Is (or can) porn be art?
 

Is (or can) porn be art?

In today?s world we see governments restrict/ban porn, including the UK.

Yet if they were to do the same with things considered not to be porn (such as books, paintings and so on) there would be a huge outcry. Indeed people would rightly compare such actions to such as the old USSR and Nazi Germany during WWII.

So what if we said porn was art?

And indeed why should it not be art, indeed I tend not to consider what I shoot but art. The reason being is that often I shoot real people being themselves. I have never directed or scripted what I shoot but merely let people get on with it. In one case I shot one student of 18 years old reading a book while she used a toy on herself as this is what she did in real life. By this I captured on film and photographs something that was until then private, that she had now shared with the world.

[Read In Full]

corrected it for you....

... and good luck with it....

You're an idiot. :2 cents:

Go piss and cum on some more spicks :2 cents:

How can you possible think with just the echo of emptiness in your hollow skull? :2 cents:

Enjoy your pennies. :thumbsup

https://i.imgur.com/dNiUZTp.jpg

Just as I enjoy your mother's fragrant cunt. :thumbsup

I actually think that is one of the most salient and certainly the least hateful post I have ever seen MiamiBoyz make. :2 cents:

Why the hate??

art is overrated.

marcel duchamp submitted this photograph of an upside down urinal to an art exhibit in 1917 creating quite an uproar of many claiming it was not art, duchamp replied that "it is art because I say it is art."

our very own porn photographer J.Stephen Hicks, in his book explaining post-modernism comments on that-

"The artist is a not great creator—Duchamp went shopping at a plumbing store. The artwork is not a special object—it was mass-produced in a factory. The experience of art is not exciting and ennobling—at best it is puzzling and mostly leaves one with a sense of distaste. But over and above that, Duchamp did not select just any ready-made object to display. In selecting the urinal, his message was clear:

Art is something you piss on."

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._Fountaine.jpg

this be the art

And here are some photos I shot of that same model, but instead of being body-painted, she's being fucked in the ass. Are these art too?


http://www.littlegrayguy.com/gfy/aleska_01.jpg

http://www.littlegrayguy.com/gfy/aleska_02.jpg

http://www.littlegrayguy.com/gfy/aleska_03.jpg

Art at it is finest.

I have to scroll fast past that art :2 cents:

As the old adage goes - art is in the eye of the beholder.

Unfortunately, too many beholders are in positions of authority to subjectively declare, "It's not art!" and have it disqualified.

Personally, I don't think of my original photography as art. However, images I've spent considerable time, effort and creative thought during post-edit...modifying them into something much more aesthetically pleasing and perhaps thought-provoking - might come close to qualifying as art.

But that's my personal, subjective opinion. I might look at someone else's work and personally think, "That's not art," - but I wouldn't ban it, lock it up or deny it's exhibition based on my subjective opinion. I'd prefer talking to others and find out why they think it's considered art.

hell yes it can...and it is.

And as SilentKnight says, it's in the eye of the beholder. Jules Jordan's work is just as much art as Michael Ninn's.

funny point :thumbsup

I think that some porn is art indeed.