Art and Sexual Themes.

What is your alls opinion on "art". I know the difference between pornography and art is debateable and depends on how the person percieves the content. But in general what are your thoughts on Erotic Art, Hentia...I personally can't say my opinion because there mixed..and I don't know much about either..I just thought it'd be intresting to see others thoughts...discuss please.

To me, an art teacher and an artist, there is a big difference in erotic "art" and fine art. Much of what has been considered art of nude females, particularly from the 1800's, where in men sat smoking their cigars in the male gathering places of high-power underneath the reposed seductive female painting, are now even becoming disdained for their pornographic nature. Art today, with the post-modern influence, considers anything and everything "ART," no matter how offensive or suggestive. An example is Maplethorp's nude homosexually graphic photographs, which caused such an uproar, but was embraced by the art world. In my opinion, it's pornography, no matter how beautiful the bodies. One must learn to discern, in today's culture, what images one wants to view and incorporate into one's mind.
Patty

could you please explain how paintings of reposed seductive nude or semi nude women is pornography? Are they performing any acts or behaviors of a sexual nature?Because there are men of power sitting under them? And who is coming to disdain them? art critics? museum goers? religious right?

I'm not religious right.
I interpret this as viewing women as sexual objects.
Patty

You interpret what as viewing women as sexual objects? Sorry, a bit confused here. All art with sexual themes or just what was being spoken about above?

I think I made myself pretty clear. I have no problem with nudity in art when the female form is not used as a sexual object for titillation and gratification of male viewers.

Being a photographer, I understand what Patty is talking about when she refers to Marplethorpe's work. I believe that a lot of "jurists" saw the fantastic composition and darkroom work and were seduced into calling those images "fine art", when they are actually a bunch of extremely graphic photographs of men with objects either in them or on them.

I take the side of art is art and porn is porn and I know both of them when I see them. I also believe that it takes considerable study to be able to discern the difference when the standards of the jurists are as they were with Marplethorpe. You can become "swayed" because public opinion seems to overrule taste. Unfortunately, a lot of that happens with nude imagery.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
seeker1950 said:
I think I made myself pretty clear. I have no problem with nudity in art when the female form is not used as a sexual object for titillation and gratification of male viewers.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Well I would imagine that would depend less on the art and more on the person who is viewing it.

I think that a major difference is the intended purpose rather than the material.

in that case, it is in the mind of the beholder, right?

i can show you a perfectly beautiful photograph of a nude woman and get different responses from different viewers. i've directed many nude workshops and have had to ask photographers to excuse themselves as their comments weren't appropriate. and it had NOTHING at all to do with how the material was created. Imogene Cunningham has images that could draw obscene comments and she certainly never intended for her work to be perceived as porn. just beauty.

So the definition of pornography has evolved from depicting sexual acts and behaviors to simply having a nude or semi nude woman in paintings that men may look at or stand under. I am having difficulty grasping this concept. YOu dont have to be nude to be sexually provocative as ads on tv and magazines prove everyday. ARe ads for lipstick, and clothing pornography.

I don't know if they count as "art", but I love love love romance novels and pornographic fan fiction. I used to like romance novels more, but now most of the female characters just irritate the heck out of me, and the fanfic authors I like write much more interesting women (or they just write about men!). Anyway. This stuff is great because they're by women for women and as well as hot sex they also tend to have crazy things like dialog and characterization!! So yay for "art" porn!!!

heyjoe, i'm not speaking for Patty, but for myself. argument for argument's sake is old news. i feel sure that you understand the discussion. for my part, i'm outta here.

I believe art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

People get turned on by the nude body. Whether an artist paints, sculpts, draws or otherwise creates an image of the nude body to titillate or simply because he thinks the nude body is beautiful does not make it porn. It is normal to be turned on by it, and it's healthy.

Men being turned on by depictions of nude women does not mean they view women solely as sexual objects. You can view a person sexually, be aroused by them physically and be attracted to them, want to have sex with them, and still see them as a person. You can respect their intelligence and enjoy being with them, while desiring them at the same time.

I feel the same way about homosexual art. That doesn't mean I think the Maplethorpe exhibit was art; I have never seen the paintings in person, and don't remember what I did see. Isn't one of the paintings of the Virgin Mary and has feces in it, or is that another artist I'm thinking of? That, to me, is not art...and it's not because I'm a fan of religious art or anything. I just think it's disgusting to use feces for art, and while I believe we can say whatever we want about religion or anything, I would be offended if I were Christian or Catholic.

I have no problem with nude art, erotic art (nude art, without sexual acts depicted, are generally not "erotic" art), hentai, and other sexual imagery.

It's another topic, but I looooove romance novels, and I love mainstream romance (which include erotic scenes) and erotic romance (which are much more sexual). I like adult fanfic, too, although I haven't read fanfic in a long time. I don't like the attitudes of some people in the fanfic community, but that's another topic altogether.

The basis for my statement about nude female art as being produced for the gratification of men...came from reading and excerpt from the art critic, John Berger's WAYS OF SEEING. I can't find the article online, but here is a short comment relating to it in another critique of the female nude which mentions his interpretation.

"Indeed, the only purpose of the woman in Study of a Nude is to be aesthetically pleasing and showcase her beauty without any threatening undertones of intellectual presence or thoughtfulness. This is not a conscious choice made by the women represented in Renoir's nudes, but rather a byproduct of the male gaze. In his book Ways of Seeing art critic and theorist John Berger examines the gaze and its affect on women. He postulates that the portrayal of a woman, particularly a naked woman, by a male artist plays into the age-old notion that "men act and women appear" (47). To paint a woman is to turn her into an object, specifically an object to be viewed—a sight. Berger attempts to analyze the male drive to paint female nudes; he addressed the male artist directly saying "you painted a naked woman because you enjoyed looking at her, you put a mirror in her hand and you called the painting Vanity, thus condemning the woman whose nakedness you had depicted for your own pleasure" (51). This is a model for the interpretation of Renoir's nudes: Renoir enjoyed the naked female form so he perpetuated a myth that painting the nude is an artist's attempt to capture a metaphoric, natural beauty. According to Garb, focus on this feminine ideal as "high art" conflates the ideas of the appreciation of beauty (an intrinsic part of art history) with the admiration of the female form (and the objectification and essentialism of women that accompanies it). "

I don't know if this will make sense -- but--- the day there are AS MANY nude male art displays as female ones, is the day I will believe that all nude portraits are "art" and not the objectification of one type of human and not the other.
there should be equal representation, in my view-- in order for it not to be degrading or objectifying. Because the male culture knows how humilating it can feel to see one's sexual likeness hung on the wall for all to stare at and study-- it is not equally represented...... and perhaps also, because women have been-- for centuries, stuck in the home and rearing children-- they have just begun to experience the career freedoms that men have enjoyed for generations-- so maybe... just maybe.... the world will begin to see more male nude portraits as women see fit to depict the male in "art" form. wonder if men will agree that it is still art??? something to ponder as their daughter looks up at a 14 foot painting of a nude man......

mandy

Good point, Mandy! I love many classic forms of nude art, both male and female. Michaelangelo's DAVID is so beautiful, also the classical Greek sculpture of the mature male, Zeus (or Posiedon). At the same time, one has no note in history of women in the 19th century under seductive male nude sculptures as they gather for tea and crumpets. The same paintings of female nudes, as they stared out to the viewer (what the art critic, Berger, calls "the gaze," were purely for the gratification and objectification of the male.
With the advent of photography, the female form in painting took a different turn, and soft porn was more frequently relegated to the photo rather than in painting, at which time the Impressionists hit their stride.
Patty

To me, if it's a sexual nudity and someone's making a profit off of it either through it as an advertisement or as a picture in a magazine, etc... then it's porn.

Marplethorpe was a photographer. That is why I mentioned that I felt critics were so caught up in the composition and darkroom expertise that they were in over their heads by calling it art. There was one PHOTOGRAPH of a man with a baseball bat in his rectum. Hard to see any art in that, personally. I am out of here, again.

Mandyfins if someone is posing for a nude painting they would have to assume that other people will see it. Unless they did it when they were young and now later in life they are embarassed, i fail to see how that is humiliating. No one forced them to pose. Now if someone used just your face and a make believe body then i could see that being humiliating.

Seeker, i would have to disagree with Berger about a female nude being purely for the gratification and objectification of the male. While undoubtedly some men or even most men might find gratification in a female nude, i have found in life that nothing is purely this or purely that. People are very complex creatures and our actions or thoughts are never purely anything.

Of course everyone has their own idea of what pornography is but when one or a few impose on the rest of society their view of what pornography is, that i have a problem with it. I believe like here with posts, if you dont like the subject dont read it, or in this case view it.

What heyjoe said.

Nudity doesn't have to be sexual, and there is nothing wrong with imagery meant for sexual pleasure.