The answer is clear. There is no answer. We can express our opinions until we're blue in the face, that doesn't mean we've actually accomplished anything. No matter what happens, we're still going to be right here, in this exact situation. I can counter anything that is said by you or Slash or whoever else, and any of you can counter what I say. We can't base our views in fact, so its like trying to build a house on jello.

Urweirdsaysi wrote:We can express our opinions until we're blue in the face, that doesn't mean we've actually accomplished anything.

If you lose sleep over it then that's your problem.
The point is sharing your opinions and learning from others through arguments and debates, and having fun doing it.

Urweirdsaysi wrote:We can't base our views in fact, so its like trying to build a house on jello.

Now that is the tricky and fun part, making that jello firm enough to support a small house or making the house light enough to stand on a jello.
It does not have to be a mansion. Just something that a passerby might consider a house. Not some sticks just poking out of the ground.

Debates based on opinion CANNOT be advanced, simply because it is an opinion and there is no way of proving one another wrong. There is nothing factual that you can supply towards this argument, so any "argument" that you make can be torn down my someone else quite easily. You can easily tear apart any of my arguments, just as I can tear apart yours.

If you want to keep going, though, go ahead. Its your turn

Sure why not? I'll start again.
Can pornography be art? Yes.

My introduction

At first we should look at the definitions of the relevant terms. Used links are from http://dictionary.reference.com. Of course I believe, that the definitions are just boundaries. The real meaning of the words is what people tend to imagine or think of when they encounter this word/object. However I will use the definitions, since we should at least have an idea about some formal description to generalize these terms.
Pornography:

obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.

Art:

1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.

Things don't look good for the artistic side of pornography at first glance, but lets look at the first definition. "having little or no artistic merit". But what really art is? "what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance".

Coito ergo sum

[/size]
It is amazing how the latin language connects the well known cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am) with a statement saying: "I have sexual intercourse therefore I am". At first glance this might seem as a joke, but if you think about it. What is the purpose of life? Which is the strongest instinct of all? Long story short, it is self preservation. And I hope you may agree, that life and the process of its creation is the greatest wonder of all. Art is an expression of ones emotions and thoughts. Emotions are mostly connected to the elementary instincts. And as we all know a human being needs to satisfy its needs for its existence. And whether you like it or not, sex is one of the human needs, what would be pretty natural, but once again it is the society which creates boundaries and grey stereotypes. A taboo was made even out of a healthy sexual life. Even thought you might object, that lots of people lead a promiscuous life, let me give you an example. Nudity. Clothes were originally invented for a protection against cold, but nowadays we use it also to hide our nudity. So what? You might ask again. Lets look at it from this view. Human body is nothing to be ashamed of. We may vary in some details, but in the end we are all similar. It is just our narrow mindedness that actually makes us being ashamed of our own bodies. An objection might arouse that if we were not, the society would be much more promiscuous ( which doesn't really have to be inevitably negative in some ways, but from the view of majority of people of today, it is ), but that doesn't depend on this factor. Promiscuity is affected by the approach of people towards each other in the society or the so called social acknowledged by each individual. Where does this lead to? Look at the definition of the word pornography once again. It starts with the word obscene. But why is pornography considered obscene? Because it reveals nudity and sexual intercourse? Once again, what is so wrong about both of them? I already explained some points on nudity. And sexual intercourse? Isn't that a bit contradictory? Almost every healthy human being considers having sex being a natural part of ones life. No biggie. There is one last thing considered being "bad" about porn. Sexual intercourse is ok as long as you have it, but staring at others doing it is a different thing. Again what is so wrong about it, the watchers are ok with watching and the watched agree as well.

Now let's get back to the definition of art.

1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.

Once again I would like to point out the part "what is beautiful". Beauty is a highly subjective term. Every human being has its own imagination of beauty. Yet this is not respected. Why? The sole definition of pornography I already quoted tries to deny the artistic value just because the puritanist views of the
society. Or is it that the society is not that puritanistic after all, but is is just being alibistic? Example:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita[/url] wrote:Lolita is a novel by Vladimir Nabokov, first published in 1955 in Paris. The novel is both famous for its innovative style and infamous for its controversial subject: the book's narrator and main character Humbert Humbert becomes sexually obsessed with a pubescent girl, who is 12 years old when most of the novel takes place.

being acknowledged:

By complete contrast American officials were initially nervous but the first American edition was issued without problems by G.P.Putnam's Sons in 1958 and was a bestseller, the first book since Gone with the Wind to sell 100,000 copies in the first three weeks of publication.
Today, it is considered by many one of the finest novels written in the 20th century. In 1998, it was named the fourth greatest novel of the 20th century by the Modern Library. It was also named fourth in Time magazine's list of The 10 Greatest Books of All Time.

Well this basically shows some kind of pornography can be considered art even though being obscene. The determinant is the artistic value, which is subjective.
Why is the artistic value subjective?
We are humans and as such we are limited to remaining in our material shells, without a possibility to see the world from a view of another person. We can communicate, but the communicaiton is never perfect because we may never know exactly what does the other person think ( we can assume with empathy ). But we may never be sure. Things considered the truth are being judged by the opinion of the majority. Comparing this to the flat world claim could look overexaggerated, but even in the world of nawadays, the opinions vary and develop. This means nothing is definite and/or absolute. Everything is being relative.
Furthermore, what are the ways we experience this world through. Our senses. Stop it right there. Senses?
But senses are again imperfect. What is e. g. vision? How do we see colours? The colour of the object is determined by the spectre of light it reflects and by the receptors adjusting the picture in our eyes. Can we ever definitely know the exact colour? Now if even such small differences are arguable, what about art.
For every 100 people that will say something is art you will find another who will say it is not.

of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

Beauty - a subjective factor and everything is subjective.
Appealing - well if porn wasn't appealing, the porn industry wouldn't be so profitable
More than ordinary significance - the famous motto: internet was made for porn. But I think it is out of discussion, since we all know how widespread the porn is.

having little or no artistic merit

Porn as all of the other forms of art has got its ups and downs. Every form of art has worthless pieces (now we are not talking whether this view is subjective or objective, worthless in this context is meant as not having worth from the viewpoint of the critics) as well as it has its great pieces. The thing is, none ever tried to look for the differences in porn "art", mostly the argument just ends with porn - art or not. But even the truth being, that the porn (if acknowledge) will surely have a much higher percentage of "thrash", it will have its masterpieces which will have deeper meanings (no matter how ridiculously it sounds) than the usual pieces. This also collides with the definition which alibistically tries to take these valuable pieces into the art category while leaving the "bad ones" behind.
Which leads to:

neoshagrath wrote: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. ).

So much for introduction.

Took some time to choose the right font size. Any other color with an almost white background is a pain in the eye.
Yay! Vacation! Be back in a week!

wow just wow

Porn and art are both unto each other. I think each has the "intent" driven by its creator. If I watch a video of pornography, and it seems as tho the intent is pornographic, then it is. But if i see the same film, and notice a certain lighting or camera shot that captures a moment, then inside the pornography is artistic design. It is my opinion that these two are intertwined with only each individual to decide for himself.

Why was The David made? To capture the beauty of the body? Would a man think it more or less artful than a woman? Oh, and i think there is a HUGE difference within this conversation between what art we consider "tasteful" based on values and curriculum that have been passed down thru the generations. We are affected each in differing ways by the same values, but the values are still what they are. Interpretation of these values on an individual basis is how we determine for ourselves what is art and what is porn, but there is no definitive answer, in my opinion, except to ourselves.

Can porn be art? Of course. The definition of porn includes "having little or no artistic value". Well, if it has some artistic value to someone it is art.

Lets face it some porns are better quality than others. The production values of pornographic movies was traditionally low, but is it possible to produce a high quality pornographic movie? Of course. It is art either way.

Just as the sculpture of the Virgin Mary from cow dung is reprehensible to me, the idea of filming adults involved in sexual acts may be reprehensible to others. Does it disqualify it from being art? No.

The quality of the work and its place in society can be debated. I was offended that the NEA gave the artist money to produce the cow dung sculpture, but its still art. Fine art? Not in my opinion.

I think it is outrageous that the NEA gave Maplethorpe public monies to produce photographs I find offensive. (If you don't know, GOOGLE it, I am not explaining it.) Is it art? Yes. Is it something I want to be celebrated and recognized and showcased in any museum I frequent? Hell no.

The quality and merits of artwork can be debated, not really whether its art or not. It is similar to calling Hitler or Stalin or even SadBuTrue* inhuman. As reprehensible as they are, biologically they are still human.

* Inside joke alert

you forgot Mao