Art and Nudity, Gratification of Natural Beauty or Realization of Carnal Desire?
- Thread starter Kaze Araki
- Start date
[quote name='Kaze Araki']When it comes to depiction of nudity, what are the qualifications in separating Arts from prurient interests? Is the dichotomy valid to begin with?[/QUOTE]
Anyway, when it is not pornography, it is art. But then what constitutes pornography? Well, engaging in a sexual activity(and we know what they are). If that's absent, we then can call nudity art.
But then, what about Fetishistic art? I still will consider it art rather than pornography, because we know not all of us has libido, for example, for a decapitated female body.
Anyway, when it is not pornography, it is art. But then what constitutes pornography? Well, engaging in a sexual activity(and we know what they are). If that's absent, we then can call nudity art.
But then, what about Fetishistic art? I still will consider it art rather than pornography, because we know not all of us has libido, for example, for a decapitated female body.
I agree with Hadriel here. Depicting people having sex can still be art.
I suppose its also the motive behind it that determines it a bit. When you aim to just depict sex so people can fap to it, its porn, if your motive is to move people in a way, its art. The line can be a bit blurry at times I suppose.
I suppose its also the motive behind it that determines it a bit. When you aim to just depict sex so people can fap to it, its porn, if your motive is to move people in a way, its art. The line can be a bit blurry at times I suppose.
[quote name=''[lexus'];87736']I agree with Hadriel here. Depicting people having sex can still be art.
I suppose its also the motive behind it that determines it a bit. When you aim to just depict sex so people can fap to it, its porn, if your motive is to move people in a way, its art. The line can be a bit blurry at times I suppose.[/QUOTE]
It's blurry because of the differing perspectives different people have. What comes across as art to a person may be perceived as pornography by another. There really isn't a clear line we can draw.
I suppose its also the motive behind it that determines it a bit. When you aim to just depict sex so people can fap to it, its porn, if your motive is to move people in a way, its art. The line can be a bit blurry at times I suppose.[/QUOTE]
It's blurry because of the differing perspectives different people have. What comes across as art to a person may be perceived as pornography by another. There really isn't a clear line we can draw.
[quote name=''[lexus'];87736']I agree with Hadriel here. Depicting people having sex can still be art.
I suppose its also the motive behind it that determines it a bit. When you aim to just depict sex so people can fap to it, its porn, if your motive is to move people in a way, its art. The line can be a bit blurry at times I suppose.[/QUOTE]If the intent is to arouse people, it's porn. If the intent isn't meant to arouse, even when depicting a sexual activity(which can be arousing), it's art. But here comes the problem, how would we know if it's art or porn - if there is no implication of either in such materials.
Oh, and it does varies from one person to another: A painting in which youknow, might be considered beautiful and divine art, but in the eyes of another person, it's a disgusting act of sexual perversion presented by the painter which targets people who are into perverted material. You see, it is harder to determine if its is art, because there is a sexual act in it.
I suppose its also the motive behind it that determines it a bit. When you aim to just depict sex so people can fap to it, its porn, if your motive is to move people in a way, its art. The line can be a bit blurry at times I suppose.[/QUOTE]If the intent is to arouse people, it's porn. If the intent isn't meant to arouse, even when depicting a sexual activity(which can be arousing), it's art. But here comes the problem, how would we know if it's art or porn - if there is no implication of either in such materials.
Oh, and it does varies from one person to another: A painting in which youknow, might be considered beautiful and divine art, but in the eyes of another person, it's a disgusting act of sexual perversion presented by the painter which targets people who are into perverted material. You see, it is harder to determine if its is art, because there is a sexual act in it.
[quote name='Biomega']If the intent is to arouse people, it's porn. If the intent isn't meant to arouse, even when depicting a sexual activity(which can be arousing), it's art. But here comes the problem, how would we know if it's art or porn - if there is no implication of either in such materials.
Oh, and it does varies from one person to another: A painting in which youknow, might be considered beautiful and divine art, but in the eyes of another person, it's a disgusting act of sexual perversion presented by the painter which targets people who are into perverted material. You see, it is harder to determine if its is art, because there is a sexual act in it.[/QUOTE]
Can you give me an example of something that has no clear implication of whether it was meant to arouse or something else? Im curious to how that would look like.
Oh, and it does varies from one person to another: A painting in which youknow, might be considered beautiful and divine art, but in the eyes of another person, it's a disgusting act of sexual perversion presented by the painter which targets people who are into perverted material. You see, it is harder to determine if its is art, because there is a sexual act in it.[/QUOTE]
Can you give me an example of something that has no clear implication of whether it was meant to arouse or something else? Im curious to how that would look like.
[quote name='Kaze Araki']One may argue that intercourse itself is art.[/QUOTE]I haven't seen many life acts, but I have watched Hermann Nitsch performing intercourse during one of his life his acts(the one in which the cut open a lamb, and put the viscera onto a naked a lady, where she and Nitsch engage in an intercourse) - I would still consider this as art, because it was a part of an act, and the intent was to show the beauty of occult-like rituals, not for you to get all awaken. As I have stated before, the set and the setting aren't suitable for people to have libido(unless you are a complete gore fetishist).
The act of intercourse, in any kind of art medium(even 8 bit games), is sexually arousing. Us, Humans, will kindly react to such visual stimulation. I am sure no one is attracted to their parents, but if they engage in a sexual act, you too get aroused -- due to the act of intercourse.
You see, it's all in the intent, whether it is meant for sexual pleasure or to contemplate art's hidden deep meaning, and in the fashion in which it's visualised and presented.
[quote name=''[lexus'];88082']Can you give me an example of something that has no clear implication of whether it was meant to arouse or something else? Im curious to how that would look like.[/QUOTE]I would've, but it is a PG-13 site, remember?
The act of intercourse, in any kind of art medium(even 8 bit games), is sexually arousing. Us, Humans, will kindly react to such visual stimulation. I am sure no one is attracted to their parents, but if they engage in a sexual act, you too get aroused -- due to the act of intercourse.
You see, it's all in the intent, whether it is meant for sexual pleasure or to contemplate art's hidden deep meaning, and in the fashion in which it's visualised and presented.
[quote name=''[lexus'];88082']Can you give me an example of something that has no clear implication of whether it was meant to arouse or something else? Im curious to how that would look like.[/QUOTE]I would've, but it is a PG-13 site, remember?
When isnt it art? Its always art. The type of things people draw reflect their emotions and what not. I'm a tad bit sexual than most for god knows what reason and a lot of times I have innuendo's in my art work. But its part of my creativity and how I am, not because I'm horny. Sexual energy =/= horny. The only time the art is worth less is when its delibritly drawn just for other people to wack off for, in my opinion. Even then its still art.
0
[quote name=''[lexus'];88738']You can pm me right?[/QUOTE]
Wow! You really want that porn. :confused2:
Nudity is fine so long as it's done tastefully. I'll give an example that should be easily accessible for comparitve purposes. Compare Claymore to Onamori Himari.
The nudity in Claymore is used to depict the female body in terms of beauty and ugliness. Some of the Claymores have voluptuous bodies (Teresa), bodies that would make Aphrodite feel insecure (Galatea) while some of the Claymores have ugly, nigh deformed bodies (forgot that chick who could bulk up her muscles like a man but there are quite a few of them). Nudity is portrayed both tastefully and within context. For example you won't catch a Claymore stripping down to her skivvies in combat but she will be nude while bathing. The nudity is there to portray the beauty and ugliness not just in the nature of being a Claymore (half-human half-monster) but also the beauty and ugliness in people as a race (good contra evil). The nudity in Claymore is also used to make the Claymore look vulnerable. They are half-human half-monster, women warriors who can tear a man in half with their bare hands. But when they're not wearing armor (or anything for that matter) they appear vulnerable.
If we look at Onamori Himari on the otherhand every other page has a panty shot. The females in this thing are not above stripping at the dinner table, dry humping the main character in the middle of a cafe, and it seems that every battle begins and ends in the tearing of clothing. When the females aren't fighting they're trying to bang (or get banged by) the main character. The nudity, and there is a good deal of it, is used to arouse rather than to portray any particular idea worthy of merit.
Both Claymore and Onamori Himari can both be seen as rated-R (although Claymore more so for violence), you would see pieces from Claymore in an art musuem while you are more likely to see the pages of Onamori at your local 7 Eleven.
The piece can have nudity, it can even have sex. If the aim of the piece is to inspire thought or revelation then you have art. If the aim of the piece is to arouse then you have porn. Of course an astute thinker might say, "Well what if the piece inspires me to be aroused?" That's called having your cake and eating it too. Of course it doesn't change the fact that the piece in question is porn, i.e., trash.
Any questions?
[quote name=''[lexus'];88738']You can pm me right?[/QUOTE]
Wow! You really want that porn. :confused2:
Nudity is fine so long as it's done tastefully. I'll give an example that should be easily accessible for comparitve purposes. Compare Claymore to Onamori Himari.
The nudity in Claymore is used to depict the female body in terms of beauty and ugliness. Some of the Claymores have voluptuous bodies (Teresa), bodies that would make Aphrodite feel insecure (Galatea) while some of the Claymores have ugly, nigh deformed bodies (forgot that chick who could bulk up her muscles like a man but there are quite a few of them). Nudity is portrayed both tastefully and within context. For example you won't catch a Claymore stripping down to her skivvies in combat but she will be nude while bathing. The nudity is there to portray the beauty and ugliness not just in the nature of being a Claymore (half-human half-monster) but also the beauty and ugliness in people as a race (good contra evil). The nudity in Claymore is also used to make the Claymore look vulnerable. They are half-human half-monster, women warriors who can tear a man in half with their bare hands. But when they're not wearing armor (or anything for that matter) they appear vulnerable.
If we look at Onamori Himari on the otherhand every other page has a panty shot. The females in this thing are not above stripping at the dinner table, dry humping the main character in the middle of a cafe, and it seems that every battle begins and ends in the tearing of clothing. When the females aren't fighting they're trying to bang (or get banged by) the main character. The nudity, and there is a good deal of it, is used to arouse rather than to portray any particular idea worthy of merit.
Both Claymore and Onamori Himari can both be seen as rated-R (although Claymore more so for violence), you would see pieces from Claymore in an art musuem while you are more likely to see the pages of Onamori at your local 7 Eleven.
The piece can have nudity, it can even have sex. If the aim of the piece is to inspire thought or revelation then you have art. If the aim of the piece is to arouse then you have porn. Of course an astute thinker might say, "Well what if the piece inspires me to be aroused?" That's called having your cake and eating it too. Of course it doesn't change the fact that the piece in question is porn, i.e., trash.
Any questions?
[quote name='Biomega']Why did you use manga as examples?[/QUOTE]
The information is more easily accessible for comparative purposes. Also, given the fact that this is a manga site it seemed far more appropriate. In addition to that if we need to pass around pages (pictures that [lexus] so desperately wants) then we'd have a permissible level of freedom to work with given content and subject matter. That is why I chose manga.
It is also easier to put forth my main argument, i.e., "The piece can have nudity, it can even have sex. If the aim of the piece is to inspire thought or revelation then you have art. If the aim of the piece is to arouse then you have porn."
The information is more easily accessible for comparative purposes. Also, given the fact that this is a manga site it seemed far more appropriate. In addition to that if we need to pass around pages (pictures that [lexus] so desperately wants) then we'd have a permissible level of freedom to work with given content and subject matter. That is why I chose manga.
It is also easier to put forth my main argument, i.e., "The piece can have nudity, it can even have sex. If the aim of the piece is to inspire thought or revelation then you have art. If the aim of the piece is to arouse then you have porn."
[quote name='ZERO PHOENIX']It is also easier to put forth my main argument, i.e., "The piece can have nudity, it can even have sex. If the aim of the piece is to inspire thought or revelation then you have art. If the aim of the piece is to arouse then you have porn."[/QUOTE]Wasn't this our(whoever posted here) main argument from the beginning?
Oh well, I have to put up a different argument.
Here, you said that you can even have sex in a piece. But people can't make a right out distinction if it's art for us to contemplate or porn to youknow - because it has a sexual act, people will easily get stimulated by a scene with the sexual content. The more erotic it is, the more it is artistically devaluated, this intrinsically makes it porn, you have said so yourself:
In the Claymore(boy, I shouldn't have deleted from my drive(108 chapters illegally obtained!
I was on the where the main Characters Kill her sister) example, you have showed that us that nudity can be expressed as art. Stylishly representing the beautiful structure of the female body, and whatever mishaps that follows. Here, with emphasize, there is no mention of act of sex or other erotic activity.
In this second example(don't know that manga), you said that it directly shows female as a subject of sex -- which gives us a sexual urge(despite the manga character aren't human looking to begin with). And you said it's porn.
But then, if we come back to your second post, you said it can even have sex. But from all the example you have given, you only showed sex as a tool to arouse - exterminating the artistic value of that particular piece ergo it's porn and not art(when you said it's art, it isn't). And also, let's not forget the level of erotism it represents. Of course, sex doesn't automatically means it's porn, as I have shown in my previous example of Hermann Nitsch.
What say you?
Oh well, I have to put up a different argument.
Here, you said that you can even have sex in a piece. But people can't make a right out distinction if it's art for us to contemplate or porn to youknow - because it has a sexual act, people will easily get stimulated by a scene with the sexual content. The more erotic it is, the more it is artistically devaluated, this intrinsically makes it porn, you have said so yourself:
In the Claymore(boy, I shouldn't have deleted from my drive(108 chapters illegally obtained!
I was on the where the main Characters Kill her sister) example, you have showed that us that nudity can be expressed as art. Stylishly representing the beautiful structure of the female body, and whatever mishaps that follows. Here, with emphasize, there is no mention of act of sex or other erotic activity.In this second example(don't know that manga), you said that it directly shows female as a subject of sex -- which gives us a sexual urge(despite the manga character aren't human looking to begin with). And you said it's porn.
But then, if we come back to your second post, you said it can even have sex. But from all the example you have given, you only showed sex as a tool to arouse - exterminating the artistic value of that particular piece ergo it's porn and not art(when you said it's art, it isn't). And also, let's not forget the level of erotism it represents. Of course, sex doesn't automatically means it's porn, as I have shown in my previous example of Hermann Nitsch.
What say you?
Sigh
I suppose I need to be anal specific.
[quote name='Biomega']Wasn't this our(whoever posted here) main argument from the beginning?[/QUOTE]
Yeah.
[quote name='Biomega']Here, you said that you can even have sex in a piece. But people can't make a right out distinction if it's art for us to contemplate or porn to youknow - because it has a sexual act, people will easily get stimulated by a scene with the sexual content. The more erotic it is, the more it is artistically devaluated, this intrinsically makes it porn, you have said so yourself:[/QUOTE]
In a manner of speaking yes. The act of love making is fine, but the more erotic one makes the act the more they exploit it and thus they lean closer and closer towards porn. As I said twice already, if the aim of the piece is to inspire or reveal some manner of higher thought it is art, if the aim is to arouse then it is porn.
[quote name='Biomega']In the Claymore(boy, I shouldn't have deleted from my drive(108 chapters illegally obtained![/QUOTE]
www.stoptazmo.com
[quote name='Biomega'] I was on the where the main Characters Kill her sister) example, you have showed that us that nudity can be expressed as art. Stylishly representing the beautiful structure of the female body, and whatever mishaps that follows. Here, with emphasize, there is no mention of act of sex or other erotic activity.[/QUOTE]
Noted.
[quote name='Biomega']In this second example(don't know that manga), you said that it directly shows female as a subject of sex -- which gives us a sexual urge(despite the manga character aren't human looking to begin with). And you said it's porn.[/QUOTE]
Yeah.
[quote name='Biomega']But then, if we come back to your second post, you said it can even have sex. But from all the example you have given, you only showed sex as a tool to arouse - exterminating the artistic value of that particular piece ergo it's porn and not art(when you said it's art, it isn't). And also, let's not forget the level of erotism it represents. Of course, sex doesn't automatically means it's porn, as I have shown in my previous example of Hermann Nitsch.
What say you?[/QUOTE]
I did say that sex could be portrayed as art and it could be done tastefully. Just because I didn't specifically choose an example of sex being used tastefully, that does not mean I object to sex being used as the subject of art. I fail to see how your counter-argument compromises my position.
I suppose I need to be anal specific.
[quote name='Biomega']Wasn't this our(whoever posted here) main argument from the beginning?[/QUOTE]
Yeah.
[quote name='Biomega']Here, you said that you can even have sex in a piece. But people can't make a right out distinction if it's art for us to contemplate or porn to youknow - because it has a sexual act, people will easily get stimulated by a scene with the sexual content. The more erotic it is, the more it is artistically devaluated, this intrinsically makes it porn, you have said so yourself:[/QUOTE]
In a manner of speaking yes. The act of love making is fine, but the more erotic one makes the act the more they exploit it and thus they lean closer and closer towards porn. As I said twice already, if the aim of the piece is to inspire or reveal some manner of higher thought it is art, if the aim is to arouse then it is porn.
[quote name='Biomega']In the Claymore(boy, I shouldn't have deleted from my drive(108 chapters illegally obtained!
[/QUOTE]www.stoptazmo.com
[quote name='Biomega'] I was on the where the main Characters Kill her sister) example, you have showed that us that nudity can be expressed as art. Stylishly representing the beautiful structure of the female body, and whatever mishaps that follows. Here, with emphasize, there is no mention of act of sex or other erotic activity.[/QUOTE]
Noted.
[quote name='Biomega']In this second example(don't know that manga), you said that it directly shows female as a subject of sex -- which gives us a sexual urge(despite the manga character aren't human looking to begin with). And you said it's porn.[/QUOTE]
Yeah.
[quote name='Biomega']But then, if we come back to your second post, you said it can even have sex. But from all the example you have given, you only showed sex as a tool to arouse - exterminating the artistic value of that particular piece ergo it's porn and not art(when you said it's art, it isn't). And also, let's not forget the level of erotism it represents. Of course, sex doesn't automatically means it's porn, as I have shown in my previous example of Hermann Nitsch.
What say you?[/QUOTE]
I did say that sex could be portrayed as art and it could be done tastefully. Just because I didn't specifically choose an example of sex being used tastefully, that does not mean I object to sex being used as the subject of art. I fail to see how your counter-argument compromises my position.