|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:28 am
This works for all media, might it be paintings, skulptures, music, writing, films or even videogames (I will open a topic about this in a short time).
Sometimes we see things with artistic approaches, obviously, that touch controversy or even extremes. We often see this in arthouse movies or also visual media. But there are some cases were what you see is taken to the extreme. Where it's not touching but maybe crossing the line.
When the gore or the sexual nature are on a disturbing level.
Where does art end and voyeurism, or pornography, begin for you?
Or can a certain level of voyeurism also be described as art?
My personal opinion is that art can hardly go too far. I have seen oddly graphical paintings and films, and in most, I could see the symbolism, what it meant to be, what was behind it, how it accentuates the worst in mankind or accentuated the perverse that often catches out imagination. I think it really is a blurry line, hard to make out. I guess it's the purpose it was made for; If you for example see a drawing of a naked lady with huge, massive breasts it's not art, it's made for the purpose of arousal alone. If you watch an Eli Roth movie, it's not art, it's just gorn. If, however, you see a really bizarre, macabre painting (Francis Bacon, H.R. Giger), it is art for it's purpose is neither to arouse nor to cash in, it is to exist as it is and to reflect.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 12:22 pm
A drawing of a woman with large breasts doesn't always imply porn.
At my figure drawing classes I end up drawing women with a plethera of body features: busty, flat, old, young, skinny, fat, etc.
There are often times when movies or drawings/paintings are made more provocative in order to send out a message about human sexuality.
In my opinion, it's more about the artist's intentions.
If you take photos of naked women for a pornographic magazine, or you make a movie with sexual content for the sole purpose of attracting more people to it (in order to get more revenue), then I suppose it is just smut. But if you have some form of meaning behind the sexual content, or if you're doing a nude figure drawing study, then it is art.
I'm very easy going about sexuality in art, I'm much more vindictive in regards to modern art, however. It irks me when I see someone scribble nonsense or splatter paint on a wall and call it art.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 12:24 pm
Art for me is like a picture of a little girl outside or a puppy playing ini the yard. Or even abstract paintings. Art ends when it's no longer pg13 and I can't let my little sister look at it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 9:57 am
Her Silent Cries Art ends when it's no longer pg13
Sorry, but I laughed so hard. That's the perfect sentence for a tattoo.
I just realized that I should have clarified my examples more in the first post- I meant especially pictures that you find on Deviantart when you search for inflation or weight gain. I won't post any links. That won't be TOS at all. And I wouldn't even want people to see.
Sometimes, though, you can just see the intent of the artist, and sometimes it's more obvious than not that the main thought behind a picture was "masturbation". That really irks me and is no longer art, whatever the medium might be, and even if the picture itself might be technically great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 4:45 pm
Cuivie Her Silent Cries Art ends when it's no longer pg13
Sorry, but I laughed so hard. That's the perfect sentence for a tattoo.
I just realized that I should have clarified my examples more in the first post- I meant especially pictures that you find on Deviantart when you search for inflation or weight gain. I won't post any links. That won't be TOS at all. And I wouldn't even want people to see.
Sometimes, though, you can just see the intent of the artist, and sometimes it's more obvious than not that the main thought behind a picture was "masturbation". That really irks me and is no longer art, whatever the medium might be, and even if the picture itself might be technically great.
*cough*sexuallyintolerantprick*cough* Sorry, I think I'm coming down with something. Anyway, I agree with most of what you're saying. It's about what the artist wanted when they made it. If they made it for the purpose of pornography, then it's pornography. If they made a porno in the name of art, it's still art. It doesn't matter if it's "no longer PG13." It's still art. And it's the same thing with gore. @Kiaryee: You don't need a meaning behind a piece of art for it to be art. You just have to want it to be art. And modern art is actually really great. It's still art, whether or not you like it. Hence the name "modern art." We're in an age where art is not what you "get away with," it's what the artist says it is. For instance, if you went on 4chan's /d/ board (I am not responsible for any damage, be it emotional, psychological, or otherwise that is caused as a result of visiting 4chan) and picked a random file, it could be as legitimate a piece of art as is the Mona Lisa, depending on whether or not the artist wants it to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 8:19 am
Internet Noir Cuivie Her Silent Cries Art ends when it's no longer pg13
Sorry, but I laughed so hard. That's the perfect sentence for a tattoo.
I just realized that I should have clarified my examples more in the first post- I meant especially pictures that you find on Deviantart when you search for inflation or weight gain. I won't post any links. That won't be TOS at all. And I wouldn't even want people to see.
Sometimes, though, you can just see the intent of the artist, and sometimes it's more obvious than not that the main thought behind a picture was "masturbation". That really irks me and is no longer art, whatever the medium might be, and even if the picture itself might be technically great.
*cough*sexuallyintolerantprick*cough* Sorry, I think I'm coming down with something. Anyway, I agree with most of what you're saying. It's about what the artist wanted when they made it. If they made it for the purpose of pornography, then it's pornography. If they made a porno in the name of art, it's still art. It doesn't matter if it's "no longer PG13." It's still art. And it's the same thing with gore. @Kiaryee: You don't need a meaning behind a piece of art for it to be art. You just have to want it to be art. And modern art is actually really great. It's still art, whether or not you like it. Hence the name "modern art." We're in an age where art is not what you "get away with," it's what the artist says it is. For instance, if you went on 4chan's /d/ board (I am not responsible for any damage, be it emotional, psychological, or otherwise that is caused as a result of visiting 4chan) and picked a random file, it could be as legitimate a piece of art as is the Mona Lisa, depending on whether or not the artist wants it to be.
I own two porn movies by Bruce LaBruce. Legit art, actually- Sort of crossing the borders. Especially "Otto; Or up with dead people". The pornographic graphic novel "lost Girls" is somehow like that as well.
Whatever people create, it can be art, if that was it's purpose, I think. It's just this thing, I have no idea where that "sexually intolerant p***k" was directed, so I'm clarifying here, that when it's clearly a fetish-piece for the sake of it, as pornography, so to say, or just to look "hot", then it's no art. That's what I meant with my examples. Because weight gain and inflation are clear fetishes in use that can only be fullfilled by drawing them out and watching drawings because they'd kill real people, which the people turned on by them clearly don't want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 9:44 am
Cuivie Internet Noir Cuivie Her Silent Cries Art ends when it's no longer pg13
Sorry, but I laughed so hard. That's the perfect sentence for a tattoo.
I just realized that I should have clarified my examples more in the first post- I meant especially pictures that you find on Deviantart when you search for inflation or weight gain. I won't post any links. That won't be TOS at all. And I wouldn't even want people to see.
Sometimes, though, you can just see the intent of the artist, and sometimes it's more obvious than not that the main thought behind a picture was "masturbation". That really irks me and is no longer art, whatever the medium might be, and even if the picture itself might be technically great.
*cough*sexuallyintolerantprick*cough* Sorry, I think I'm coming down with something. Anyway, I agree with most of what you're saying. It's about what the artist wanted when they made it. If they made it for the purpose of pornography, then it's pornography. If they made a porno in the name of art, it's still art. It doesn't matter if it's "no longer PG13." It's still art. And it's the same thing with gore. @Kiaryee: You don't need a meaning behind a piece of art for it to be art. You just have to want it to be art. And modern art is actually really great. It's still art, whether or not you like it. Hence the name "modern art." We're in an age where art is not what you "get away with," it's what the artist says it is. For instance, if you went on 4chan's /d/ board (I am not responsible for any damage, be it emotional, psychological, or otherwise that is caused as a result of visiting 4chan) and picked a random file, it could be as legitimate a piece of art as is the Mona Lisa, depending on whether or not the artist wants it to be.
I own two porn movies by Bruce LaBruce. Legit art, actually- Sort of crossing the borders. Especially "Otto; Or up with dead people". The pornographic graphic novel "lost Girls" is somehow like that as well.
Whatever people create, it can be art, if that was it's purpose, I think. It's just this thing, I have no idea where that "sexually intolerant p***k" was directed, so I'm clarifying here, that when it's clearly a fetish-piece for the sake of it, as pornography, so to say, or just to look "hot", then it's no art. That's what I meant with my examples. Because weight gain and inflation are clear fetishes in use that can only be fullfilled by drawing them out and watching drawings because they'd kill real people, which the people turned on by them clearly don't want.
I don't really know who Bruce LaBruce is, so I have nothing to contribute... The coughing was directed at the fact that you "wouldn't even want people to see" fetishistic art. What, is it "wrong" or something? So disgustingly immoral and terrible that people shouldn't be allowed to veiw it? Because that's what it seems like you're saying in your first post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 9:51 am
Depends on what the artist meant.
I mean, Da Vinci drew nude women and men and it wasn't porn, but a study of the human body. (hell, was there porn in his time? Think not o_0).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 10:06 am
Internet Noir Cuivie Internet Noir Cuivie Her Silent Cries Art ends when it's no longer pg13
Sorry, but I laughed so hard. That's the perfect sentence for a tattoo.
I just realized that I should have clarified my examples more in the first post- I meant especially pictures that you find on Deviantart when you search for inflation or weight gain. I won't post any links. That won't be TOS at all. And I wouldn't even want people to see.
Sometimes, though, you can just see the intent of the artist, and sometimes it's more obvious than not that the main thought behind a picture was "masturbation". That really irks me and is no longer art, whatever the medium might be, and even if the picture itself might be technically great.
*cough*sexuallyintolerantprick*cough* Sorry, I think I'm coming down with something. Anyway, I agree with most of what you're saying. It's about what the artist wanted when they made it. If they made it for the purpose of pornography, then it's pornography. If they made a porno in the name of art, it's still art. It doesn't matter if it's "no longer PG13." It's still art. And it's the same thing with gore. @Kiaryee: You don't need a meaning behind a piece of art for it to be art. You just have to want it to be art. And modern art is actually really great. It's still art, whether or not you like it. Hence the name "modern art." We're in an age where art is not what you "get away with," it's what the artist says it is. For instance, if you went on 4chan's /d/ board (I am not responsible for any damage, be it emotional, psychological, or otherwise that is caused as a result of visiting 4chan) and picked a random file, it could be as legitimate a piece of art as is the Mona Lisa, depending on whether or not the artist wants it to be.
I own two porn movies by Bruce LaBruce. Legit art, actually- Sort of crossing the borders. Especially "Otto; Or up with dead people". The pornographic graphic novel "lost Girls" is somehow like that as well.
Whatever people create, it can be art, if that was it's purpose, I think. It's just this thing, I have no idea where that "sexually intolerant p***k" was directed, so I'm clarifying here, that when it's clearly a fetish-piece for the sake of it, as pornography, so to say, or just to look "hot", then it's no art. That's what I meant with my examples. Because weight gain and inflation are clear fetishes in use that can only be fullfilled by drawing them out and watching drawings because they'd kill real people, which the people turned on by them clearly don't want.
I don't really know who Bruce LaBruce is, so I have nothing to contribute... The coughing was directed at the fact that you "wouldn't even want people to see" fetishistic art. What, is it "wrong" or something? So disgustingly immoral and terrible that people shouldn't be allowed to veiw it? Because that's what it seems like you're saying in your first post. I have nothing against fetishistic arts or any kind of fetish, but for people on a PG13 site some of what can be seen might be unsuitable. Inflation comics often end with the body exploding and a lot of gore, in other cases they are just really, really sexually explicit. And, as a mod, I do not want to link people in this guild to that kind of stuff, no. You can send me a pm if you want to see and example for my explanation, there I am also able to go into further detail. Also, to be honest, inflation especially is a fetish I can't relate to. If some have it, whatsoever, but I don't- That doesn't make the people that are into it worse by any means. I've got a friend who's well over 20 that goes nuts for shota. And another one that has the hots for amputees. I should maybe have worded it differently, but really, I don't care at all about people's sexual preferences. Less than most. I'd just never, ever link porn in this guild.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
