COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Just got back from an exhibit of Picasso drawings. If it's really, really well executed, is it still pornography?

AG31

AG31

Literotica Guru
Joined
Feb 19, 2021
Posts
1,506
Obviously there's no objective right or wrong answer, but where do you come down?

I think I come down with a "Yes." To say "No" would be to deny the validity of engendering sexual arousal through visual (or literary) media, and I think engendering arousal is a fine thing.

Along with the Picasso drawings, other art that has caused that question in my mind is Gustave Corbet's The Origin of the World (most definitely pornography - displayed in a curtained off alcove at a museum exhibit) and Egon Schiele's many, definitely pornogrpahic paintings and drawings.

Would you rather use the word "pornography" to mean something "not artistically worthy?"


Edit: Please don't assume this discussion is about classical nudes. Just Google Corbet's The Origin of the World.
 
Last edited:
Pornography is what the wrong people wank to. Art is what the right people wank to. Defining who the right people are, now, that's where it gets tricky.

I mostly avoid the word because it's an attempt to impose a binary classification on something that requires far more nuance. When I use it, it's mostly about my own work as a way of reminding others (and myself) that I don't agree with the judgement it implies.
 
I'm not convinced any of the mentioned artists intended for anyone to wank to them, which I think is the defining characteristic of pornography.

Similarly just because some museum cordoned off the nudes from the squares, doesn't mean the nudes are pornography, it just means the squares are square.
 
11w9ij8z5hr41.jpg


to some people this is pornography, to others art.
 
No, per the NCAC website definition and another reference I checked which named Michelangelo's frescoes in the Sistine Chapel, that were clearly never meant to do anything more than create a sense of appreciation for the human body. If you go to Botero square in Medellin, Colombia, you will see nude sculptures all over the place that leave nothing to the imagination. Now yes, if you go to an art exhibit, you will likely have that area cordoned off- just as when I went to one on Frida Kahlo- - because you had to be over 18 to view that. If you would have seen the one piece called Broken Column, you would have noticed Frida naked.. but it was more about her accident that left her with all the pain from the glass embedded in her spine.
 
Britva415 said:
I'm not convinced any of the mentioned artists intended for anyone to wank to them, which I think is the defining characteristic of pornography.
Click to expand...

Impossible to prove anything about the motivations of people long dead, but Schiele seems to have had a sexual attraction to young women/girls and he liked painting young women/girls nude. It seems pretty plausible that those two things are closely connected.

I'm not of the view that all nudes are intended to be sexualised; sometimes an anatomy study really is just an anatomy study. But in censorious times it's not uncommon for people to use "art" as an excuse for the stuff that gets them hot.

Comentarista82 said:
No, per the NCAC website definition and another reference I checked which named Michelangelo's frescoes in the Sistine Chapel, that were clearly never meant to do anything more than create a sense of appreciation for the human body.
Click to expand...

Many art historians would disagree with that "clearly". There's a fair bit of evidence that Michaelangelo was attracted to men, and even in his own time he was accused of using his religious art as camouflage for those attractions. Some modern interpretations argue that Michaelangelo's work was heavily influenced by sexuality. For example: https://rictornorton.co.uk/michela.htm

Not everybody accepts those interpretations, and for obvious reasons the organisation that owns the Sistine Chapel isn't likely to encourage the idea that it expresses homosexual sexuality. Understanding the motivation behind art created hundreds of years ago is a tricky thing, especially when the creator might have had good reason to conceal his motivations. But it's certainly not uniformly accepted that Michaelangelo's work was devoid of sexual motive.
 
Art and erotica and pornography are not mutually exclusive IMHO. They just appeal to different tastes, and strive for different reactions.
 
I've pretty much given up on these kinds of definitional debates. A photo of a ham sandwich can be pornographic in the hands of a person with the right kind of kink. I think of porn as stuff that you wank to, but that can be anything.
 
"D’you know much about art, Nobby?”

“If necessary, Sarge.”

“Oh, come on, Nobby!”

“What? Tawneee says what she does is Art, Sarge. And she wears more clothes than a lot of the women on the walls around here, so why be sniffy
about it?”

“Yeah, but…” Fred Colon hesitated here. He knew in his heart that spinning upside down around a pole wearing a costume you could floss with definitely was not Art, and being painted lying on a bed wearing nothing but a smile and a small bunch of grapes was good solid Art, but putting your finger on why this was the case was a bit tricky.

“No urns,” he said at last.

“What urns?” said Nobby.

“Nude women are only Art if there’s an urn in it,” said Fred Colon. This sounded a bit weak even to him, so he added: “Or a plinth. Both is best, o’course. It’s a secret sign, see, that they put in to say that it’s Art and okay to look at.”

“What about a potted plant?”

“That’s okay if it’s in an urn.”

“What about if it’s not got an urn or a plinth or a potted plant?” said Nobby.

“Have you one in mind, Nobby?” said Colon suspiciously.

“Yes, The Goddess Anoia* Arising from the Cutlery,” said Nobby. “They’ve got it here. It was painted by a bloke with three i’s in his name, which sounds pretty artistic to me.”

“The number of i’s is important, Nobby,” said Sergeant Colon gravely, “but in these situations you have to ask yourself: ‘Where’s the cherub?’ If there’s
a little fat pink kid holding a mirror or a fan or similar, then it’s still okay. Even if he’s grinning. Obviously you can’t get urns everywhere.”
- Terry Pratchett - Thud!
Click to expand...
 
The reason it isn't possible to define "pornography" isn't because of a confusion over the intent of the artist. It's because that definition is dependent upon the viewer of said art.

In the fundamentalist religion I was raised to believe in, a picture of a couple dancing would be considered risque if not pornographic because the male is touching the female. In many cultures, a statue or painting of nude people is considered to be fine art. It's exactly the problem Justice Stewart stated. Anyone can tell you their definition of pornography. It's just different for every person.
 
Bramblethorn said:
Impossible to prove anything about the motivations of people long dead, but Schiele seems to have had a sexual attraction to young women/girls and he liked painting young women/girls nude. It seems pretty plausible that those two things are closely connected.
Click to expand...
The main case that led to Scheile's reputation was a bit of bullshit.

Schiele and his model/muse/lover, Valburga, agreed to accompany Tatjana von Mossig, 13 year old daughter of an imporant naval officer, to live with her grandma in Vienna. When Mossig changed her mind and wanted to go home, they brought her back, and were promptly arrested for kidnapping and statutory rape, her father had gone to the police while they were in Vienna. Those charges were dropped in court, but they added a charge of public immorality for 'exposing' young people to his art, that one stuck.

Not to say he didn't draw nude pubescent girls, he definitely did, but so did a ton of other artists at the time, including Edvard Munch.
 
ronde said:
The reason it isn't possible to define "pornography" isn't because of a confusion over the intent of the artist. It's because that definition is dependent upon the viewer of said art.

In the fundamentalist religion I was raised to believe in, a picture of a couple dancing would be considered risque if not pornographic because the male is touching the female. In many cultures, a statue or painting of nude people is considered to be fine art. It's exactly the problem Justice Stewart stated. Anyone can tell you their definition of pornography. It's just different for every person.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The UK government has had various attempts to ban 'extreme pornography', which led to a whole pile of problems. At one end, a genuine snuff movie should be illegal to possess, probably. At the other, there's legalese bogged down as to what type of spanking or SM causes marks that are more than 'transient or trifling', and at one point it was decided that clips from perfectly legal films would become illegal if edited into a montage that was deemed pornographic. So whether material was legal to possess would depend on your mindset and whether you might be aroused by it.

Totally impractical, and IIRC the worst measures never made it to law thanks to that helpful standby, "running out of parliamentary time", but my story Image Nine Point Four covers a bunch of the legal issues involved.
 
SimonDoom said:
I've pretty much given up on these kinds of definitional debates. A photo of a ham sandwich can be pornographic in the hands of a person with the right kind of kink. I think of porn as stuff that you wank to, but that can be anything.
Click to expand...
If you choose to write about it, that would be #67.

My definition is far simpler. If I like it, it's erotic art; if you lot like it, obviously it's porn ;).
 
I think pornography has to have an element of base indulgence to it. That's not a bad thing, of course, and it isn't even necessarily a sexual thing. James Bond is pornographic indulgence for straight men. The suits, the cars, the women, the hypercompetence. Whatever it is, it's an adjective for art and entertainment that maybe doesn't prioritize the more complex imperatives of storytelling.

I also think pornography is art, and plenty of art has a pornographic aspect even if we're discouraged from thinking of it as such. You think all those baroque and Renaissance painters weren't turned on when they created all those beautiful nudes?
 
ElectricBlue said:
If you choose to write about it, that would be #67.

My definition is far simpler. If I like it, it's erotic art; if you lot like it, obviously it's porn ;).
Click to expand...

She lay on the tabletop, bread white and flaky, overlain by a delicate tan crust. The scent of ham lay deliciously heavy in the air, like the aroma of rubbing oil in a happy-ending massage parlor. And the meat--oh, the meat! Glistening in the noon light, shedding a dollop of mustard that splattered coquettishly over the checkered tablecloth.

My body shook with hunger.

She waited for me.

I reached for her . . . my ham sandwich.
 
Britva415 said:
I'm not convinced any of the mentioned artists intended for anyone to wank to them, which I think is the defining characteristic of pornography.

Similarly just because some museum cordoned off the nudes from the squares, doesn't mean the nudes are pornography, it just means the squares are square.
Click to expand...
Have you Googled the Corbet?
 
Comentarista82 said:
No, per the NCAC website definition and another reference I checked which named Michelangelo's frescoes in the Sistine Chapel, that were clearly never meant to do anything more than create a sense of appreciation for the human body. If you go to Botero square in Medellin, Colombia, you will see nude sculptures all over the place that leave nothing to the imagination. Now yes, if you go to an art exhibit, you will likely have that area cordoned off- just as when I went to one on Frida Kahlo- - because you had to be over 18 to view that. If you would have seen the one piece called Broken Column, you would have noticed Frida naked.. but it was more about her accident that left her with all the pain from the glass embedded in her spine.
Click to expand...
All those of you who think I was citing "nudes" should Google them. Start with the Corbet Origine du le Monde
 
EroticFriction said:
The main case that led to Scheile's reputation was a bit of bullshit.

Schiele and his model/muse/lover, Valburga, agreed to accompany Tatjana von Mossig, 13 year old daughter of an imporant naval officer, to live with her grandma in Vienna. When Mossig changed her mind and wanted to go home, they brought her back, and were promptly arrested for kidnapping and statutory rape, her father had gone to the police while they were in Vienna. Those charges were dropped in court, but they added a charge of public immorality for 'exposing' young people to his art, that one stuck.

Not to say he didn't draw nude pubescent girls, he definitely did, but so did a ton of other artists at the time, including Edvard Munch.
Click to expand...
The Schiele pictures I'm thinking of would not be called "nudes." At least not by me.
 
I reckon it's up to whoever views the piece in question. To me, it's a matter of "does it turn me on" or not. Art can make me horny, pornography can make me think.

The debate's been going on for half a millennia at least, since the catholic church started covering up statues with fig leaves.
 
SimonDoom said:
She lay on the tabletop, bread white and flaky, overlain by a delicate tan crust. The scent of ham lay deliciously heavy in the air, like the aroma of rubbing oil in a happy-ending massage parlor. And the meat--oh, the meat! Glistening in the noon light, shedding a dollop of mustard that splattered coquettishly over the checkered tablecloth.

My body shook with hunger.

She waited for me.

I reached for her . . . my ham sandwich.
Click to expand...
@ElectricBlue , I'm counting that as "#67," even though it doesn't quite make it to 750 words. That's as far as I'm going to go with that concept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top