Art, Erotica, and Porn

[Sunstone]

I think a distinction can and should be drawn between art nudes, erotic nudes, and pornographic nudes.

Pornographic nudes are, by definition, both about sex and degrading to the model.

Erotic nudes are, by definition, both about sex and not degrading to the model.

Art nudes are, by definition, neither about sex nor degrading to the model.

Let the debate begin!

 

[Father Heathen]

Would a couple who, for their own enjoyment, filmed themselves engaging in kinky fetishes and intercourse be considered degrading?

 

[Sunstone]

Would a couple filming themselves engaging in kinky fetishes and intercourse be considered degrading?

Not necessarily. It would be degrading if and only if the couple somehow managed to artistically reduce themselves to nothing more than their sexuality. That is, if they made themselves completely one dimensional.

 

[Father Heathen]

Not necessarily. It would be degrading if and only if the couple somehow managed to artistically reduce themselves to nothing more than their sexuality. That is, if they made themselves completely one dimensional.

Would you consider an average session of sex one dimensional?

 

[Sunstone]

Would you consider an average session of sex one dimensional?

An average session? I wouldn't really know what an average session is. But my hunch is that most people -- especially experienced people -- do not have one dimensional sex very often.

 

[Father Heathen]

An average session? I wouldn't really know what an average session is. But my hunch is that most people -- especially experienced people -- do not have one dimensional sex very often.

And a video of such would be pornographic, but not necessarily degrading, right?

 

[Sunstone]

And a video of such would be pornographic, but not necessarily degrading, right?

It would be pornographic if and only if it were degrading. Otherwise, it would just be erotic.

 

[Sunstone]

Anyone want to tackle this?

 

[Heneni]

The OP was pretty clear,and seems correct. Thank goodness for the net. Else I wouldnt have had a brain of my own. Im not allowed to have one. :slap:

But perhaps id like to add, that its not only about the degrading of the model but the degrading of the observer as well. What the observer does with that which he observes can either degrade him/her or not.


Heneni

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I think there is, of course, a subjective element in this, as there is in any discussion about aesthetics. The experience of the model and the audience play a major role in whether something is degrading or artistic.

For example, I experience a lot of what most would consider pornography as erotic, because I experience it from an imaginary view of the model. In other words, I project my own erotic emotions onto the model I am observing. The model his or herself may experience something wholly different, and I suspect that for a majority of professional porn stars, it's something akin to disinterest.

(Note, though, that I find the majority of professional pornography rather boring and...stale.)

But I think your distinction is well thought-out.

 

[Sunstone]

I think there is, of course, a subjective element in this, as there is in any discussion about aesthetics.

That's very true. But, in some ways, the subject aspect of it doesn't seem to have much affect on whether the distinctions are useful. For instance, you and I might disagree over whether video X was porn or not, but we might still agree that porn is distinguished by being an art form involving sex which degrades its model. So, the distinction could still be valuable to us in forming a common terminology for discussion.

(Note, though, that I find the majority of professional pornography rather boring and...stale.)

I'm not surprised.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

That's very true. But, in some ways, the subject aspect of it doesn't seem to have much affect on whether the distinctions are useful. For instance, you and I might disagree over whether video X was porn or not, but we might still agree that porn is distinguished by being an art form involving sex which degrades its model. So, the distinction could still be valuable to us in forming a common terminology for discussion.

A great point! I just find it useful to bring up the matter whenever discussing such things lest we get tangled in subjective loopholes.

 

[Worshipper]

Pornographic nudes are, by definition, both about sex and degrading to the model.

Erotic nudes are, by definition, both about sex and not degrading to the model.

Art nudes are, by definition, neither about sex nor degrading to the model.

I agree with this (though I would classify erotica as a subcategory of art).

But not with this:

Not necessarily. It would be degrading if and only if the couple somehow managed to artistically reduce themselves to nothing more than their sexuality. That is, if they made themselves completely one dimensional.

I don't think a focus solely on sex has to be degrading. I think you can have art that focusses solely on sex without being degrading.

I think that degradation comes in when the subject is treated less than fully human. Sex is part of humanity, so an exclusive focus on sex focusses on something that's human. An exclusive focus on sex is no more inherently degrading, I think, than an exclusive focus on bravery, or wisdom, or cattle-roping, or any other part of the human experience. The degradation isn't from the breadth of the focus.

Otherwise, we'd be saying that there's something inherently base about sex, and that unless a portrayal of sex is mixed with some other mitigating element of the human existence, then it is degrading.

Or do you think that an artwork that focusses solely on cattle-roping would also be degrading?

 

[rojse]

Question: What's the difference between art and porn?
Answer: A government grant.

 

[Yerda]

I think a distinction can and should be drawn between art nudes, erotic nudes, and pornographic nudes.

Pornographic nudes are, by definition, both about sex and degrading to the model.

Erotic nudes are, by definition, both about sex and not degrading to the model.

Art nudes are, by definition, neither about sex nor degrading to the model.

Let the debate begin!

I'm not really sure. What led you to these definitions?

Why do you think a distinction is necessary?

 

[RobGelber]

Interesting distinctions, Sunstone! I'm also curious about the purpose of making these distinctions. It seems to me that you're setting up an opposition in order to condemn certain things.

Pornography = bad.
Erotica & Art = ok/good.

With these distinctions in place a person could write ethical theory and legal code.

While I dislike the negative connotations that go along with the term, I generally define pornography as material designed to arouse sexual feelings in the viewer and containing explicit depictions of sex. I use this definition to try to shave off some of the value judgments that seem inherent in the language often used to discuss this kind of topic. You can do art about sex that isn't porn or you can create porn art as well the way that some authors have created literary masterpieces out of genres that we ordinarily think of as pulp.

So we might go back to an assumption of the question. Why do you think certain forms of sexually oriented material are degrading to the model?

 

[Ozzie]

I think a distinction can and should be drawn between art nudes, erotic nudes, and pornographic nudes.

Pornographic nudes are, by definition, both about sex and degrading to the model.

Erotic nudes are, by definition, both about sex and not degrading to the model.

Art nudes are, by definition, neither about sex nor degrading to the model.

Let the debate begin!

To take it one step further, photographic nudes (though obscured) of children have been a subject of controversy over here this year as to whether these images are pornographic. For example: PM - Bill Henson shows 'society exploits children in eroticised ways'. Google Bill Henson to know more.

In general I disagree photographic nudes not intended to be erotic, are pornographic, though when the subject of an essay is 12 that is debatable in my opinion.

Should be an interesting discussion.

 

[Women_Of_Reason]

I think a distinction can and should be drawn between art nudes, erotic nudes, and pornographic nudes.

Pornographic nudes are, by definition, both about sex and degrading to the model.

What is degrading to you in pornography?

 

[Sunstone]

What is degrading to you in pornography?

Good question! Read the thread.

 

[Sunstone]

To take it one step further, photographic nudes (though obscured) of children have been a subject of controversy over here this year as to whether these images are pornographic. For example: PM - Bill Henson shows 'society exploits children in eroticised ways'. Google Bill Henson to know more.

In general I disagree photographic nudes not intended to be erotic, are pornographic, though when the subject of an essay is 12 that is debatable in my opinion.

Should be an interesting discussion.

Are you suggesting that an image of a nude 12 year old is intrinsically pornographic? And if so, do you consider nudity intrinsically pornographic?