OK I think there is a fine line between porn and art. I think what I see on the internet is porn and in a museum is art. ANd if that sex scene ends up in a museum it is art.

Not sure if I answered it Urweirdsaysi Did I or should I say more, and yes this is opinion based

So you classify what is and what isn't art, based on where you see it?

If I had the Mona Lisa in my backyard, you wouldn't still think it was art? It isn't in a museum, so it must not be art, according to your claim. And by that very same statement, if I bring a projector into a museum and begin playing pornographic material, it is now art, because it is in a museum.

I'll save you from the rest of the debate by giving you my personal opinion on how it should be classified. I think the difference between art and pornographic material, is the intention that the artist had whilst creating it. If The David was sculpted with the intention of it being used for pornographic reason, then it is pornographic. The difference between porn and art is the inspiration and meaning behind it. However, you can't know their true intentions behind the creation of it, as anyone can say they made it for artistic purposes. So, it leaves it up to personal interpretation. Modern art isn't much to look at, to me. Its paint that has been thrown on a canvas or trashcans welded together. However, to others it can easily be a form of inspiration. You can't have a group of people classify something as art. You, quite simply, have to make that choice for yourself.

This isn't actually much of a debate, since the topic is based off of a personal opinion, which can't be proven wrong or right any way. So I think we were doomed to go in circles from the start.

I agree with on that, modern art is trash and the painting should be based on what the artist wanted it to be.

New debate- Global Warming- fake, real

I think manmade global warming is fake but earth just goes through cycles of hot and cold

Stay on topic, please.

Urweirdsaysi wrote:I think the difference between art and pornographic material, is the intention that the artist had whilst creating it. If The David was sculpted with the intention of it being used for pornographic reason, then it is pornographic. The difference between porn and art is the inspiration and meaning behind it.

Have you heard of de Sade?

Justine, de Sade's most famous work, depicts graphically sexual encounters of a poor young girl.

and his life is similar to his work.

He later hid at Lacoste where he rejoined his wife who became an accomplice in his subsequent endeavors. He kept a group of young employees at Lacoste, most of whom complained about sexual mistreatments and left quickly.

Yet his works are considered art by many.
The way an art is made or the artist has nothing to do with the art's artistic value.

The question is "Can Pornography be art?" not "Can some pornography be art?"
You either judge porn as an artistic category on its own with its ups and downs or you became an alibist only taking those pieces which suit you. This is in my opinion the biggest issue of the argument. And also the reason why the porn so far is not acknowledged as art. People take the approach, of only picking pieces which we like and adding them to another category, so that they didn't have to acknowledge the possible cultural value of a morally questionable work. ( let me explain - this is the religious view as we all know, most of the cultures have their roots in religions which are against pornography or which try to change natural sexuality into a sin. ).

There is no real way to prove weather porn is art or not. The closest you could do is fine examples of pornography considered as art and pornography and compare them to the past and present, how people view them, and how ever else you can think about it, but unless someone adds fax to this topic, it is opinions and not a debate which will ultimately result in it being closed.

neoshagrath wrote:

Urweirdsaysi wrote:I think the difference between art and pornographic material, is the intention that the artist had whilst creating it. If The David was sculpted with the intention of it being used for pornographic reason, then it is pornographic. The difference between porn and art is the inspiration and meaning behind it.

Have you heard of de Sade?

Justine, de Sade's most famous work, depicts graphically sexual encounters of a poor young girl.

and his life is similar to his work.

He later hid at Lacoste where he rejoined his wife who became an accomplice in his subsequent endeavors. He kept a group of young employees at Lacoste, most of whom complained about sexual mistreatments and left quickly.

Yet his works are considered art by many.
The way an art is made or the artist has nothing to do with the art's artistic value.

The question is "Can Pornography be art?" not "Can some pornography be art?"
You either judge porn as an artistic category on its own with its ups and downs or you became an alibist only taking those pieces which suit you. This is in my opinion the biggest issue of the argument. And also the reason why the porn so far is not acknowledged as art. People take the approach, of only picking pieces which we like and adding them to another category, so that they didn't have to acknowledge the possible cultural value of a morally questionable work.

Ok, I'll take that And no, I haven't actually heard of him. But, was he creating it for his own sexual endeavors or as a way to express himself?

I understand the question and my answer is: SOME pornography can be classified as art, depending on how that particular person looks at it. It was never said we had to supply an absolutist view on the matter, but to just simply answer the question. I'm going to guess and say you're an absolutist at heart (which is perfectly fine, I'm not bashing your views) and so you naturally interpret the question as an all or nothing. I, on the other hand, am not. Not every question has a right and wrong answer, this being one of them.

I think this question indirectly addresses what people classify as "art." Is it simply anything that takes practice and dedication or does it have to represent something? Art is a tricky thing to try and define. If you search the definition of art, you will likely find something similar to this: "the creation of beautiful or significant things." Seems pretty straight forward, but how do you define "beauty?" Once again, a search of the word brings up: "the qualities that give pleasure to the senses."

Simple enough at first glance, but everyone experiences pleasure from different things. Pornography, coincidentally, shows us this by its many...forms. If you try to define art, you're trying to define beauty, which is like trying to classify things into categories of good and evil or wrong and right. All these things are different for each person. So, the question has no answer. Only personal views and opinions, which can't be supported by fact.

Basically, we're going to keep going in circles As I said before, the closest "answer" is that art and pornography can be totally different or one and the same, depending on each person's views. And even that is far from an actual answer. I think the best way to put it is..."Maybe,"

This should be a debate!
You take a side then discuss why you are right while proving the opponent wrong.
So can porn be art? Yes or no?
No undecided no neutrals no maybes.

Argh... Forget it.

But if neither can be proven, the only sensible solution is a maybe.

You chose an unanswerable debate question, we might as well have started a philosophy thread.

The best debate subjects are the things that aren't that clear.
Want to debate on where the sun would rise?