|
Post by >>The Neon One on Oct 15, 2003 1:52:13 GMT -5
As an artist, this is a hot topic for me (and not as in the store XD).
What is the boundry between artistic nudity and pornography?
In my opinion, the essential difference lies in the intent. Although the intent of art is not always obvious, in this case, it is obvious enough to distinguish it from porn. The intent of artistic nudity is to glorify the human body, use the body symbolicly, or, if it's a time-period piece, to acurately portray a time period. Much of the most famous, greatest works of art contain nudity (eg.- The Ceiling of the Sistine Chapal, the Statue of David, Botecelli's The Birth of Venus, Sculpture of Apollo and Daphne, Leonardo's study of proportions.... shall I go on?)
Porn is about sex. Pure sex. And not even suggesting anything about sex. Sex sometimes appears in art as an examination of the act or using the act symbolicly. Porn is sex for the sake of sex. Nudity for the sake of OBJECTIFYING the body. Art never treats the body like an object unless it is satirical. Porn always objectifies the body.
Artistic nudity is "clean" nudity for art's sake, I guess you'd say. If that makes any sense.
Where do you draw the line?
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Oct 15, 2003 13:53:06 GMT -5
Yes, it's definitely intent. As far as I know, there isn't really any artwork that muddles the line between porn and art. That may not be the case for porn - there's probably some guy who made porn into art somewhere - but it's still far on its side most of the time. But what if, say, a famous artist draws a porn-like pastel paint of people having sex and/or some perverted stuff? Is THAT art? If, say, hehe, Picasso got really horny and drew that kind of stuff, is it porn? I say yes. Definitely intent. Check this link out, it's relevant and very interesting: 120seconds.com/features/011207_naked/011207_naked.html
|
|
|
Post by >>The Neon One on Oct 15, 2003 17:33:16 GMT -5
That link is way cool. Very, very interesting site =D
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Oct 15, 2003 21:04:22 GMT -5
Yes, that was a very interesting site. Sort of freaky though. I don't know why. Maybe it is the sound effects that they put in. Very effective.
|
|
|
Post by >>The Neon One on Dec 11, 2003 18:01:26 GMT -5
Sorry to revive a fairly old topic, but this just came up in my government class today:
Is it right to re-carve over already existing nude scuptures in order to cover up their nudity?
Yes, this actually does happen, as disgusting as it may seem. John Ashcroft paid a huge sum of money to cover Justice's left breast.
In my opinion, it is absolutely rediculous to destroy artwork. Period. End of story.
But apparently some people disagree with me. People in my class even @_@;. (of course, those were fundamentalist extremist conservatives who find it possible to justify McCarthey-ism AND the bombing of abortion clinics so...)
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Dec 11, 2003 18:18:29 GMT -5
whAT?! That's just as stupid as repainting the background of the Mona Lisa to a space scene...by a monkey! If the artist didn't put it in, nobody has the authority to.
|
|
|
Post by geneva on Dec 13, 2003 2:09:14 GMT -5
ah but if the work is something like a statue in a public place (and i don;'t mean art meuseums either, i mean like, city squares or whatever) is it alright to subject people to such views if they don't want to see it?
(i am not supportive of the changing of art for the most part by the way, just providing counter-arguement)
also on the same subject: restoration of old paintings, is it alright to restore something to it's original form even if someone other than the artist is essetially "re-doing" it?
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Dec 13, 2003 2:53:49 GMT -5
Restoration, I think, is fine. Although, I never really thought about it until you brought it up...hmm...
And if you want to change a sculpture in a public place without permission first, I think you're better off just moving it.
|
|
|
Post by Hans Lemurson on Dec 14, 2003 2:33:37 GMT -5
During one of the world's fairs in the '30s there was to be displayed, a painting of a woman (I forget the context, or what it was representing, maybe it was grief or some other emotion...) which had her breasts exposed, and it provoked some public outcry. Eventually they came to a compromise, and the painting was changed so that only one of her breasts was exposed, and this satisfied the conservative groups and the artist, who agreed that it maintained the principle of modesty, while still conveying the artistic effect.
So if a single exposed breast was acceptable to the generation of Ashcroft's parents, why should he have such a huge objection to a similar statue that had provoked no outrage, and had obviously been placed there by someone for a purpose?
('cause Ashcroft is a dipwad)
|
|
|
Post by >>The Neon One on Dec 14, 2003 13:32:59 GMT -5
agreeed.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Dec 14, 2003 14:14:59 GMT -5
I also agree that art is the work of the artist and should not be changed unless the artist agrees to it. I see nothing wrong with artistic nudidty as it isn't promoting sex.
|
|
|
Post by Hans Lemurson on Dec 16, 2003 1:17:48 GMT -5
Here, here!
Porn focuses only on lust, to stir up the banal instincts, whereas the nudity in art focuses on emotion, or the beauty of the human form.
|
|
DarkJaguar
Junior Member
I am taking over the world! With Evil Empress's help of course!
Posts: 61
|
Post by DarkJaguar on Feb 22, 2004 2:35:35 GMT -5
porn is to make you horny, art is to make you think and feel.
|
|
|
Post by >>The Neon One on Feb 22, 2004 18:56:06 GMT -5
:: applause::
|
|
Tsear
Member
Queso means cheese
Posts: 143
|
Post by Tsear on Feb 23, 2004 10:41:59 GMT -5
Sorry to revive a fairly old topic, but this just came up in my government class today: Is it right to re-carve over already existing nude scuptures in order to cover up their nudity? Yes, this actually does happen, as disgusting as it may seem. John Ashcroft paid a huge sum of money to cover Justice's left breast. In my opinion, it is absolutely rediculous to destroy artwork. Period. End of story. But apparently some people disagree with me. People in my class even @_@;. (of course, those were fundamentalist extremist conservatives who find it possible to justify McCarthey-ism AND the bombing of abortion clinics so...) NO. Don't change art, it's good as it is! It's a style of art, and if you can't deal with some nudity you're a fundamentalist creep or Mormon. Or both. Or maybe you just don't understand anything. GAAH!!! HOW COULD SOMEONE BE SO STUPID!!! Sorry...
|
|