fine art is porn for those with good taste and money.

Just think about it for a minute : appreciating it is a voyeuristic act, it thrills you to look at or listen to it, it

excites the imagination, makes you contemplate things you'll never fully understand , and makes you want

to spend money in irrational ways, distracts you from the grind of every day life & chores, it sometimes

tempts you to do things common sense tells you not to, and its pleasures are evanescent.

 

If you put a nude person in the art it gets even better. It doesn't matter if you want to read the photograph

or painitng or sculpture or drawing in as intellectual or spiritual manner, even if the work is as redolent of

symbolic meanings and religious interpretations as a garlic farm at harvest time, there's no way to get

around the elephant blocking the narrow hallway (the nakedness of flesh) without very consciously

acknowledging the presence of the elephant. Somebody , at some point in time, either the artist or the

patron or both, thought that specific naked flesh was a very tasty crumpet indeed.

Yes. I feel like that contemplating Thomas Kincaide.

Ellis,

 

Is all that the case with Botticelli's Birth of Venus. Does it do that to you?

 

 

--

 

Don E

Kincaide is barf art.

 

Bottechelli's Venus. Doesn't it do that for you? HAve you ever seen "the Adventures of Baron

Munchausen" directed by Terry Gilliam wiht Uma Thurman as Venus?

Ah, no sense of humour, Ellis.

"Bottechelli's Venus. Doesn't it do that for you?"

 

Nope.

 

"HAve you ever seen "the Adventures of Baron Munchausen" directed by Terry Gilliam wiht Uma Thurman as Venus?"

 

Nope.

 

 

--

 

Don E

Great art is pornography. Yes! Well, we agree about something, Ellis.

 

Michelangelo and da Vinci produced homo-erotic porn. Gay porn. Titian produced hetero-

porn. But yes, it is pornography.

 

My definition of pornography would be anything that explores the erotic imagination.

Ellis,

 

You write very well, you are well eductated and an intelligent person. - How can you possibly come up with a post like that?

 

Porn is a category unto itself, as is fine art. They are separate by definition.

 

I think you may be trying to confuse the senses with fancy words!

 

Cheers.

<b>This is porn!</b><p>

 

http://www.studiolo.org/Mona/images/NewYorkerMonaMonicaA.jpg

Dallas, I guess it depends on what you think porn is, but I do not recall having ever seen any porn on this website. Maybe some really bad nude shots, but not porn.

I think if you buy an object that gives you years of pleasure, we might call that art. It's

what fine art should do. If the purchase gives you just a few minutes of pleasure and

you're on to the next purchase, then it's probably porn.

 

I don't think money or taste has much to do with it. There was an interior designer who

once famously said that he prays everyday people with taste get money, and people with

money get taste.

Pico, it is not porn. It is just stupid.

<i>"There was an interior designer who once famously said that he prays everyday people with taste get money, and people with money get taste."</i><p>

This suggests taste can only be validly defined by this particular interior designer. What if his definition (of taste) clashes with other designers? <br><br>

 

<i>"If the purchase gives you just a few minutes of pleasure and you're on to the next purchase, then it's probably porn."</i><p>

Can I sue McDonald's for porn distribution? :-)

A lot of class distinction in your statement Ellis.

 

Do only those with money have good taste?

 

You say "appreciating it is a voyeuristic act"

 

Do you only think it is "fine art" if you gain sexual pleasure?

hey,

 

I am glad somebody stated that view.. I agree whole heartedly.

 

also,, porn is an art. I mean have you seen some of the stuff some of those porn stars can do, you can't deny it. and there is such a thing as bad porn.

 

however porn should not necessarily be viewed as a 'bad' thing. it is just a thing,, that is it. but it is a thing that can be overdone, and on the internet, porn is overdone.

I don't see how money enters into it.

 

Fine art nudity can function as pornography for those with too many hangups to enjoy the real thing, I guess. But pornography has a very specific function, and art's function is much broader and, for the most part, nobler.

I think the first paragraph of the question could have stood on its own, and we could have talked about exactly what it is that makes Thomas Kincade's work "barf art". Instead, this will turn into another porn discussion. Too bad; it had potential.

Ellis, Is the reverse of your statement also true?

"porn is fine art for those with poor taste (and little/no money?)"

Well, the money part kind off doesn't feet, as I know a lot of people with money who think that porn is the highest form of fine art.

"...fine art is porn for those with good taste and money."

 

Well I guess that excludes me cause nobody is going accuse me of having either:)

In the cloudcuckooland of this forum, yes it is true. Of course some people actually think

Budwiser and Miller Lite (any "lite" beer really) are good beers.

"Of course some people actually think Budwiser and Miller Lite (any "lite" beer really) are good beers."

 

I just finished my evening measure of two Fat Tires. Does that qualify?

 

My epiphany, pre-beers, based upon your question is a bit interesting; maybe not surprising to some.

 

The longer I hang out here, the more I learn, the more I realize how Art is really nothing more than a bunch of egocentric BS. It's all a shame and the world's being hoodwinked.

 

Hmmmmmm!

 

What made me come to this (possibly erroneous) conclusion, your question statement.

 

My following is not intended to be inflammatory, insulting or polemic in nature, but just a sharing of my thoughts as I worked through the comment, doing as was requested, thinking about it for a minute.

 

"Just think about it for a minute:..."

 

I did and that's where I got in trouble.

 

"appreciating it is a voyeuristic act,"

 

"...voyeuristic act,..." But there's nothing there to look in on so no voyeurism.

 

"...it thrills you to look at or listen to it,..."

 

I can't remember the last time I was thrilled with the art I was viewing with maybe the exception of when I realized what was happening with Diane Arbus' images. Hell, that still gives me goose bumps.

 

"...it excites the imagination,..."

 

Nope!

 

"...makes you contemplate things you'll never fully understand,..."

 

What's there to understand? You live, you die, the part in the middle is called life. (Not trying to be arrogant, condescending or what other word one might try to ascribe to my comment.)

 

"...and makes you want to spend money in irrational ways,..."

 

Which my family and photography do very nicely, thank-you!"

 

"...distracts you from the grind of every day life & chores,..."

 

Art doesn't distract, whereas for me, the creation, learning about and sharing of art does.

 

"...it sometimes tempts you to do things common sense tells you not to,..."

 

Nope, no voices in my head.... too disciplined maybe.

 

"...and its pleasures are evanescent."

 

No pleasures, so no "evanescent." Shrug.

 

Art has no meaning to me. It just sits there. It doesn't challenge, it's just a spot on the wall that entertains the mind like a mobile in a child's crib.

 

And that was when it hit me, that's why I create art.

 

Thanks for the contemplative question. :)

damn Ellis, you woke it up... t

A nude Photo/painting is ``art`` if you'd hang it in your foyer entrance hall.<br>It`s porn if you`d only put it up in your garage, out of sight of the casual gaze of the Parson or Deacon(ess), your personal philosophy be damned.

Thomas G, Why are you so sour? Life is tough? So what else is new...

Art doesn't excite you? Perhaps you haven't seen enough of art yet.

If you'll try to see more, maybe you'll get lucky and find the right form of art that will excite you more than just a preaty color picture on the wall.

"Why are you so sour? Life is tough? So what else is new... "

 

Quite the opposite. Not sour. Life's easy. I just received a melodically good morning from my wife. Doesn't get any better as billions wish they had what I have.

 

My musings are what came out of my contemplating Ellis' question. Tain't no thang. Why when anybody writes anything outside the party line, it's denigrated but if it's within the party line, it's embraced? Where's all this so called rebellious, out of the box thinking that everybody is so hip on?

 

All I read here are a bunch of lockstep thinkers arguing minutia of a similar kind.

 

"Perhaps you haven't seen enough of art yet. If you'll try to see more, maybe you'll get lucky and find the right form of art that will excite you more than just a preaty color picture on the wall."

 

I've been playing in this sandbox called "Art" for thirty plus years and in real terms, so far, it's all about as exciting as a pretty yellow dot on the wall. Contemplating Ellis' question brought this to the forefront of my thinking.

 

What came out of this contemplation is, I create art so I have art around me that I do like and has meaning to me, even if those around here don't like my art. Art's a personal thing.

 

If some "dood" needs to be wrapped up in nakedness, for what ever reason, that's on them. I got no use for their mental state of mind. No condemnation in my above, I just got no use for it cause I "know" from what well their need arises and I got no need to play in their well. That's on them and their denial, not on me. A thought, if I play in their well, I'm cool, if I choose not to, I have issues. Hmmmmm, sounds one way to me.

 

Why is it that a picture of a flower is a cliche but a picture of a naked lady (which has been done for thousands of years) is creativity; art? Why is the beauty of a flower old as in "been there done that" but another pic of a naked lady is something to behold?

 

I've read this stuff and studied this stuff. Read what the artist's themselves have had to write and listened to many interviews to personally here what they have to say on their effort and it's all egocentric BS, including what you or I write, think, say or do.

 

Oh well.

 

I comment and now the detractors, who wouldn't challnege themselves if their lives depended upon it, come out of the woodwork challenging what I have to write. It's not I who needs to be challenged as I challenge my think, as I'm doing here, daily.

 

What have you or anybody here done to challege your/their think, today?

 

If one is truly thinking outside the box then they need to not only challenge others but they need to challenge themselves as well.