Pornagraphic Art vs Artistic Porn

[twmeyer]

Yes it makes good sense, and relates to my theory that abstraction changes the content from objective to subjective. The paintings are abstractions of the human form (therefore "art") and the dancing girls in bikinis are too real (objective, therefore "porn-ish") to be anything but videos of girls dancing in bikinis... <i>until</i> post-modernism, which then allows dancing girls in bikinis to be about <i>your response</i> to dancing girls in bikinis, and therefore subjective once more, which is another reason why I so distrust post-modernism. It allows for snickering at normal people and knowing winks by those who are in "the club". It's an intellectually slippery and highly bankable confidence game that destroys romance and encourages "legitimate" and highly skilled con/artists like Jeff Koons to talk their way into, or out of, anything, if their mark is "educated" but not that smart, and wants desperately to be "hip"... t <p>Oh yeah, this abstraction thing is why guys who want to take pictures of naked girls, but are embarrassed about it, usually use Tri-x or shift the palette to non literal shades. And no, I'm not saying that every one who uses tri-x is a pornographer... t

[jkantor]

I think that is exactly the point - the high art/low art distinction between Art and Porn is becoming meaningless. The problem is that in the short term the pendulum has swung way too far. It's become popular to valorize what wouldn't even be considered mediocre porn as art just because it's been done by someone famous (e.g., Peter Gorman or Terry Richardson).