a fine line btw ART and EROTICA

[Maricel Evasco]

Gustav Klimt is one of my favorite painters. I have several posters of his works hanging in my bedroom. He is a master at dealing with erotic in any detail and his subjects are often controversial. I consider him a great artist. Yet, others may feel his works are skating the fine line between art and pornography especially since his public depiction of women tend to be uninhibitedly erotic. His painting Danae is of a naked lady doing something indescribable to herself...lol..... Danae by Gustav Klimt

So, at what point does art become pornography and vice versa?
Which artists skate that fine line?

[WS]

I think it is pornography, if it's sole purpose is to titillate. In my opinion Gustav Klimt's and Egon Schiele's images of people masturbating are not pornography, because there is a greater message there about society and its limits and beauty ad composition and color and rhythm.

[Maricel Evasco]

Thx for the nice insight =-)

[Robyn]

I was thinking the same, WS. Is the work just trying to help some lonely guy get his rocks off, or is there something bigger, something more, something handled differently and merely uses that subject matter.

[Walter Andujar]

I agree with you Ms.WS. I think that differences between erotica and pornography must be establish in order to be able to appreciate the artists work. I also think that the insistence of the painter in enphasizing the less irrelevant aspects, wether in the nude or its forms and/or its composition, may be a clue to question the artist's purpose.

[Walter Andujar]

I was not familiar with this painting, however I don't find it pornographic. Maybe erotic but not pornographic. At least I don't think that was Klimt's intention. I have seen other works by him and there is no pornography in them. I think that is more of an interpretation by the viewer than the intention of the painter. At what point art becomes pornography, is a matter of the viewers interpretation or the artist intentions. Usually the art form is concentrated in other aspects of the human body rather than the natural beauty and the diferent forms and shapes. Beethoven's piano sonnata Fur Eloise was considered pornographic in his time. Is it?

[Sarah M. Hall]

What would make Klimt's painting pornography? For some, the mere fact that the woman is naked; for others, the additional sexual overtones. Too many people think that the human form is "nasty" or pornographic per se, or obscene. I think it's sad when people can't distinguish between nudity, sexuality and obscenity. I visited a friend in France, and there was a photo displayed on a book shelf of him and his two siblings when they were perhaps 3 to 7 years old, naked as jaybirds, proudly holding up the fish they'd just caught. That photo would be considered child pornography in Oklahoma because you could see "everything," and the parents would spend 20 years in prison for possessing it. In France, it's just considered cute. The thing that should be considered wrong is not nudity, it's exploitation. Children smiling happily because they caught some fish is not exploitation; greedy men turning children into sex slaves is. I've digressed into discussing children, which is a whole other issue, so let me just say, with regard to adult pornography, that if consenting adults want to look at other consenting adults in sexual situations, that may or may not be pornography, but it should not be considered obscenity (if we accept "obscenity" as being something so bad that it should be illegal). Many people are hypocrites when it comes to sex. If we would just be honest and admit that we like sex, and enjoy looking at things that are, at the very least, sensual, if not blatantly sexual, the world would be better off. Why? Because hypocrisy breeds tyranny. I don't want the Thought Police telling me what is and is not Art. Thanks for the opportunity to voice my opinion. :-) [jumps off soap box]

[Suuse]

Apart from the acquiescence to "community standards", I'll stick with Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, who wrote in his short concurrence that "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it." Usually dropped from the quote is the remainder of that sentence, "and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

Since pornography--like "art", like "beauty"--is in the eye of the beholder, I am adamantly against censorship insofar as the work in question involves only the participation of adults who've given their informed consent.

Translation: children should not exploited in the production or promotion of such work.

[Suuse]

Which brings up an interesting sidebar: a parent in possession of a nude photo of his/her own child can be found guilty of producing and possessing child pornography, and prosecuted and jailed for the offense if convicted. But a photo of a thirteen-year-old tarted up and paraded half-naked in Vogue or Harper's Bazaar is considered "fashion"--even art. Teenaged girls (and boys) can perform in what could, fairly, be described as "partial nudity" and it's call "cheerleading". Down to it? Little Miss beauty pageants border on pornography.

Perhaps the problem isn't, per se, the nudity or the sexual poses, positions and "choreography" but the double standard that we've built around such things.

[Maricel Evasco]

Politics aside, what in essence is ART?
I've read the comments on art from the other discussion thread...so i'll be more specific:
What and who determines a piece as a work of art?
Is beauty/aesthetics a necessary prerequisite?


Opinions and or definitions please....

[Ubercounselor]

Klimt renders such beautiful things in my opinion. This question will be answered many different ways, I am sure because this is not just about art, but includes individual morals and religious views among other things. I think it comes back down to intent and perception. If the art was intended or perceived to be art, then poof it is art. Personally, I would define pictures or sculptures involving intimate acts to be art if the pieces evoked some emotion other than arousal.

[ZenDog]

Interesting.

Imagery that becomes iconic is imagery that has power. And we all know sex sells . . . The question then, is what are we selling?

I find explicit expression that is ecstatic and joyous, or introspective and sublime, may easily, in my mind, qualify as art, even when it is obviously pornography. These are cases where something more than simple arousal is illustrated.

Because of the sheer power of such imagery, to reshape the social construct, or to inspire spontaneous and unacceptable behavior among those of us so addicted to gratification that out of control behavior is an ever present threat - because of these factors we find it necessary to regulate this kind of imagery.

I think the lesson here is clear, and it applies throughout the realm of non-verbal communication. In this present age it seems we may craft or engineer almost anything and insist it is acceptable even when this is obviously not so. Not everything is acceptable.

And so there can be no dispute:

we must take great care with our erections . . .

[Maricel Evasco]

What do you think of DADAism? Mona Lisa w/ a mustache?