PORN v ART

[Benson_Media]

I had some 'normal' friends round last night and as usual the subject got around to my work.

Followed by a nauseating twitter about whether porn has any merit as art.

I'm sure you could, with a gun to the head toss one off to the Mona Lisa but generally I would classify porn's sole function as 'wank material'. See below:

[img]http://www.petgirls.com/promo/valentina-preview.jpg[/img]

[one eyed jack]

Is the whole art vs porn thing subjective?

What is art? Everyone thinks they know it when they see it and yes some peoples work is clearly artistic.

I remeber looking into a Jeff Koons book and seeing a huge double spread of what i presume was Jeff Koons cock up La Cicciolinas arse hole and some comment near it like mans inhumanity to man or some such arty shit like that.

My point is Ive seen load of pics with cocks up a girls arse. Mind you I couldnt see the face of those fucker and the fuckee so maybe it wasnt even them but it was in his book and it seems the only thing artisitic about that cock up the arse was the statement that accompanied the picture.

I can appreciate a well shot film even if its overly artistic but because its so good to look at I cant emote with it on a wank level or at least I havent found a piece of art that has made me feel that way yet.

Maybe you can hold that thought in your mind and jack off to it later so I guess art can work on that level but who would want to bash one out tothe Monal Lisa when you can see cate Harrington in all her naked glory in the centrefold of Escort???

[BigMattyP]

This picture seems preety artistic to me Benson but then.... I am a simple soul

[Peter]

BigMattyP wrote:

> This picture seems preety artistic to me

Nah, it needs to have shadows and be in black and white for it to be art!

Tits in black and white is automatically art.

[SpunkySam]

I totally agree that porn is basically for wanking off to but there's nothing that says it cant also be artistic, now to me that looks great its framed well and lit well and the subject matter is gorgeous i wouldn't hang it on my wall but i can appreciate what went into it.

So filth monger whats your twitter addy?

[jimslip]

So called "Art" is less about the actual work and more about who did the work. When Picasso became famous, if his dog had taken a dump on one of his new canvases that he'd left on the floor and he had signed it. I'm sure people with black polar necks necks all over the World would have hailed it as a work of genius!

Likwise in porn, non of us will ever be considered making, "Art". For example, like Terry noted in another post, i also noticed that in the Sunday Times, Anna Span was considered to be making, "Erotica". I daresay if it had been me or any other male producer, the work would have been labelled, "Porno filth" rather than, "Erotica".

So if Banksy ever shot a scene with the old cliche of pizza delivery boy, bird with false tits and swimming pool, the media would refer to it as, "A seminal work, by this beloved enigmatic artist. His use of a boy on a pizza delivery moped is truly original and he continues to tease us with a most erotic encounter between the boy and the girl, who is aching to experience the pleasures of anal sex, which Banksy approaches with the aplomb of the true great artist that he is, blah, blah, blah............etc"

If I presented exactly the same scene, the verdict would be, "A pile of cliched shit which should be immediately dumped in the rubbish bin!" !happy!

[alec]

Some porn films of the 70s had something to say about the human condition; so I suppose you could call them art. Some of them were a turn on, e.g. The Image, directed by Radley Metzger - you could buy the DVD from amazon.com (hardcore bjs but no vaginal penetration)

and some were utterly depressing, e.g The Blue Balloon, the porn equivalent of a Leonard Cohen song with all its drive-you-to-contemplation-of-suicide potential

[jimslip]

Just thinking aloud, but in the art world, I don't think a person like Rolf Harris will EVER be considered a great artist, regardless of what he paints. Even if aliens visited him and endowed on him the talent of Leonado Da Vinci, he'll still be 'ol Rolf with his didgeredoo!

Wrong image, you see!

[one eyed jack]

I note with interest...porn that has something to say about the human condition.

I'm really down with the idea of that but would enough people get it to warrant making it?

Call em a hard nosed cynic for being a capitalist but I know some people are drivien to making movies with such a desire that they end up broke. Me? i see no reason why i shoul dgo hungry to say something and lose all my money doing so. Thats just me.

If those movies were not commerical enough to make their money back then what was the point of making them if not enough people care about porn saying somethign about the human condition.

However I do feel that such porn is bold and brave if it does work but if it aint making money then whats the point?

[Matt P]

Jim(not sure how to address you on the forum) We touched on the double standard of art on the shoot last week regarding the Ramble in St James poem.
Greek sex plays have been shown on terrestrial tv, albeit watered down versions, & that life drawing program on daytime channel 4 recently. That didn't cause a fuss untill it was a sexy 20 something getting nude.

Porn art debate confuses me. On the one hand can anything designed as a paraphilia be art as it's said art can serve no other purpose but to be art.
On the other hand if we discount porn from art then can anything that entertains be called art

I could go into why I place porn films above mainstream features as entertainment but I'm typing on my phone & my eyes hurt