What is art and what is porn ?
 

Porn is one of those things that is difficult to define. Now we regard it as pictures or film of people engaged in actual sexual activity usually with one or more other people. But not so long ago, well within living memory and for a lot of our favourite vintage erotica stars, straight forward pubic hair was considered 'porn' and as for held open labia, vibrators, BJs and penetration...well they were just a complete no no. So how did they stop being porn and start being acceptable erotica ?

Anyway who says porn or erotica is not art ? Most people would accept that striptease is erotic but the Victorians venerated the human nude despite apparently being straitlaced and if you go to the V&A Museum in London in a small corner you will find a beautiful statue of a nude girl removing her stockings in a provocative manner. This statue once stood in Queen Victoria's dining room ! So Vicky had a stripper to dinner !

In practice porn can only be described as what the bulk of the people regard as unpleasant and unacceptable. So paedophilia is always going to be wrong (or certainly should be) although some religions and cultures regard it as ok. But basically it comes down to what most people feel is OK and that is a moveable feast.

Personally I welcome the liberalisation of laws and understanding. I well remember poring over the grainy black and white nudes of Parade and Carnival and later Mayfair and Men Only hoping to catch a glimpse of hair. I never thought that one day i would be able to watch and speak to lovely nude girls masturbating for me on webcams, but it is a delight to be able to do so in privacy.

As for what is art, better people than me have tried to define it and I think anything can be art if someone says it is.

SO where does this leave us ? Personally I think the art or porn question is outdated, it's all art. But as far as I'm concerned so long as the adult human body and sexual activity is portrayed with consent of viewer and performer then almost anything goes. But you should be able to opt into it not have it displayed to anyone without restraint.

It seems that if it's in either black and white, a woman filmed/photgraphed it, or it's printed ina book, then it's wonderful art.

If it's in a magazine and filmed/photographed by a man it's evil porn.

It is subjective!
If you masturbate is porn!

The old "Playboy" was porn, the new version is art. I hate the new version.

I'm what passes as a 'Fine Art' photographer myself and have been exhibited in very nice galleries but my images are explicit at times (relatively speaking, given what's here at VEF). The best definition I've heard is, "Art is what I like, porn is what others like."
seany65's is a good one too.
I wonder how many er, 'classical themes' were used in painting to make a morsel of renaissance minge 'safe'?
Yep, subjective.

In the 19th century if a nude photo had a blblical theme it was considered 'art'.

My opinion
 

Porn is one of those things that is difficult to define.

> Sometimes yes.

"Now we regard it as pictures or film of people engaged in actual sexual activity usually with one or more other people."

> Or just a naked person if it's soft porn.

"But not so long ago, well within living memory and for a lot of our favourite vintage erotica stars, straight forward pubic hair was considered 'porn' and as for held open labia, vibrators, BJs and penetration...well they were just a complete no no."

> Yes yes.

"So how did they stop being porn and start being acceptable erotica ?"

> I don't think they did. I regard 'porn' as stuff you wouldn't want children to get their hands on but 'pornography' as out & out obscene images e.g. ISIS beheadings etc. Sex or sexual imagery isn't 'wrong' as such but seeing people die is obscene because there's an unhealthy voyeurism to it. Having said that there is a degree of degrading & / down right nasty sexual stuff which I've never really got my head around but I guess certain people get off on it for some psychological reason I can't fathom.

"Anyway who says porn or erotica is not art?"

> It's subjective I guess. I'd say erotica is an attempt to be aesthetically valid & erotic in roughly equal measure. Porn is merely for sexual titillation alone & makes no attempt to be as much or more about aesthetics.

"Most people would accept that striptease is erotic but the Victorians venerated the human nude despite apparently being straitlaced and if you go to the V&A Museum in London in a small corner you will find a beautiful statue of a nude girl removing her stockings in a provocative manner."

> Yeah well it depends on the exact examples but I'd call the striptease 'titillation' rather than 'erotica' (unless it had equal or more emphasis on aesthetics) but the statue possibly erotic art but I'd have to see it to judge that.

"This statue once stood in Queen Victoria's dining room ! So Vicky had a stripper to dinner!"

> L.O.L. maybe - or maybe it's just your dirty mind you rascal!

'In practice porn can only be described as what the bulk of the people regard as unpleasant and unacceptable.'

> I think the term may have changed usage since the age of the internet. Porn is an incredibly common place thing but nowadays most people aren't terribly hot under the collar about it as they were in say the 70s when it was usually soft core & far less amenable. This was really an age of fears through institutions such as religions which capitalize on making natural sexual impulses be equated with 'original sin'. My theory here is religions drummed the idea into young minds that they are made 'damaged' i.e. sinful (without going into details why really - we all know the Adam & Eve & the apple nonsense is just a daft myth now) however when children get older & wiser they are likely to reject this stuff but then WHAM! The hormones kick in & the urges which come with them are associated as wicked 'original sin' rather than good. Religion is so screwed up. It has a lot to answer for! Anyway it's clearly dying away & we are living in a far less neurotic age as a result & the internet has enabled this to happen.

"So paedophilia is always going to be wrong (or certainly should be) although some religions and cultures regard it as ok."

> Yes or OK as long as it isn't discovered! I don't know if you've seen the excellent 'Searchlight' Oscar winning movie recently but it is a true life expose of the Catholic Church bending over backwards to cover up & deny the immense amount of child abuse within the institution. The problem is the church has so much trust that if you're a kiddy fiddler it become the first port of call for perverts who want to an environment where they can get access to children without too many obstacles. The Church went to great lengths to protect the perpetrators rather than the victims therefore compounding the problem massively. How anyone can regard them as a force for good in the world rather that a cancer escapes me! I guess the ISIS stuff is worse still but looking back on the history of Christianity it's pretty much as bad as Islam when you look back over history. A pox on both their houses!! :mad:

"But basically it comes down to what most people feel is OK and that is a moveable feast."

> Yeah even homosexuality is at last becoming less of an issue today & lets face it - anything two consenting adults want to do is their business isn't it? Of course most religions make out that being prejudiced against such people is only right when in truth it's as indefensible as racism. They'll never learn because their moral compass is totally backward. If only they concentrated on stopping kiddy fiddlers instead! :cool:

"Personally I welcome the liberalisation of laws and understanding. I well remember poring over the grainy black and white nudes of Parade and Carnival and later Mayfair and Men Only hoping to catch a glimpse of hair."

> So do I!

"I never thought that one day i would be able to watch and speak to lovely nude girls masturbating for me on webcams, but it is a delight to be able to do so in privacy."

> Yeah each to their own. I don't really find that too inspiring a lot of the time. I'm not saying it's intrinsically 'wrong', it's not, but it's kind of sad that so many women get into that because there's not enough income for them. But it's their bodies so they can do what they like with them if they aren't under duress. If you had a daughter would you be OK with her whacking off on camera as her only available way to make a living? I wouldn't.

"As for what is art, better people than me have tried to define it and I think anything can be art if someone says it is."

> Art is made for it's aesthetic value however if you were to judge what percentage of the value is it can vary wildly from person to person. Maybe with fMRI brain scanning technology we will even be able to examine the parts of the brain which 'light up' when aesthetics are appreciated & sexual arousal is triggered too so we could actually begin to measure who receives what in numerical terms. Films might be advertised as having an average 77% aesthetic value & 69% erotic value etc...

"SO where does this leave us ? Personally I think the art or porn question is outdated, it's all art."

> I'd say that's an over simplification. Art offers more than just titillation -aesthetics of some sort or another however what that is is often hard to agree on. that doesn't mean it isn't there in truth rather than only in the eye of the beholder. Maybe two truths can co-exist at the same time sometimes.

"But as far as I'm concerned so long as the adult human body and sexual activity is portrayed with consent of viewer and performer then almost anything goes."

> Yes but just because someone consents doesn't always mean their consent isn't a reluctant one does it?

"But you should be able to opt into it not have it displayed to anyone without restraint."

> Sure.

What goes Around comes Around
 

Isn't it ironical when the opening post observes: "I well remember poring over the grainy black and white nudes of Parade and Carnival and later Mayfair and Men Only hoping to catch a glimpse of hair".

Now here we are in the new millenium and many of us are again avidly "hoping to catch a glimpse of hair". Go to any mainstream site or forum and that is virtually impossible. If their is such a glimpse, many male viewers are shocked and even disgusted. Literally it has almost been forgotten by porn viewers that beautiful women once had beautiful pubic hair. After all - somehow their Mom's got pregnant).

Now they have labia, clit or naval jewellry and their bodies are desecrated by tattoes. Their "pussies" (named after real Pussies that still do have hair) have no appeal to me - just a slit like a prepubesent child. And being brutalized by gonzo studs who slap and spit on them and wank off aiming for their eyes.

BTW - when did Porno become Porn? I'm sure the change took place in the US. This would make for interesting research). The best current Porno you'll find will be on the amateur sites but "Life imitates Art" and it seems that a majority of ordinary people now shave too.

Not just in the US and UK but now in Europe and even in India and Africa! Japan is reluctantly joing in. Porno is basically dead.

The definitive answer to "the difference between pornography and erotica" comes from Gloria Leonard (actress, publisher of High Society) goes like this

-- which at a technical level is mostly true.

But more seriously, the intent is a part of it. Some stuff is just there to get you off. Other stuff is supposed to make you think; "art", in theory, is about something other than "are you gonna cum soon".

But to reduce it to a binary "is it art, or is it porn" misses all the shades of grey. If you think of something like the very explicit -- and legally obscene- site Insex, it was done "artfully", and there was something to it beyond the kinky sex.

So something can be about more than one thing.

I thought porn was just poorly done art.