FAQ/Help |
Calendar |
Search |
Junior Member
Member Since Aug 2007
Location: WV
Posts: 21
16 |
#21
I use D.H. Lawrence's (I think it was him anyway) definition of porn -- a creative work that encourages masturbation. I think masturbation is a wonderful thing. So I don't think pornography in and of itself is bad.
On the other hand, taking an image that's obviously wank material and claiming that it isn't because it's "art" is really really silly. mostly because things CAN be both art and porn at the same time, one doesn't preclude the other, imho. Sex is a part of life, so art should be able to reflect that. And good "artful" writing, drawing, photography, wbatever just makes the porn hotter!! |
Reply With Quote |
Pirate Goddess
Member Since Oct 2005
Location: South Jersey, USA
Posts: 5,246
18 513 hugs
given |
#22
Wonderful post, KShapiro! Sex can be beautiful, and "art"!
__________________ Maven If I had a dollar for every time I got distracted, I wish I had some ice cream. Equal Rights Are Not Special Rights |
Reply With Quote |
Wise Elder
Member Since Jun 2005
Location: WV
Posts: 8,131
18 1,580 hugs
given |
#23
I'm in a hornet's nest here, I realize, but there IS a difference between Fine Art and Porn Art (of varying degrees from soft to hardcore!)
The line is blurred or nonexistent these days since the Post Modern era between what is Art and what is Porn, but if a work of art is viewed for artistic merit and critiqued, I suspect those works which are created for sexual gratification fall by the wayside as serious art. I reiterate here that I have nothing against nudity in Art, but I do discern as an artist and art educator between what is worthwhile vs. what is created for sexual gratification. I only post this in response to the initial question in this thread. Patty |
Reply With Quote |
Reply |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
I might have a sexual dysfunction | Sexual and Gender Issues | |||
A-Sexual or Non-Sexual | Other Mental Health Discussion |