I like that definition. I think Stephen Hero gives one very similar in the Joyce novel of the same name. I am quite interested in the topic of porn vs. art. Many undoubtedly artistic writers - Henry Miller, William Burroughs, Anais Nin, Georges Bataille (Susan Sontag called Story of the Eye, 'the most accomplished artistically of all pornographic prose I've read') etc - feature extreme pornography in their writings but it is usually contextualised or employed in a self-referential way that makes the reader question his own arousal/blushing. For me, artistic exploration of the sex drive can yield profound insights into wider life when it is done aesthetically. When, as you say, such motivation becomes gratuitous sensual indulgence to be consumed, we have mindless porn. French literature gets 'sicker, earlier' than English as it didn't suffer the repression of Comstockian sensibilities. (Anthony Comstock was a moral reformer who passed laws to ban many 'obscene' texts flowing from the 'Bohemian' Greenwich village district of New York and further afield.) De Sade is an interesting case. 120 Days of Sodom is basically 800 pages of child-rape and sexual deviancy, yet it's often not considered pornographic because it isn't erotic; it's brutally and coarsely functional. However, pornography today seems to be similar, with an increasing prevelence in sadistic domination/degradation of women. 120 days is notable because it presents an extreme in discourse on the philosophy of the body and writers such as Sartre and Merleau-Ponty explore its themes. It's a very strange book - almost laughably crude, horribly overlong, deathly boring after a hundred pages and probably the most extreme thing ever written. De Sade's hedonism is so joyless one can only agree with Sartre that sadism leads to frustration. If you're interested in reading it, the Grove Press version has an excellent introductory essay by Simone de Beauvoir, expounding the philosophical themes of the owner/object divide. I am also reminded of the work of Hermann Nitsch. Nitsch is an Austrian artist and recalls the tradition of the Viennese 'destruction laboratory of the world' (Hitler, Wittegenstein, Loos, Schoenberg, Freud). His work features dissected cows and crucified pigs. Often human performers roll around naked underneath these grizzly spectacles, copulating or masturbating frantically. An extremely controversial artist, he has accumulated a significant amount of academic respect over time, as well as at least one allegation of sexual harassment. Here are some of his most famous (non sexual) works. I often wonder if he influenced the band Carcass. Nitsch interests me because he completes the opening of the inner-body to aesthetic exploration. Freud opened the mind; Nitsch opens the chest.
Nitsch is so Jewish. I saw an interview on TV where the interviewer talked to him at home - only Nitsch had very little to say and came across as if he wasn't enthusiastic about his art at all. He didn't want to explain it, and gave the impression that it was just spectacle and nothing more. With him were two really characture-like hooknosed friends. Quote Nile577 That's a good point. I have heard that many porn stars are disgusted with the way that porn is becoming less about sex and more about shock value - usually involving violence.
I think the question to ask here is: What is the purpose of art? My answer would be to stimulate the imagination. As for myself, if I take this as being the definition, porn would not fit in this category. I find porn to be thoughtless. It is the act itself, and nothing more. Art takes your mind beyond the art itself and into higher realms of thought.
Would it be recommended then that a website such as this has a warning that this is not brought forth to be mindless sexual material but thought provoking art? Would artwork that sits on the border line of art and pornography need to explain its self? When I looked at those photos it definitely provoked me to think about the situation and (with the photos "before" the roping) what led up to it. I think this takes back to the old question of before, is it the artist or the viewer who says if it is art or porn? Wow, this is a horrible circle.
It's not really porn.. I think you should post your art in deviantart.com, most of people there will give you realistic critics and they won't say it's porn. @ everyone :sorry btw if this is a bit off-topic
Holy crap. I think those images that Nile posted just scarred me for life. I'm not kidding either. It's one thing to see a person crucified, but did there have to be a cow behind it. with it's body nearly torn in half?
I think I've done too much hunting, field-dressing and butchering in my time...a little healthy evisceration carries no shock value for me. Though there were certainly no masturbatory moments or crucifixions involved...I suppose that's what takes that imagery over the top. Nile may be onto something with the Carcass influence though.
What confuses me though is how someone could possibly be turned on by something like CRUCIFYING LIVESTOCK!! Just the thought of those pictures sickens me to no end, let alone picturing someone masturbating to it.
Not being familiar(mercifully perhaps) with this 'artist' I may be off base, but if I read Nile's description correctly I think the sexual component was technically part of the imagery, as opposed to a reaction/response to it. Though I'm not sure that makes it any less bizarre one way or the other. It's diffferent, there is no doubt of that.
Ptah Khnemu, I couldn't agree more. Torturing animals as done in that work is not Art. It's sadistic, immoral and criminal as far as I'm concerned.
the bare feet (or in pantyhose) instead of feet wearing shoes would be definately considered porn to someone with a foot-fetish (the most common fetish for the male gender)
no women have breasts and men don't so a guy having a breast fetish just means he's hetero instead of homo it would be like saying a female has a penis fetish a guy that likes big breasts would be a completely seperate fetish from a guy that likes pointed "perky" boobs anyway
Breasts maybe the most popular and common female feature for males. But a foot fetish is different because both males and females have feet. I don't quite understand the foot fetish deal... I don't really like feet.
being atracted to breasts shouldn't count as a fetish because genetically human females are supposed to have boobs big enough to dramatically change shape when you put on or take off a bra anything smaller is a mutation or hormone inbalance of some kind males have different fetishes than females, so while a foot fetish is the most common for males, it's the least common for females i can only think of 2 female celebs with the foot fetish but i can't remember their names right now
Since this thread has already degraded into nonsense, I must say, breasts are a weird thing for me. I am externally attracted to large breasts; but when presented with said unadorned bosoms, I become quite bored with them. Does any other male find they have the same feeling towards breasts? External attraction to them, but in terms of intimacy, one feels them absolutely non-important. Almost as if, why the hell did I care about the size of her tits in the first place? And furthermore, I contend that the size and shape of the nipples, not the actual size of the bosoms, are far more important. Im just curious, hehe.
