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

[ElectricBlue]

@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.

Good man, I'll accept that as "done".

#67 can be allocated to the next idea: "Mom, can you make me a ham sandwich?"

"Of course, darling. What would you like me to wear?"

"Just the sauce, Mom, just the tomato sauce."

 

[SimonDoom]

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.

I don't think the artist's intention is necessarily controlling. I think the consumer's attitude is more important.

I recall a while back a friend of mine, who was an avid bicyclist and subscribed to cycling magazines, described them as "bike porn." It was the first time I'd heard the term used that way, but it made sense to me, and I've heard that term used in relation to other things, too, like "gun porn" or "car porn."

If somebody gets off on the images in the Sistine Chapel, I suppose it could be porn even if it was never meant that way, although, personally, when I look at Michaelangelo's work, I can't help but wonder about his intentions.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

If somebody gets off on the images in the Sistine Chapel, I suppose it could be porn even ...

OK, Catholic porn is a whole nother universe...

 

[ElectricBlue]

If somebody gets off on the images in the Sistine Chapel, I suppose it could be porn even if it was never meant that way, although, personally, when I look at Michaelangelo's work, I can't help but wonder about his intentions.

That not quite finger touch, though! How exquisitely poignant, and look at the way he's reclining. Could do worse in a New York bathhouse in the eighties.

 

[ishtat]

If somebody gets off on the images in the Sistine Chapel, I suppose it could be porn even if it was never meant that way, although, personally, when I look at Michaelangelo's work, I can't help but wonder about his intentions.

Sistine Chapel is weak sauce. Following the St Bartholemews' day massacre of the Huguenots in Paris, March 1562, the then Pope commissioned a painting glorifying the slaughter of the Protestants. That graphic picture showing the victims being sliced and diced in detail, still adorns the Pope's apartments and entertains the current Pope and his senior people on a daily basis. Now that is pornography.

 

[Britva415]

I don't think the artist's intention is necessarily controlling. I think the consumer's attitude is more important.

I think what's most important is the authorities. Any jurisdiction can define anything as pornography.

And this is the only unequivocal way to get an answer.

 

[Comentarista82]

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.

After seeing the picture, which was a woman's body from the breast downward, still no by the definitions I found. Strictly linguistically, when you consider the Greek means about prostitutes, is a prostitute in Biblical times, Medieval times or modern times going to be nude for just anybody for free? Of course not. The only logical extrapolation in my mind is does the work itself picture a sexual act? If for example the picture showed the woman stimulating herself- - effectively having sex with herself-- then that would be pornography. But just a body by the strict definition from the Greek and the NCAC website definition plus the other site I quoted- - which was curiously a Biblically-based website that randomly appeared in the search--that concentrates on helping people overcome porn addictions found nothing in terms of the frescos at the Sistine Chapel for example being pornographic.

 

[lc69hunter]

to some people this is pornography, to others art.

NOTHING pornographic about this. Artistic, yes, erotic yes. Many can not differentiate between erotic and pornographic

 

[Stimtheone]

I think I made a point about this in an rp once. Nudity and such could be part of artistic movies and yet the stuff was not porn, if some might be thrilled of a chance to see titties. It's about the intention and form. Porn rarely tries to do anything but provide masturbatory material. "Art" or stuff that tries to be it, would try for other stuff. BG3 has in-built nudity but I would not even consider it worth mentioning beside porn games.