When is art porn and when is it not?

a reply to: SprocketUK

I know some women that weaponise sex. Too bad the arrest didn’t take that on. Be more interesting.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: SprocketUK

Well back to a modicum of sensibility.

I do like the painting all the same.

Fact of the matter is great art is often made by morally problematic people.

Take for instance Caravaggio or Vincent Van Gogh.

The artist is only a 3rd year art student you could probably get it for a few hundred.

Right bed time for me, I cant stop yawning

a reply to: SprocketUK

He spat out more than 2100 works of art in just over a decade.

I think in this day of age he would have been diagnosed with the likes of bipolar disorder.

Or schizophrenia given the notorious ear incident alone.

The man could paint through big bold and expressive use of colour

Vibrant hues and deeply emotive.

I liked Van Gogh.

a reply to: SprocketUK

You utter, utter...

a reply to: SprocketUK

Enjoy you're kip.

I like to think public places are appropriate for people of all ages, and this one seems to go beyond wnat a young child would be capable of menatlly processing.

There are 'safe sapces' for adult content for a reason; otherwise, we'd have brothels on main street with uncurtained picture windows.

I guess people could always refuse to allow their children in public spaces until they're old enough to understand adult topics, or maybe someone will invent blinders for children if you want to take them along on an outing?

Been thinking about that artistic endeavor.
Doesn't shock me, but I do have some reservations about the purpose. And the breasts are NOT the issue.

Why not do the male figure in the same manner?
If you say the male unit cannot be displayed in that alleged "abstract" manner, then this image has also gone too far.

In this day and age, I feel we have sexualized things way too much and it trickles down to a lot of inappropriate sexual behavior being considered okay.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

If I read right I believe the article said the artist only paints women. But I hear you cluck’n.

What about Xmas lights? Too much?😂

I couldn't actually see the entire artwork due to the careful placement of the clipboard, however the following is my view:

Porn is that which encites sexuality. Art is that which embraces the human or Terran experience. I would have to see the artwork fully to clearly assess it, however what I've seen and what I can guess, I would call this art. Art doesn't have to be acceptable to everyone. In fact, that is one of the precepts of art -- that it just is, and doesn't TRY to make everyone like it.

In these modern times, "PORN", is that which is created for the purpose of creating arousal. Everything else is "art". IMVHO.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Wrong question.

As asked, art or porn. I reply is it porn or crap. I say crap. It reminds me of images scratched into the was of the stalls in public bathrooms put there by horny thirteen year old boys. That was not art and the intention never was art, simply porn.

The curator of that shop needs to take their head out of their ass even presenting that as anything but a liner for a cat litter box.

a reply to: argentus

In fact, that is one of the precepts of art -- that it just is, and doesn't TRY to make everyone like it.

In these modern times, "PORN", is that which is created for the purpose of creating arousal. Everything else is "art". IMVHO.

And that sums it up for me. That scribble may stand on it's own, for what, is beyond me, maybe that kid in a public bathroom stall. But otherwise it does not stand on its own at all. While we may ascertain taht the piece itself is art, the manner in which it was displayed makes it something else. Porn. It was not placed center stage so it could ''stand on it's own, but rather to create arousal. Certainly not sexual arousal to any one other than a horny teenager but intead the arousal of anger and disgust to create controversy.

I would simply put up the a painting of man with the most magnificent, fully saluted phallus with very long and stretched out scrotum(the person would be wearing alligator skin boots to keep it classy) in full display at the closest possible legal proximity to her shop.

It’s not porn it’s tasteful art after all…..


a reply to: SprocketUK

a reply to: SprocketUK

It is art.

Adult art. but still art.

Just my thoughts.

It got shock factor so it worked as art.

a reply to: Darkblade71

Agree. I have since seen this work in its .. fullness. Such art should not be supressed. NO art should be suppressed. If a person doesn't want to view the art, they should not be compelled to do so.

Speaking as an artist*, I think this is more of a "look at me" type situation. I mean, really, is it so hard to be polite and accommodate your neighbors? Considering the subject matter, I don't think the request to move the painting out of the street side window is unreasonable, but oh boy look at the attention her refusal has gotten! It's now about prudes and prunes, or something. What happened to simple decency?

As an opinionated critic, I think the artist needs more art lessons. Her message is more important to her than her artistic skills it would seem. For me, the colors, the line drawing, and the splash of scribbles used to hide the simplicity of the actual painting, combine to makes this piece unpleasant to look at. For that reason alone the shop owner should move it from the window. So, why does it stay? (refer back to paragraph one)

*I understand that the word artist is subjective and means different things to different people.

I'm no where near being artistic and I could paint a picture better than that one they are displaying in the window.

It's not porn and I question if it is even real art....it is just a picture created to create controversy.

Just because I can't paint does not mean I can't appreciate good art...I sure hope whomever buys that painting doesn't pay more than twenty five bucks, most local artists do better pictures than that one...reminds me of a cartoon character

a reply to: SprocketUK

Very poorly executed. Art should be artistic. Taking skill and having artistry and a type of beauty about it.

It's just crass IMHO.

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
Been thinking about that artistic endeavor.
Doesn't shock me, but I do have some reservations about the purpose. And the breasts are NOT the issue.

Why not do the male figure in the same manner?
If you say the male unit cannot be displayed in that alleged "abstract" manner, then this image has also gone too far.

In this day and age, I feel we have sexualized things way too much and it trickles down to a lot of inappropriate sexual behavior being considered okay.

In the interview, the artist said that she was trying to de sexualise the vulva.
She made a point that the penis isn't always seen as sexual, sometimes its even comical.
She thought that through exposure she could achieve the same for the vulva.

Well, seeing all the criticism of her work I do hope she doesnt look at this thread

I disagree with those of you who question her ability, look at the other link, with the second picture that Andy liked.
The works may not be to your taste but there is actual skill in the composition.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Art can only be pornographic if first of all it's art.

This looks like something some misguided 6th grader came up with for no
real reason at all.

Art should tell a story and it's only pornographic if there's a happy ending.