• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

All Art As Pornography! Well let's ban everything!

Nigel Allan

Nigel Allan

Member
In this post, copied from the thread on Favorite Photographers, here, Nigel makes a point that all art might be considered porn! That, seemingly simplistic quip to a fellow in a barbershop, has some value for our consideration. ADK



It is so long since I looked at others' work I honestly can't recall a lot of them. Most of my photography books have been boxed and left in the attic for years since we currently don't have the room to display them (heresy I know), but if I had to list a few off the top of my head they would be, in no particular order:

1) David Bailey
2) Robert Mapplethorpe
3) Henri Cartier-Bresson
4) Helmut Newton
5) Richard Avedon
6) Don McCullin or almost anyone from Magnum
7) Almost anyone who has ever been published in National Geographic

I was chatting about this the other while getting my hair cut. My hairdresser is very artistically and visually literate and has many of the same books in his waiting area for people to read. He saw me refreshing my memory of some of the iconic images of Helmut Newton and asked me this question about Newton's work,

"Is it art or is it pornography?"

Without blinking I replied that in my view all art is pornography since it invites (nay, demands) you to become a voyeur and derive some stimulation from it (sexual or otherwise is not the issue here).

Others might disagree due to their definitions or even socially derived prejudices around the words pornography and art.

One man's meat is another man's porno.

This could serve as the theme for a new discussion or even themed photo thread
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Nigel Allan said:
... He saw me refreshing my memory of some of the iconic images of Helmut Newton and asked me this question about Newton's work,

"Is it art or is it pornography?"

Without blinking I replied that in my view all art is pornography since it invites (nay, demands) you to become a voyeur and derive some stimulation from it (sexual or otherwise is not the issue here).

Others might disagree due to their definitions or even socially derived prejudices around the words pornography and art.
Click to expand...

That art demands one becomes a voyeur to derive stimulation, sexual or otherwise, is an interesting proposal. Art, I think attracts attention and invites participation. In many cases there's indeed an immediate evoking of feelings. But in others it's a self induced, self-driven massaging of what we carry in our minds. In a museum, where we look at each other's reactions, it might even become like some form of group behavior which otherwise would be banned. A whole room of people getting off together on some artist's fantasy! So yes it does seem like both voyeurism and manipulating our sensorium, to the nth.

The great thing about art is the freedom it can allow to view, in our minds, between the forms of an image, the most lascivious or unpatriotic possibilities without fear of arrest.

Pornography, takes a tiny part of this world, just the sexually obvious part, and simply prints it out for us.

Asher
 
Nigel Allan

Nigel Allan

Member
I think your title of this thread is a little misleading and it plays into the pre-conceived prejudices around the word pornography "let's ban eveything"

Pornography is a loaded word and very few people will be able to discuss this without some preconceived notion that it is bad or should be banned.

My statement was simply saying "What is pornography? And what is Art?" They are visual (usually) communication languages that invite the viewer to become more than a simple objective observer, they make him a voyeur, salivating and getting some sort of rush from the experience.

Is pornography bad? Or is it simply a point along a spectrum of all media we can call art, from the extreme to the superbly bland and trite. Surely one man's pornography is another man's 'high art' as it depends on your own values and morals and cultural bias.

Often it depends where you are standing what you think is art or pornography as these concepts are also rooted in cultural values. What is considered erotic and titillating in one culture might be considered routine and day to day in another (such as nudity for example in an old Polynesian or African tribe versus the same degree (or in fact much less) of nudity in Provo, Utah)
 
Doug Kerr

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Nigel,

Nigel Allan said:
I think your title of this thread is a little misleading and it plays into the pre-conceived prejudices around the word pornography "let's ban eveything"
Click to expand...
I'm reminded of something that regularly occurs in another area in which I am interested.

The Web site of an organization devoted to one position in a certain national controversy has a news page in which press pieces devoted to the field of interest (many of them somehow relating to the controversy itself) are presented.

But a piece that appeared, say in some regional newspaper, under the caption, "Court issues partial ruling in Middletown property dispute" may be presented, verbatim as to the text, on the organization's Web site under this caption: "Outrageous abuse of judicial power in Middletown property dispute".

Caption writing is as much a part of journalism as the copy itself, and needs to be conducted with the same care.

Yes, I do write the editors there when that happens.

Best regards,

Doug
 
B

Bart_van_der_Wolf

pro member
Fundamentalism is the root of all evil.

As the title of this post says ...

Whatever the subject, when minds are closed for alternatives, all potential for progress is lost.

Cheers,
Bart
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
A most Remarkable Quip that Helps me place art better in human behavior.

Nigel Allan said:
I think your title of this thread is a little misleading and it plays into the pre-conceived prejudices around the word pornography "let's ban eveything"
Click to expand...
Hi Nigel,

Of course you're correct, it's rather ludicrous to take things to that extreme. My apologies for stretching your unique line so far. Still, that line of sight allows one to see much more than expected in our behavior. This idea was like the fabled vision Paul had on the way to Tarsus! I suddenly felt you had given me a lot more insight into what we do in so many agreeable activities. We entertain ourselves and some of it is simply wrapped in different packages and tied with knots of many kinds of bows and knots.

You see, Nigel, your simple off-hand quip provides us with an excellent opportunity to find some clarity in viewing pornography itself. For the first time, I see where pornography might fit in the spectrum of our behavior with likenesses, representations, drawings, pictures or sculptures of what's around us.

You comment both illuminates the process of art appreciation and even function in our society. This little pin prick of an idea opens up completely an artificial barrier between spheres of our natural behavior and sentient beings. We are especially adapted to seeking out agreeable experience and pleasure.

There's a a entire globe of cultural territories to explore and your simple remark provides insight, uniting notions, beliefs, taboos and art, yes even sacred art, from everywhere. To me it all appears to unite under the master ideas of searching an agreeable experience in life. The details, the wish for comfort, solace, hope, security, reliability, brother hood, rank, relief, forgiveness, revenge are merely situational variances. Art is one tool, a freely exchangeable currency for implementing these agreeable states. At one corner, there sits pornography, but it's made of the same cloth as reading a bible or skiing.

Obviously, we wouldn't want to ban all art. So therefore we must really ask that question of banning of pornography. The only matter that should be banned is the humiliation and exploitation of children for pornography or war for that matter. Banning art as revolting pornography is a incongruous step. We don't ban water or electricity and they are far more dangerous.

Asher
 
Nigel Allan

Nigel Allan

Member
I agree, Asher, which is why censorship is a dangerous thing because it draws an arbitrary line about what is acceptable and imposes a set of values which might not be shared by all.

I guess if there is a line that shouldn't be crossed, on which everyone can agree, is the sexploitation of children and gratuitous violence and humiliation of another human being - these being subjects that are just too far over to one side of the continuum we might conceivably call art.

However, and I am not condoning this, are there not some societies (perhaps Polynesian if memory serves me correctly) whereby sexualisation of children and marrying them off to older men is (or was) part of their culture? I don't agree with it and it is certainly an area which is a step too far in our society, but one has to ask the question whether in the context of their society (uninterfered with by the outside world) it is not as gross as it appears to us because for them is it 'normal' and a part of their culture which has existed like that for millenia.

In another thread, you discuss the removal of the photo of the young Brooke Shields from display at the Tate Modern (I think). This is a related issue since what was deemed acceptable in our society 25-30 years ago is no longer so (apparently), so what is acceptable as art or considered unacceptable as exploitation (or pornography) is not only a cultural or geographical issue, but also can change from moment to moment within a society.

For me, personally, I think many things which are going on in society are regressive in the name of political correctness...but that's a whole new can of worms :)
 
L

Leonardo Boher

pro member
I have one simple definition for what's porn and what's not.

Obviety = Obscenity.

Whatever be a close up of a vagina or a picture of a product. I Should say 'porn' is a category inside a bigger category named 'obscenity' the same than product shots like those found in the supermarket magazine offering discounts and such. Those are 'porn' magazines about 'naked' products, the analogy is the same thing, even if the uses are a bit different, the intention of the product is also quite similar between both examples: consumerism beyond the consciusness. Well, every 'ism' is beyond consciusness, haha!
 
L

Leonardo Boher

pro member
Your fundaments to say that Art is vouyer is quite straight foward.

To me, Art is beyond the representation, the image itself, it's more about concepts, like a book. Art is untangible because it's more like a thought and a feeling than an image. The image translates those 2 qualities, but the image is not those qualities, those qualities belongs to the soul of the creator. The 'piece of art' is more a mere excuse of the artist and the viewer to get in touch more in privacy or in deep. It's like telling an story to someone, a bridge between the artist's heart and the viewer's heart. I don't see vouyerism in this because there is comunication between both parties, very subtle communication, the same than art. Vouyerism is more an 'eyes monologue'. The image doesn't say a word and the viewer says all the words, overwhleming the image whatever it represents, there is not interchanges or experiences joining both subjects, vouyerism is more about selfishness than sharing, and Art is more about sharing concepts and points of view about something.
 
D

Daniel Buck

New member
Leonardo Boher said:
I have one simple definition for what's porn and what's not.

Obviety = Obscenity.

Whatever be a close up of a vagina or a picture of a product. I Should say 'porn' is a category inside a bigger category named 'obscenity' the same than product shots like those found in the supermarket magazine offering discounts and such. Those are 'porn' magazines about 'naked' products, the analogy is the same thing, even if the uses are a bit different, the intention of the product is also quite similar between both examples: consumerism beyond the consciusness. Well, every 'ism' is beyond consciusness, haha!
Click to expand...

I got a simple definition too. If it's B&W it's art, if it's color it's porn. ;-) haha!
 
Nigel Allan

Nigel Allan

Member
This was meant as a kind of philosophical discussion with these concepts being discussed dispassionately and conceptually in terms of how they communicate their message from the creator to the viewer

In abstract terms of communication I believe they perform in a similar way and in one sense are both points along a continuum of 'media' or 'communication'. Where we individually perceive that they lie on that continuum is very personal and influenced heavily by our backgrounds and context.

I guess with such emotive and loaded terms people will find it hard to divorce their cultural and religious backgrounds and prejudices and it is clear that art and pornography are not absolutes but relative terms depending on one's individual point of reference.

I don't wish to get into a debate which is so loaded with opinion and where the 'truth' is not absolute but I will say this. Is the exact same picture of a close up of a vagina (a) art if shown in a gallery, (b) porn if shown in a top shelf magazine, and (c) educational if shown in an anatomy textbook?

Perhaps context has something to do with how we perceive things as well as cultural or religious bias...and one's definition of art or pornography is not so much do to with CONTENT as INTENT :)
 
Last edited:
L

Leonardo Boher

pro member
Nigel Allan said:
I don't wish to get into a debate which is so loaded with opinion and where the 'truth' is not absolute but I will say this. Is the exact same picture of a close up of a vagina (a) art if shown in a gallery, (b) porn if shown in a top shelf magazine, and (c) educational if shown in an anatomy textbook?
Click to expand...

Amazing point of view. Shape/form doesn't change, but our perception about it. At the end, context is something man made based in a collective perception of reality, which is based in subjective cultural concepts that have been repeated along the history so much that they become truth. But the reality is that that 'truth' doesn't exist because it's relative to the cultures and the individuals inside that culture. All what's relative doesn't really exists, because it can be this or that. Designations doesn't exists, we say we're black, white, caucassian, american, indian, male, female, rich, poor, christian, hindus, photographers, retouchers... at the end of life we're just spirits beings, without concepts, without designations, without relative definitions.

I would love more people talking about the logical reasoning of Nigel Allan. Now it's beyond/trascendent vouyerism and beyond human thought. It's getting quite interesting!!!
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Nigel Allan said:
I guess with such emotive and loaded terms people will find it hard to divorce their cultural and religious backgrounds and prejudices and it is clear that art and pornography are not absolutes but relative terms depending on one's individual point of reference.

I don't wish to get into a debate which is so loaded with opinion and where the 'truth' is not absolute but I will say this. Is the exact same picture of a close up of a vagina (a) art if shown in a gallery, (b) porn if shown in a top shelf magazine, and (c) educational if shown in an anatomy textbook?

Perhaps context has something to do with how we perceive things as well as cultural or religious bias...and one's definition of art or pornography is not so much do to with CONTENT as INTENT :)
Click to expand...

Leonardo,

I agree with Nigel, (and with you that Nigel made his point well). I've just been thinking about it. So what is the context of our art? Are we exploiting beauty like a harlot?

por⋅nog⋅ra⋅phy  [pawr-nog-ruh-fee] –noun
obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.
Origin: 1840–50; < Gk pornográph(os) writing about harlots (porno-, comb. form of pórnē harlot + -graphos -graph ) + -y 3

Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
Cite This Source | Link To pornography​

I think we exploit everything for art: what we see around us, the light, shapes, the truth of things we bend to our will, have it move here and curve it closer to us there to get the most sensotic and/ intellectual stimulation, the most esthetic bang for the buck. We exploit the senses to satiation and beyond, respecting few boundaries, if any at all. But, with art, in the end, we strive to leave something that we hope will last and not be gone as one wave of pleasure. Art keeps giving, that's the big difference from the whore. She gets tired and needs a rest. Art and pornography outlast the whore!

With a picture of a vagina in Greys anatomy, the pressure on the doctor or nurse is to learn that form and all the nerves, blood vessels and adjacent organs so one can have basis for caring for a woman's health. There's no intent other than to do a technical job which happens to be very demanding and has no sexual sense at all. The appearance of the vagina has hardly been a major subject for art, although it may be included, almost incidentally. For pornography, imagery to help sexual arousal, blatant views of reproductive organs seems to be a needed ingredient. Romance is not required, affection is not needed, just sex devoid of context. So it seems that pornography is devoid of the social ramifications of sex and ant devotion or bonding to a person.

It's hard to think that art might also be devoid of beauty, justice, godliness, emotion, affection, bonding, purpose, a past, a future and responsibility.

Let's look at that.

Emotion, affection, bonding, purpose, closeness to god have all been removed from the "necessary" as ingredients for art in previous discussion here.

Art needs no purpose. It can be just plain beautiful, and have no path to take us closer to god!

However, art does have qualities of timelessness, of defying death, cheating mortality, that it outlives us. Unfortunately, so does pornography! This is, so far a failure to differentiate the two!

So what distinguishes them? One serves to open horizons to us and in doing so can serve society in many positive ways, re-calibrating our view of things. The other is narrowly purposed to be erotic, providing the extra stimulation, when otherwise, life itself proves insufficient. In the end, it might be that art is more generous to us and can be considered outgoing and pornography is just plain selfish narcissism and even antisocial. The young should have no need for it as, hopefully, they have each other.

Asher
 
Nigel Allan

Nigel Allan

Member
Asher Kelman said:
por⋅nog⋅ra⋅phy  [pawr-nog-ruh-fee] –noun
obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.
Origin: 1840–50; < Gk pornográph(os) writing about harlots (porno-, comb. form of pórnē harlot + -graphos -graph ) + -y 3

Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
Cite This Source | Link To pornography​

Asher
Click to expand...

The problem with this is that they have used relative terms to describe the meaning of pornography. 'Obscene' is relative and so is 'little or no artistic merit' - both these descriptions are value judgements and based upon cultural/religious bias so therefore the thing they are describing also becomes 100% relative. I don't think we're any further along :) except they they believe that pornography and art are mutually exclusive, but this is just 'opinion'

You can't describe a relative/subjective concept in terms of other relative/subjective concepts. I don't believe that advances our understanding and is irresponsible of a dictionary which people refer to for absolutes
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Nigel Allan said:
You can't describe a relative/subjective concept in terms of other relative/subjective concepts. I don't believe that advances our understanding and is irresponsible of a dictionary which people refer to for absolutes
Click to expand...
I ignored all that part of the definition precisely for the reasons you have emphasized. That's why I attempted to find descriptors of both and attempt to figure out which attributes the held in common and which seem to be unique. The only aspect that in the end seems to separate them is that art works more in a public social context such that it enhances and tests public values whereas pornography is focused on stimulating one portion of our psyche, the erotic realm devoid of social implication. Only in that sense, not in any religious sense is art moral and pornography immoral. With morality here limited in meaning to a public benefit versus a personal benefit devoid of social responsibility and nurturing.

Asher
 
L

Leonardo Boher

pro member
Incredible writting and reflection you wrote, Asher, as always, so wise from you. I'm the guy who thinks art paths to God, but there are some kind of art that doesn't and it keeps its quality of Art, so it's a bit confusing. From my perspective, Art should develope our extra sense, mostly about an spiritual thing because art borns in the spirit, it's like words to thoughts, art are words to heart. There are probably different types or levels of art. Art for the senses such the eye, the ear, the touch, the nose and the tongue (English is not my first languaje), in one word, Art for the body sensations; Art for the intellect such the surrealism and conceptual art I guess and Art for the spirit, such any kind of art that has a grace or produces some State of Grace. For example, the emotions produced by Brutal Death Metal are not the same than the ones produced by this relaxing and spiritual deep and direct path to God: http://listen.grooveshark.com/#/song/Miserere/23454815 Both are music. However, I think porn should be compared maybe to noise more than Rock, but Brutal and Porn are quite the same thing in terms of diseases. Probably, analizing the essence of each thing, without the shape/form distorting our sense is the best way. I think I will keep inquiring about this, even when some people believes there is nothing to inquire and art is just expression. I think art goes beyond expression. It probably cannot be explained by our limited brain, therefore, Art may be is the shadow of God.
 
L

Leonardo Boher

pro member
Nigel Allan said:
The problem with this is that they have used relative terms to describe the meaning of pornography. 'Obscene' is relative and so is 'little or no artistic merit' - both these descriptions are value judgements and based upon cultural/religious bias so therefore the thing they are describing also becomes 100% relative. I don't think we're any further along :) except they they believe that pornography and art are mutually exclusive, but this is just 'opinion'

You can't describe a relative/subjective concept in terms of other relative/subjective concepts. I don't believe that advances our understanding and is irresponsible of a dictionary which people refer to for absolutes
Click to expand...

As you say, we live in a relative world but we ignorant humans tend to make absolutes believing such thing is possible. Just God is absolute.
 
K

Katherine Porter

New member
Interesting idea

The idea is certainly thought provoking. I'm not sure I agree that everyone looking at art is a voyeur. A voyeur (per Webster's ) is someone who feels a sexual thrill when watching. I realize you expanded the definition to a more modern intrepretation, but just because you enjoying looking at something I'm not sure you're a voyeur.

One of my favorite paintings is the death of Lady Jane Gray in the National Gallery in London. It is a sad painting. It makes me wonder about how she felt and why those old men felt the need to put her to death.


Art should make you think, otherwise it's just a pretty picture, and porn can make you think about the hideous nature of the women and children caught up in the porn industry. If it moves you to action then maybe it's not porn...if you get off on looking at it then it surely is.
 
L

Leonardo Boher

pro member
Objecting the point of view of Nigel Allan, which I've agreed, it will never be the same pic for a porn magazine, a medicine book or an art gallery because each picture will be intended for each context. The porn magazine will not pretend nothing but achieving a physical stimulus, so the picture must be taken that way. The medicine book will keep in mind other stuff, such as the components of the vagina in a very descriptive manner and the picture for the art gallery will be intended to show things which are beyond the subject itself.

-The artistic one is meant to transcends the object.
-The one for the medicine book is meant to show something through the object.
-The one in the porn/advertisement magazines is meant to show the object itself.

In fact, there is no difference in the structures of porn magazine and advertisement magazines: both must show a product the best way possible. The only difference is the product shown, but both are about products.
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Leonardo Boher said:
Objecting the point of view of Nigel Allan, which I've agreed, it will never be the same pic for a porn magazine, a medicine book or an art gallery because each picture will be intended for each context. The porn magazine will not pretend nothing but achieving a physical stimulus, so the picture must be taken that way. The medicine book will keep in mind other stuff, such as the components of the vagina in a very descriptive manner and the picture for the art gallery will be intended to show things which are beyond the subject itself.

-The artistic one is meant to transcends the object.
-The one for the medicine book is meant to show something through the object.
-The one in the porn/advertisement magazines is meant to show the object itself.

In fact, there is no difference in the structures of porn magazine and advertisement magazines: both must show a product the best way possible. The only difference is the product shown, but both are about products.
Click to expand...


Add to this the manner of presentation and the style of the image. The anatomy diagram is made with a manner and style to allow understanding of relationships and nomenclature, so that one can build up knowledge of what would be there if there was some injury or disease. It is disinterested in the erotic effect of the picture. That is held in obeyance.

The pornographic image is concerned with arousing erotic passion, nothing more.

Art might also be concerned with that too, but in addition with such things as beauty and experiences which allow the mind to go further than the realm of what is merely illustrated in the picture.
 
B

Bob Rogers

New member
Nigel Allan said:

ohers' work I honestly can't recall a lot of them. Most of my photography books have been boxed and left in the attic for years since we currently don't have the room to display them (heresy I know), but if I had to list a few off the top of my head they would be, in no particular order:

1) David Bailey
2) Robert Mapplethorpe
Click to expand...


For many years the only knowledge I had of Mapplethorpe was the article in Time Magazine that showed his photo of men dressed 1000% in leather. I think it was the year he died. Then about 10 years ago I saw an exhibition that included a number of his photos of flowers and I saw an entirely different side to his being.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top