When is art porn and when is it not?

a reply to: Astrocometus

And yet conversely pornography doesn't rely on being classified as art to exist.

Pornography is defined by its intent to elicit sexual arousal, not by its artistic merit.

Art is subjective, and what a person considers art can differ widely.

a reply to: andy06shake

Pornography is defined by its intent to elicit sexual arousal, not by its artistic merit.

Yes so we agree when art is pornographic the arousal can be the happy ending
to the story.

a reply to: Astrocometus

Well, that's always preferable to the alternative.

Art, simply is art by my guess.

It's a form of expression that transcends definitions and constraints.

It doesn’t necessarily need to serve a purpose.

Beyond being a reflection of our creativity.

Let me upset all you BS artists. Art is in the eye of the beholder, what you might class as art I might think is total rubbish. Yet here is where well placed art critics come into play with their "oh look at the brush strokes" "look at how they have captured the light" BS BS BS. I can look At Dali,s art and I think "the man must be a raving lunatic to think that is art".
If any idiot wants to be bothered about the furore about these images think on this, Why did they show these images on national television?

a reply to: andy06shake

Beyond being a reflection of our creativity.

I think this is a good, short definition of art and this is why I don't consider that piece art. Where is there ANY creativity in that scribble, I can see none, not unless what is behind that censorship sign is a picture of someone like RFK popping out of the hoohaa. Then, maybe.

a reply to: BingoMcGoof

I'm not quite sure what RFK has to do with a couple of paintings of naked women.

On display in an art gallery shop window in a small market town in Wales.

As to what you consider art, whatever floats your boat really, and each to their own.

I like the paintings, particularly the one on the left, for the reasons i have already stated.

And think the artist shows promise.

I would also point out that impressionist art, to which i suggest both pieces to be in the style, is widely regarded as highly creative.

Impressionism is about capturing the impression of a moment rather than striving for precise realism.

a reply to: andy06shake

Surely, it's a subjective thing, with no objective "test"?

Here are some Turner Prize winners.

duckduckgo.com...

Art?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I had a mate who worked for Damien Hurst for a while.
He used to build things for him and get paraded around as his tame rough oik at parties and things.

Im not sure that his method of making art should be allowed in the Turner prize, he sets his interns loose on like a thousand different projects and, if one or two make it all the way its a good pay day, the rest get quietly binned.
More a production line than art if you ask me. Sort of a rubbish version of Spencer's gifts

a reply to: SprocketUK

Not a fan of Tracy Emin either. Plus, she always looks like a bit of a soap dodger.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I am sure she has dodged plenty of soap in her time, I do like her paintings though. Something that causes plenty of condemnation from my eldest boy

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I would say so, yes.

Art is generally regarded as subjective.

With its value, meaning, and beauty varying from one person to the next.

Interpretation of art is personal experience more than anything else.

As to some of the Turner Prize winners, no comment. LoL

a reply to: Darkblade71

No different than that urine/Cross attempt at artwork.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

Here are some Turner Prize winners.

duckduckgo.com...

Art?

And those were the prize winners????

I wouldn't go to that gallery even if they paid me.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Neither would I!

A load of old nonsense.

An avant-garde art gallery in London fronted an arguably objectionable painting by an artist wanting to define themselves.

Okay. Check.

The World is blowing up all around us. Wars, assassinations, terrorism, illegal alien immigration, corruption, killing, death, disease, and destruction.

Okay. Check.

This topic has gone (4) pages.

Okay. NEXT!

Sorry, but let's keep things in perspective here...okay?

originally posted by: crayzeed
Let me upset all you BS artists. Art is in the eye of the beholder, what you might class as art I might think is total rubbish. Yet here is where well placed art critics come into play with their "oh look at the brush strokes" "look at how they have captured the light" BS BS BS. I can look At Dali,s art and I think "the man must be a raving lunatic to think that is art".
If any idiot wants to be bothered about the furore about these images think on this, Why did they show these images on national television?

I see your point, but I respectfully disagree. This is a social comment trying to pass itself off as a painting by a person with no real painting skill. Not all social comments are art and not all art is a social comment.

To your other point: Dali had pretty much mastered reality and began to experiment with the surreal. He would fall asleep with a spoon in his hand, and below his hand was a metal pot. When the spoon hit the pot, he would wake up and paint what he was seeing in his sleep; hence melted clocks, spoons, etc. Surely you don't really believe that he knew nothing of art?

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

I am not familiar with that one.

Being someone who likes to paint, I find others artwork interesting, even if it doesn't speak to me, it might to others.
Honestly though, after looking at it, I was not impressed, but then I am also my own worst critic.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I welcome the thread/art. It is something different than politics,death and chaos....

Or is it?!