*dadward
New user
Member since January 7th, 2007
- 5,155 pageviews
- 24 works (0 drafts)
- 5 blog entries
- 277 comments given
- 140 comments recieved
- 364 favourites
- Watches 85 users
- Watched by 493 users
The Age Old ArguementPosted 9 hours ago
*I will qualify this entry as probably my first rant/discussion opening journal/blog ever. So join in on the subject if you wish.*
What is art and is porn...art? I have seen this discussion come up quite often and usually in the form of an indictment of another artist's work that's been displayed either on line on say a community like DA or in gallery in the real world. The short answer is, art can be anything. Art can be porn and sometimes porn can be art. Yes, I'm sorry, but art CAN be anything. The DADA movement proved that. I know there is a collection of eye rolls out there, but I think art is liberating that way. Yes, art can be anything. There's a reason why artists need to go to the extremes of the medium, because we need to test the boundaries of good taste. It's important to do so and a necassary evil of creating. I also think that if an artist is bold enough to offend people with his/her work, that artist is doing a very good job. Testing the boundaries of a society is important to question and look at what we as a people are truly being honest with ourself. There is a certain truth to an artist making a work that's in your fact: questioning everything we hold dear. Art can porn. There is nothing wrong with the medium of art depicting porn. I think that there is a collection of high and mighty (and dare I say, elitist) artists out there that believe that they have the corner stone on good taste. They do nothing but hurl stones and alone with that, resentment at their fellow artists who depict images that are pornographic. I'm terribly sorry, but those artists need to get a grip. I don't know exactly what is going on in their world view, but those artists should take a step back and stop being so resentful or so outraged over suck works. There is nothing wrong with being aroused by an image, including sexually. Human beings are sexual animals, and I am tired of us humans constantly trying to box in those desires. I know that these self rightous artist who like to lob verbal attacks on other artists think they are standing up for something, that in their mind, is for the greater good. The problem is, they are only standing up for their closed-minded and child-like view of what art is or SHOULD be. I can only surmise, in my own arrogant view, that it's jealousy. Personally, I find is liberating that I see no restrictions on what art is or can be. It frees me from the yoke of self double and second guessing, which is always death to the creative process. That's what it's all about for me ultimately. The creative process. To be able to explore and be free to create. Have I been offend by art or a particular piece of work? I can honestly say no. I'm more offended by the small minds that still seem to steer the conversation away from artists work into the circular argument of Porn cannot be Art, etc. I could probably go on and on, and I will admit that perhaps I may have meandered a tad. I have been thinking about this for quite some time, and I feel that I needed to say something on the subject. Humbly yours, Dadward |
Previous blog posts
|
6 comments
Comment from ♥shadowfire, 5 hours ago (#95317)
More often than anything people feel that there's something degrading about appealing to such a "base instinct" and don't want to be perceived as an artist that does "that sort of thing". Really though is appealing to people's instincts for violence, intense emotions, family, friendship, even music, any different?
Every passion everyone has for anything can be traced back to some base need or instinct that serves a practical and functional purpose. The only reason intimacy and reproduction are taboo instincts now is because of outdated religious concepts originally designed (yes, by Man) in order to help control disease by enforcing monogamy and less sexual contact in general.
Do people honestly think that paintings and sculpture of erotically posed nudes which are (generally) accepted as the finest of fine art now weren't intended at the time to evoke sexual feelings in the viewer? There are even depictions of religious events sexualised as a means of intensifying the viewer's response, and to give them a sense of immediacy and empathy with the characters involved that might be lost otherwise.
If you like art, and you like sex, and every healthy and well adjusted person does like both, then what does it matter which you're looking at or creating counts as?
Comment from *rolandguiscard, 6 hours ago (#95243)
For me, it's a matter of intent. If someone sets out to make something purely for sexual entertainment, it's porn. If someone sets out to make something purely for artistic value, it's art. If that "art" is also very sexy and may give arousal to the people looking at it, that doesn't make it any less artistic.
Comment from *opius, 6 hours ago (#95237)
have you ever heard the joke "What's the different between Art and Pornography?" I find it kind of relevant to the argument.
And I second your oppinion that ANYTHING can be art, so long as it's done a certain way. There's no rule claiming that porn IS an art, but I've seen times when art becomes pornographic, or vice versa.
I suppose it all depends on your own personal definition of Aesthetics. To each their own, right?
Comment from *moonlitesymphony, 7 hours ago (#95186)
Art IS porn. In the same way Jackson Pollock is art. It doesn't matter if you LIKE it, it's art. IT doesn't have to be good enough either. Art is art is art.
To extend the conversation I guess, I once had an interesting talk with a sort of new age spiritualist/witch doctor type person. We were talking on our beliefs of magic, sacrament and spiritual gratification and essentially agreed that creating art can be it's own sacrament to yourself. The act can be meditative and fulfilling. It was an interesting talk.
Comment from ♥shadowfire, 5 hours ago (#95320)
Could this be why a lot of porn looks like Jackson Pollock?
Comment from *moonlitesymphony, 4 hours ago (#95337)
though he isn't THAT bad looking..
http://www.monroegallery.com/showcase/images/MH_JacksonPollock2.jpg
Comment from *Master Oki Akai, 8 hours ago (#95167)
Well first response, no ART is not simply "anything and everything", that's rediculous, but art can come from anyone and can be presented in just as many ways. Even some really horrible and perhaps criminal ways (more details at request).
But pornography is a subcategory OF art. One can say that when one looks at the term art without emotional attatchment or inflated pride. The best definition I ever got as to what art came from an art historian. He said "Art is the physical manifestation of the time and place it comes from". I pointed out how broad and vague his answer was and he told me to make it any more narrow would begin risking alienating legitimate subjects.
"Art" can be more immediately defined as the items and manifestations of an individuals personal creativity. But that's still terribly broad for some folks. But "art" is not only imagery, though that is what we're dealing with for this conversation.
Artists never need to push boundaries, they do so because they want to, as part of their personality. But this may be semantics.
If an artist should be commended for producing work that offends people, then the concept of aesthetics and pleasing imagery becomes meaningless. Please recognise that you're no longer talking about artists in general, but rather you're talking about those socio-political and reactionary artists who seek to "educate" more than "entertain" the audience.
Pornography being right or wrong has always been a question of morality, and that can change from person to person, just the same as artistic value and taste does. At which point all one can FAIRLY say is "to each his own".
What you call elitism is simply another category of bias, and everyone does that. And as you said, this is not based on logic or fairness or even following one's own beliefs, but it's an attempt by others to enforce their own misguided ideals (i hate idealists) onto others. But the part that YOU and I are concerned with here is not that they disagree or accost us, but rather that they do it with impunity and in a public setting, ganging up on us, and enciting others to do the same. A similar pattern can be observed with the crucifiction of DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS and MAGIC THE GATHERING.
What most people (and by that I'm refering to the non-art oriented but educated general populace) don't realise is that there are and have been in many cultures and histories (including our own) a long history of erotic imagery and their production. A simple fact to observe is that pornography is part of human society, it has been for a VERY long time, and it's NOT going away.
But to be fair and realistic to both sides of the arguement, what is and is not art is up to the viewer, and if we follow one side of the logic we have to follow the other and respect this aspect. That's actually why the situation is as you say. Now, the main reason people get uppity when porn is called art is because they have a particular image in mind. For instance, I would not put some pimp and his bitches showing off on some polaroids on the same level as the stuff you and I produce. But that has to do with the PRIDE I carry as an artist more than the definition of terms. I could point out about how photography has halways had a hard place in the art world but that's another conversation.
But at the same time I WILL not, under ANY circumstances, respect or aknowledge art that is just grossly irresponsible or offensive. Why? Because I don't have to! That's the logic you're fighting here Dadward. Why do we make art? Because we can, and no one will stop us. Why do they hate us? Because they can, and we can't stop them. (short of assassination of coarse)
For example, the ass-hat who starved a dog to death in an art gallery in Honduras as his "performance". That's just ludicrous and unacceptable. It's one thing to make art from dead things. But killing something as art is an aspect we MUST NOT explore, and that is MY bias. Otherwise, what's to say someone can't take their friend and skin them alive in a gallery and video tape it? Normally we arrest people for shit like that.
(more examples but I'm risking tangents)
Comment from *shalonesk, 8 hours ago (#95157)
art can be anything really.