Bad Porn

[Spinaroonie]

A good article about bad porn (W/ Examples of course )
http://armedndangerous.blogspot.com/2002_06_02_armedndangerous_archive.html#77482059

Very interesting. I agree with him.

 

[phrodeau]

There's erotic photography and there's porn.

The examples in this article are of good erotic photos and bad erotic photos, categorized subjectively. Anything approaching porn is, by his subjective reasoning, automatically bad.

 

[Daddyslilpet]

You mean there's bad porn out there??????




dixicritter

 

[GuyJD]

That's an interesting article. Never have I seen the intellectual breakdown and analysis of porn pics. It was like reading a college essay.

In fact, I did something like that back in college, only I used a few pictures of female bodybuilders in ads from my muscle magazines.

 

[Sillyman]

Well, I don't really hold with his judgements. It's true the models expression does have a lot to do with how good the picture is, but I don't agree with him on the nature of props. Slightly mussed hair would be nice though.

 

[horny_giraffe]

I get the sense that the author is playing down the super-hardcore stuff (i.e. people having sex, dildos up the ass, etc.)--probably due to his own insecurities about admitting to enjoying such things.

Despite that, I don't think that he's saying that even ultra-hardcore porn is necessarily bad--just badly executed.

His argument seems to be that, if the market for porn is driven by demand, then the demand must be for the variety of porn that exists. He then goes on to theorize why people might want a particular type of porn.

The thing is, I'm not entirely sure that the market for porn is completely driven by demand.

I've been looking at porn for more than ten years, now. The thing I notice is that porn is steadily changing and evolving. The porn industry seems to follow certain trends and fashions, and pretty much all of the professionals seems to follow the trends. Ten or fifteen years ago, there was virtually no anal sex pictured. For a while, it was THE THING. Now, it seems that amateur, or the illusion of amateur porn is the main trend. Personally, I think that this is a cultivated taste that is often supply-driven. Porn producers condition customers to expect certain things out of the porn.

For porn producers, the advantage of consistent formulas is obvious. I remember reading a story about the Annabelle Chung? Chang? gangbang in Los Vegas. She evidently had asked a producer how she could accelerate her career in porn, and the porn director had advised her that a 'world record' gangbang would guarantee her the fame that would allow her to make some money on the strip circuit (which is where, in my understanding, the porn stars make most of their money.)

 

[Spinaroonie]

I think he's just saying that there's a lack of real style and reality in pr0n. It looks artificial and is thusly unalluring.

When I see the rare pic of a girl that is smiling I like it much more than the 'sulty' pix.

 

[horny_giraffe]

I agree that most porn looks rather artificial. Thus the trend in 'amateur' porn.

I think that one big factor is that the majority of porn out there has floating around for a while. Even the relatively new porn is usually a few years old, in my opinion. The porn industry has, for a long time, been almost a monopoly, with major porn stars ruling the roost.

The ease of entry into the porn market is changing, though. Digital cameras are coming down in price, so lots of 'Mom and Pop' porn sites are popping up here and there. Soon, porn consumers may actually begin to dictate what it is that they like, rather that simply accepting the bad porn because it's the only thing available.

If you think about it, the kids of today would just laugh if I said that I jerked off to pictures of tribal women in National Geographic. That was all I had, then. But now, I've got computer porn in every flavor. You've got to love technology.

 

[CAROSI]

I love porn movies. Its the magazine without the "articles"