7 ms·

There is a lot of porn there

by smel 4y ago

quantified 4y ago
I'll get downvoted massively, but porn is by definition art (meant to be viewed and evoke reactions, just as advertising art is), and has been some of the most important creative outputs for as almost as long as humans have been creating art.
- throw_m239339 4y ago
  > but porn is by definition art No, that's why it's called pornography, very much to differentiate it from something "noble" like art, it's vulgar and trivial, by the very definition of the word it isn't art.
  - quantified 4y ago
    Etymology is "writing about prostitutes" [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pornography https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pornography]. So you got me there. In the realm of visual depictions, it's just as much art as cave art. Art is a broad classifier. Still lifes are art. Landscapes are art. Audubon's drawings of birds are art. Porn is film, photography and drawing, with a specific subject matter. If Iron Man comics are art, it is too. "Noble" is nowhere in any working definition of art. Some academic snob might use it with their in-crowd. Damien Hirsch's shark parts is considered art.
    - throw_m239339 4y ago
      > Art is a broad classifier. "everything I say is art is art", you basically. Well anything I say isn't art isn't art. Especially pornography in general, which sole purpose is sexual gratification of the audience through sexual exploitation, rape via human trafficking. There is nothing snob is saying that. There something egregious and dehumanizing in saying what you say on the other hand and trying to normalize the very definition of vulgarity.
      - claudiawerner 4y ago
        >which sole purpose is sexual gratification Not necessarily; plenty of pornography contains serious artistic contents and merit beyond the simple aim of sexual gratification, and they raise interesting questions on their own. This is why some have attempted to make another classifier of 'erotica', which IMO isn't needed. >through sexual exploitation, rape via human trafficking. Even if this were true for all porn (and it isn't), that dosen't make it any less art; it may make it 'lesser art' from a moralist perspecitve on the value of art, but this by no means of widely accepted relevance to aesthetic value nor to the property of being 'art'. >the very definition of vulgarity. A rude gesture or crass words seems vulgar. A video of a penis being sucked doesn't. "Vulgar" is the sort of word you might hear a shrill, paternal sitcom character use to describe a minor inconvenience or faux pas, and it's just as hilarious when people use it as an argument in real life.
        throw_m239339 4y ago
        > A rude gesture or crass words seems vulgar. A video of a penis being sucked doesn't. "Vulgar" is the sort of word you might hear a shrill, paternal sitcom character use to describe a minor inconvenience or faux pas, and it's just as hilarious when people use it as an argument in real life. In the mean time you can spare people gratuitous, graphic descriptions of explicit sex acts, AKA pornography, and keep your depraved fantasies for yourself.
        quantified 4y ago
        My fantasies aren't depraved in any way, but they are well-represented in pornography.
        throw_m239339 4y ago
        > My fantasies aren't depraved in any way, but they are well-represented in pornography. Your certainly qualify as a vulgar individual given the fact that you feel the need to depict pornography here trying to make a point about god knows what.
- UncleEntity 4y ago
  > meant to be viewed and evoke reactions, just as advertising art is And when they mix the two things get interesting. Having topless women selling (cow’s) milk was a very strange experience as a “prudish” American.
  - throw_m239339 4y ago
    > And when they mix the two things get interesting. Having topless women selling (cow’s) milk was a very strange experience as a “prudish” American. Yes, and the guy who took these "porno chic" pictures was outed as a creep and harasser.
  - Jach 4y ago
    Sometimes I think a single change that would have an outsized improvement on American culture would be to make the mandatory high school art class include a week of sketch-drawing naked models, as actual artists do, both male and female.
    - quantified 4y ago
      Try modelling for art classes.
- llanowarelves 4y ago
  It isn't art. But neither is decoration, nor craft. Things can be "artistic" or contain art within them, but it doesn't make them art. I don't buy that something done/created for the purpose of being viewed and evoking (even strong or many) reactions is enough of a criteria. Otherwise things from trolling to 9/11 are "performance art" (an already barely hanging-on category), the latter of which was very "successful" at meeting this minimal set of rules.
  - quantified 4y ago
    So you know art when you see it, and there is no intersection between porn and art? Your definition is the generally and legally accepted definition? Is David art? The Rape of the Sabines? The corpus is of art, not Art.
sjsdaiuasgdia 4y ago
There really is. I searched for my first and last name, and after a few images of an actor with a vaguely similar name it devolved into shirtless buff dudes in suggestive poses. On the plus side, i appear to have not (yet) been trained. I can consider myself safe from the AI. For now.

There is a lot of porn there

by smel 4y ago

There is a lot of porn there

I'll get downvoted massively, but porn is by definition art (meant to be viewed and evoke reactions, just as advertising art is), and has been some of the most important creative outputs for as almost as long as humans have been creating art.

throw_m239339 4y ago
> but porn is by definition art No, that's why it's called pornography, very much to differentiate it from something "noble" like art, it's vulgar and trivial, by the very definition of the word it isn't art.
- quantified 4y ago
  Etymology is "writing about prostitutes" [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pornography https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pornography]. So you got me there. In the realm of visual depictions, it's just as much art as cave art. Art is a broad classifier. Still lifes are art. Landscapes are art. Audubon's drawings of birds are art. Porn is film, photography and drawing, with a specific subject matter. If Iron Man comics are art, it is too. "Noble" is nowhere in any working definition of art. Some academic snob might use it with their in-crowd. Damien Hirsch's shark parts is considered art.
  - throw_m239339 4y ago
    > Art is a broad classifier. "everything I say is art is art", you basically. Well anything I say isn't art isn't art. Especially pornography in general, which sole purpose is sexual gratification of the audience through sexual exploitation, rape via human trafficking. There is nothing snob is saying that. There something egregious and dehumanizing in saying what you say on the other hand and trying to normalize the very definition of vulgarity.
    - claudiawerner 4y ago
      >which sole purpose is sexual gratification Not necessarily; plenty of pornography contains serious artistic contents and merit beyond the simple aim of sexual gratification, and they raise interesting questions on their own. This is why some have attempted to make another classifier of 'erotica', which IMO isn't needed. >through sexual exploitation, rape via human trafficking. Even if this were true for all porn (and it isn't), that dosen't make it any less art; it may make it 'lesser art' from a moralist perspecitve on the value of art, but this by no means of widely accepted relevance to aesthetic value nor to the property of being 'art'. >the very definition of vulgarity. A rude gesture or crass words seems vulgar. A video of a penis being sucked doesn't. "Vulgar" is the sort of word you might hear a shrill, paternal sitcom character use to describe a minor inconvenience or faux pas, and it's just as hilarious when people use it as an argument in real life.
      - throw_m239339 4y ago
        > A rude gesture or crass words seems vulgar. A video of a penis being sucked doesn't. "Vulgar" is the sort of word you might hear a shrill, paternal sitcom character use to describe a minor inconvenience or faux pas, and it's just as hilarious when people use it as an argument in real life. In the mean time you can spare people gratuitous, graphic descriptions of explicit sex acts, AKA pornography, and keep your depraved fantasies for yourself.
        quantified 4y ago
        My fantasies aren't depraved in any way, but they are well-represented in pornography.
        throw_m239339 4y ago
        > My fantasies aren't depraved in any way, but they are well-represented in pornography. Your certainly qualify as a vulgar individual given the fact that you feel the need to depict pornography here trying to make a point about god knows what.
UncleEntity 4y ago
> meant to be viewed and evoke reactions, just as advertising art is And when they mix the two things get interesting. Having topless women selling (cow’s) milk was a very strange experience as a “prudish” American.
- throw_m239339 4y ago
  > And when they mix the two things get interesting. Having topless women selling (cow’s) milk was a very strange experience as a “prudish” American. Yes, and the guy who took these "porno chic" pictures was outed as a creep and harasser.
- Jach 4y ago
  Sometimes I think a single change that would have an outsized improvement on American culture would be to make the mandatory high school art class include a week of sketch-drawing naked models, as actual artists do, both male and female.
  - quantified 4y ago
    Try modelling for art classes.
llanowarelves 4y ago
It isn't art. But neither is decoration, nor craft. Things can be "artistic" or contain art within them, but it doesn't make them art. I don't buy that something done/created for the purpose of being viewed and evoking (even strong or many) reactions is enough of a criteria. Otherwise things from trolling to 9/11 are "performance art" (an already barely hanging-on category), the latter of which was very "successful" at meeting this minimal set of rules.
- quantified 4y ago
  So you know art when you see it, and there is no intersection between porn and art? Your definition is the generally and legally accepted definition? Is David art? The Rape of the Sabines? The corpus is of art, not Art.

sjsdaiuasgdia 4y ago

There really is. I searched for my first and last name, and after a few images of an actor with a vaguely similar name it devolved into shirtless buff dudes in suggestive poses. On the plus side, i appear to have not (yet) been trained. I can consider myself safe from the AI. For now.