Nude Art

[e_dog]

doreen's distinction b/t art and porn is that the 'sole purpose' of the latter is sex arousal, whereas erotic art may arouse but that's not its sole purpose.

this is questionable distinction to me. first, how are we to know what the artist's purposes are? isn't it often the case with pornographic or fine art that one purpose might be to get money or recognition, regardless of the audiences sexual or aesthetic reactions in themselves? moreover, i doubt that art should be categorized simply on the basis of the artist's intent. the reception and use made of images by the audience - and this includes expected, intended audiences as much as unintended or unexpected audiences -- is key. there are no doubt, plenty of perverts jacking off to Modigliani's nudes, and what if a visitor to an art gallery's sole purpose is to see some T n A -- say, a teenage boy who hears there are nude images being prominentlt displayed in a gallery or museum, he might go just to gaze and fantasize, not appreciating the human form as a divine artwork, which acording to Herr Freud would be a sublimated sexual response in any case. i just don't see why the artistic intent matters so much: what if a Hustler photographer thinks that he's making pure art? does the fact that the editor or publisher has a different intent make the difference?

all art is erotic; all culture is porn. so what . . . .

[perezoso]

An intelligent understanding of an artwork does require an inference of the artist's intention, or at least perceiving his treatment of certain themes (content) in addition to his technique and form; the experienced critic knows a type of visual language, as does a lit. critic reading certain motifs, say carpe diem. A kid looking at nudes in order to get a boner does not perceive the form, the content and the connotations as does, say, an e-dog. That art language may be ambiguous or ironic (in very abstract art), but there is some appeal to shared perception in art I think--and there are common themes..sex, death, exploitation, injustice, folly, etc.--which are still addressed. Like a good writer the artist knows his audience and his audience's "schema" to some degree ; the audience may be midwestern types looking for sweeping pastoral vistas or S n M people in the bay area--but some schemas are better and more complex than others.. Since I think content is least as important as form (though they cannot always be separated), that art which is solely about hedonism and pleasure is not in my mind as valuable as say expressionist drawings of military brutality; a Grosz is above a Crepax even if Guidos lines and design are more graceful and "artistic"; as a Doctorow is to be more valued than say a Danielle Steele.....

Mass produced porn or hentai is not art, or it is of low order: it is only addressed to arousal. There could be classy well-done hentai, but I dont see much of it (some manga and anime-- Samurai Jack for example--is art I think). I sometimes think photography is only rarely "art"; it's more like a chronicle, or design, though a Weston or Man Ray are artists I guess. The links you posted, hmmm, feature some nice photos, but they I do not read any of those photos as art.

The word "art" is itself problematic and loaded with connotations ( mostly bad ones). I think the authentic "artist", or icon/symbol master, is representing his perceptions, and in a great artist--say Grosz or Munch--those perceptions correlate with "truth," either psychologically or politically construed. Or at least some of their pictures do.

[perezoso]

art or porn?

(Grosz)

[Doreen Peri]

perezoso.... this is art, not porn.

It even has story.

What happened to the clarinet player's legs?

Where are they? In a bordello? A restaurant? a nightclub?

---------

e-dog -

Porn is big business. That's one of the ways you can tell the difference. If the intention is to make money by seduction, it's most likely porn.

I think perezoso said it well in his above post. (most of it, I agree with, anyway)

[e_dog]

the drawing is definitely art. my remarks on porn were directed to photographic depiction. i disagree with perezoso about he artistic nature of photography. the way i see it, photography is (or can be) an artform as well as a documentary/journalistic technique. you mentioned Man Ray, but consider also Bill Brandt and many many others. even journalistic photos are an art, it is not just anyone that can take great photos (consistently). and both form and content are key to photography.

i wouldn't classify any drawings as porn even if some are not in good taste or are immoral viz. their portrayal of women. likewise for sound.

doreen is right that porno is a big business. but the commerciality is neither necessary nor sufficient for pornographic status. presumably we can imagine a non-profit porn distributor. also file- sharing of images is common amongst the porn audience. and on the other hand, the sale of successful fine art by dealers is also a big money game in galleries, auctions, etc. art book sellers aren't giving away books on Grosz either.

i guess i think the question is really not about sexuality but about violence. so pornography may be the wrong concept. i have no problem with sexuality, the only problem is where either the subjects or models have been exploited or where the artwork mixes sex and violence so as to suggest that abusing women is sexy or something like that. that makes S and M quite problematic as well as the "chicks with knifes and guns" genre unless it is read as, well, empowerment.

[stilltrucking]

the difference between what degrades and depresses and what is beautiful,
'desublimation and a one dimensional man'
' that which is not prohibited is compulsory'

for some reason I think the few minutes of CSI that I have inadvertently watched is pornographic to me, a woman in a convertible a down angle shot of cleavage next scene she is stretched out on the seat with her throat slit,

what a world

[Artguy]

Naked architecture................

[abcrystcats]

I'm sorry I missed this conversation when it began (days ago) ... I'm putting my oar in a little too late, but I think most of the concepts expressed herein are very subjective.

Pictures get posted and then people respond to them saying "This is art, not porn" "This is porn, not art." These are opinions, and I think there may be a certain amount of denial going on too. I think the lines between art and porn are VERY unclear. About the only theory here that makes any sense is where Perezoso identifies the artist's INTENT at the defining factor. Other than that, I really think the definition is in the eye of the beholder.

Are the foot fetish drawings of Bruno Schulz art or porn? Some would say "art". My first reaction would be to say "porn" but why can't they be both? We are talking of these categories as if they are mutually exclusive and they are not.

What about Bougereau? Is he art or porn? In the 19th century his paintings were considered risque and perhaps not fit for the eyes of young ladies. They frequently adorned upper class bars and brothels. A hundred years go by, tastes and standards change, and Bougereau is considered mainstream "art."

We could go through artist after artist and picture after picture and continually come up with varying views. I do not think we can draw a defining line down the middle and categorize one thing clearly as art and another as porn. It's an oversimplification.

[Wylie Shambles]

Yeah, the intent to exploit peoples' erotic urges for profit is a major criteria on the list of criteria to be used to make the judgement on whether a particular work is pornographic.
Subjectively, for me it is a verb, as in:
"I feel like I've just been porned."

We're more forced into this discussion in America, and there is more of an undercurrent of anxiety in it. In Europe this would be relaxed, amusing cocktail talk of little consequence.
Here the consequences can get pretty intense.

[abcrystcats]

Not to pick apart what you just said, but even the word "exploit" is questionable ... Do you feel exploited by Cadbury because you have a sudden urge for chocolate?

I don't believe that the voluntary purchaser of such works is being exploited, although I'd certainly agree that many of the models in the photographic displays have been. Socially, there's a seamy and corrupt aspect to it that seems to suck people in ... but the purchasers usually aren't the ones that get swirled into that vortex.

[e_dog]

hey abcrystcats!

you presented the view that opinions about what counts as art or porn is subjective, in the eye of the beholder. (leave aside the interesting possibility that you also observed that there could be works that are BOTh art and porn.)

but you also said that perezoso's theory -- that the artist's intent governs the question of art v. porn -- was credible. but this seems to be totally inconsistent with the theory of subjectivity you present! (that is, eiother it's in the eye of the beholder as you say, or its in the mind of the artist, but they cannot both be the sole criterion. or is it a combination?) or am i missing something?

[abcrystcats]

No, you're absolutely right. I would have posted again only I thought this was a dead topic.

Right after (or truthfully, BEFORE) I hit enter on this post my mind started playing with Perezoso's idea. --

What if the artist intends to create art and fails in his/ her attempt, but succeeds in creating porn?

Or something that qualifies as both? I see lots of carefully rendered paintings of nudes on sale at local artwalks. These are real artists and I don't mean to discredit them -- but take away the paint and what you've got is a classically gorgeous Playboy bunny type reclining voluptuously on a sofa. Art or Porn? Or both?

What about lies? I am sure Larry Flynt would jump at the chance of labelling his mags "Art."

What about the carefully-schooled intellectuals who say "Awww, the HELL with it! I want to make MONEY" and start hack writing what they intend as "porn"? Because they are not predisposed to write trash, their stories are often carefully crafted psychological masterworks, not mere "stroke stories".

So, in retrospect, I agree with your objection. Artist's "intent" doesn't count for much. I can intend to create a pie and end up with a tart!

I really think we take a lot on ourselves when we think we can slap labels of any kind on creative works. There is no definitive line between porn and art. There is no place you can point to where it stops being one and starts being the other.

[perezoso]

You are both misconstruing my point, which is more from the POV of the person looking at a work of "art" or reading a story than the artist/writer. The experienced critic knows what to read for and infers or concludes something about the intent; I admitted that may be difficult to do sometimes. There is an agency requirement to understanding a poem or painting or whatever: Harold Bloom or e-dog reading a wallace stevens poem knows more about it then the department secretary; Bloom knows what to look for, and I think he is inferring intent (though there may be unintentional or freudian overtones i guess), and constructing a meaning from the poem/artwork; BLoom knows the aesthetic language or code and dept. secretary doesn't or at least not to the extent Bloom does. This might lead to elitism, but that is really what much modern art is--a sort of private code. (Good "populist" art/writing can be made that appeals to the "lowest common denominator"--say Steinbeck or jazz). I do think a Stravinsky is above a Springsteen, Wallace Stevens above the sunday school teacher writing a sermon.

Obviously if we are speaking a sophisticated lanuage we need to be able to "read" or interpret the intent of the other....the same with conversation-- our meanings are not just random or subjective; we listen to speech and infer the speakers' intent. If you want to make a tort and make biscuits instead you are incompetent.

Knowing the "art" language one also knows what is inept, trite, crass, boring, obvious and porn is I think fairly obvious (not always) to an experienced image viewer. While we might admit Vargas nudes are well drawn, they are just good illustrations (sort
of X rated Rockwell) and not really art. Gasoline Alley is well drawn but is it art? I do not think so, for it doesn't push boundaries, doesn't address anything real profound. IT s formulaic, like a Tom Hanks movie. The Gasoline Alley guys "art language" is not very complex or interesting , and I think that is part of the appeal of real art--complexity, surprise, innovation, without becoming too abstract; and it also makes use of themes--violence, politics, injustice, sex-- that can be identified with..

[abcrystcats]

How can I tell a "classic" work of literature from a cheap thriller? Well ... there are rules. There are the five aspects of the novel, things to look for in sentence and paragraph structure. You measure it against a standard.

Now, you're saying that a similar set of rules applies to 'art' -- painting, sculpture and so on. I am not sure that I agree. What rules? Can you give an example? What about the Christo thread Lightning Rod threw out a few days ago? What makes Christo's projects 'art' -- or not?

Leave the "porn" part out for a second. I really think that whether something is pornographic is a separate issue.

Just tell me how -- by what criteria -- you analyze a creative work and determine if it is 'art'?

I get the technical aspects of art pretty well -- composition, contrast, balance, perspective -- but you could apply that to a centerfold spread and come out pretty well. So there's got to be something other than the technical that you're using as a yardstick. Help me out, here.

What you're saying is that the question isn't who decides but how they decide. Show me.

[Zlatko Waterman]

What about the work of Nam June Paik?


http://www.guggenheim.org/exhibitions/p ... k_top.html




--Z