show people naked (unless the point of the piece relies on someone being naked, and even then you can portray that in non-explicit ways). It's unnecessary.

Also I'm sure if you painted a picture of Christ with his donger showing in that era you would be burned at the stake before the painting was finished.

 

[ThePurpleProse]

If you get a boner it's porn.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

Art and porn aren't always mutually exclusive.

Also I think some are too obsessed with what art and porn are or aren't.

 

[Tragi-Chan]

I don’t think there’s a dividing line between the two. Porn can have artistic merit and art can use erotic imagery. I would define porn as material designed to make people horny, and that could range from highly artistic erotic photography down to naked selfies. It all comes down to what you consider to be art.

 

[skiddlez]

Is it art, or is it porn?
On this matter, I am torn,
If you jerk it, I must warn,
Jesus Christ will look with scorn.

Spoiler

buy my mixtape