Pornography as Art - Making the case

[Chie]

I’d like this thread to bring about a proper round-table discussion among forum users. We’re not going to see any change in the things we care about if we don’t actively discuss them.

It seems silly to even say this, but there seems to be an idea that pornography can somehow be excluded from being classified as an art form and devoid of respective value.

The mere fact that artistic value cannot even be assigned a proper, across-the-board defininition outside of being a tangible thing that someone made should immediately preclude such an assumption, but nonetheless has had the misfortune of guiding the hands of both judicial and legislative decisions.

I firmly believe that pornography IS art, regardless of what it communicates or how it goes about doing it. To differentiate smut from the broader sphere of art because it doesn’t live up to to the tastes or standards of the people is both a bastarsization of the medium as a whole and an underhanded act of censorship.

A great deal of time, money, creativity, and effort goes into creating these films, books, games, drawings, paintings, cartoons, etc by artists. Careful and meticulous attention to the details necessary to arouse and tantalize its intended audience, as well as the wide variety of tastes and adult cultures that sprung up around “degeneracy” ought to be considered, yet the Supreme Court seems to think that such aspects don’t deserve to be appreciated when making that determination, which is one of many fatal flaws in both the Miller Test and the problematic and tyrannical obscenity doctrine.

A dirty magazine which photographs of college-aged women in sexually explicit situations has artistic value because it is these women expressing pure eroticism, the desire to arouse and bring about private, personal indulgence.

A Japanese hentai manga that displays for the viewing pleasure, outrageous or offensive imagery involving fictional characters, regardless of their canonical age, has value in and of itself because it is offensive and is, in actuality, no different than the dirty magazine.

These facts should render the Miller Test null and void, despite the ‘value’ prong being modified in a later decision to bring about a “national standard”, despite not requiring the court to respect such standards.

(pornography depicting real minors is illegal regardless if it has value, so don’t worry about that. we’re not advocating for that)

[serra_starr]

Well, I personally, having been raised by an artist who drew fairies (most of whom did not wear clothes, or at least not shirts) have always been of the mindset that Nudity and Sexuality do not necessarily equal porn, nor do they necessarily equal art. What defines them is the context, just like with everything else in this world. Context is key. Now the real issue is that it is against my parole agreement to use or possess pornography, And thus I have very odd standards about what is and is not art, and I think there are three factors that way the heaviest into the context around a piece (I am referring to drawn media here because it is my preference both for creation and consumption) and those would be either artisitic taste and emphasis on form as can be seen is classical and renaissance artwork, satirical/sociopolitical statements portrayed by the piece, and lastly, letting the inner beauty of the one portrayed show. Art in the first category is just beautiful, well made composition. Art of the second is made to get a point accross, even if it is a point you disagree with or it makes you uncomfortable. Lastly, art of the third category is less about showing the body and features of the subject, but about letting who they authentically are shine through to the surface, superseding those mortal coils. If it doesn’t fit into at least one of those categories, I consider it porn, an thus against my parole. Sexualized art, like all art, is made with a lot of thought and time (or at the very least years of practice) put into it. However, this is distinguished from things that are pornographic in nature and have little, if any, artistic merit

[Chie]

I fundamentally disagree with that entire statement. Beauty is an incredibly subjective and to segregate certain contexts from the category seems disingenuous to the medium as a whole. I don’t think context really matters, so long as it’s a product of expression.
You mention parole, which paints a new layer of intrigue to your statements. Without going into detail, do you mean parole as in the criminal context? Because if so, that probably changes things with regard to how one may view things in order to maintain internalized consistency.

[serra_starr]

Yes, I am on parole in the criminal context, for sex offenses I committed at age 13. I’m 21 now

[Chie]

I’m both heartbroken and disappointed to see this. You were only a minor yourself yet you’re faced to live with these ramifications for the rest of your life and disappointed to see how one must - with respect to your previous statements and at the risk of sounding condescending - consign oneself to such warped logic and overlook the truths of my previous statement.

[Chie]

I’m sorry but I simply cannot just let this go. These points need to be addressed.

You still never fully explained how pornography can be excluded from being classified as a category of art. How sexual desire or infatuation over a specific set of imagery is justifiably precluded from being considered “artistic”. I look for answers in this regard but I just wanna know why?

[serra_starr]

I never said it can’t. I have been struggling explaining myself properly and did not wish to get aggravated at you. I also have been going through a lot of personal stuff as of late

[serra_starr]

What I was trying to say is there are certain subjective qualities (not objective ones) that define something as art. I said there has to be merit beyond just smut, not that sexuality can’t be a part of art. Whether that merit be technique, message, or something else entirely, there has to be some merit to it, otherwise people whose pure intent is to troll are making art just by being jerks. I think there are certain things to look for that if you are knowledgeable in art you can know to look out for, but there rarely is an objective measure that can be used. If you understand art you will be able to look for artistic merit. Also, since the artist is dead (AKA only they know their intent behind a piece) it is usually best if they make a written or verbal statement if a piece is likely to spark up controversy or misunderstanding. Good art conveys emotions and ideas in ways the viewer can interpret and sometimes context is necessary.