Amazon.com Widgets

Can pornographic or sexual acts be considered "art" or "theatre"?

  • Exactly, it's in the context.

    Art/porn uses the conventions of pornography in trying to make a timeless comment on society. Art/porn creates a critical argument that justifies why it needs to be hung in a gallery? Art porn is not created so much for sexual gratification, but to address key concepts as power, values, eroticism, provocation. A frisson of taste and subcultures.

  • Depending on the person, it's possible to get sexual pleasure from any piece of art/pornographic image, and everything is art.

    While things meant to be only for sexual pleasure are generally much more "erotic" or "inappropriate" than what you'd probably see in "art" (kind of like hardcore vs soft porn), there is no fine line between them. Attempting to establish one is just ignorant and stupid, so that logic doesn't work here. Everything is art, just as every sound is music (maybe not GOOD music, but it's still music). For the record, most people find hardcore AND soft porn inappropriate for kids.

  • Depending on the human, it's possible to get sexual pleasure from any piece of art/pornographic image, and anything can be classified as art.

    While things meant to be only for sexual pleasure are generally much more "erotic" or "inappropriate" than what you'd probably see in "art" (kind of like hardcore vs soft porn), there is no fine line between them. Attempting to establish one is just ignorant and stupid. Everything is art, just as every sound is music (maybe not GOOD music, but it's still music). For the record, most people find hardcore AND soft porn inappropriate for kids.

  • Depending on the human, it's possible to get sexual pleasure from any piece of art/pornographic image, and anything can be classified as art.

    While things meant to be only for sexual pleasure are generally much more "erotic" or "inappropriate" than what you'd probably see in "art" (kind of like hardcore vs soft porn), there is no fine line between them. Attempting to establish one is just ignorant and stupid. Everything is art, just as every sound is music (maybe not GOOD music, but it's still music). For the record, most people find hardcore AND soft porn inappropriate for kids.

  • Free individual choice

    Free individual choice is the basis of the decisions the artist makes in producing "sexual" art. We the viewer should exercise free choice in what we experience, sexual or otherwise. It is up to the artist to warn viewers of content and thus allow them to follow their own judgements.

  • Art is not an exactly defined concept. What art is tends to be understood in highly individual ways.

    Anyone forcing art and its expressions in e.g. in public venues like the media, a theatre or in a museum, to be completely devoid of images, objects and acts of a sexual or pornographic nature is interfering with the enjoyment and experience of a large amount of people who think and feel differently. Someone who is unwilling to expose him/herself to such experiences should simply not visit venues or read media that advertise running issues of erotic or pornographic nature.

  • We have had erotic art since the dawn of humanity with the earliest known examples being Paleolithic cave paintings and carvings.

    I suspect that the concept of porn was something introduced by certain religions and is entirely subjective since some rejoice in genitalia, e.G. Yoni, lingham, and sexuality, others are very prim about such things .

    One man's porn will always be another's erotic art so it is impossible to define. Justice Potter Stewart of the Supreme Court of the United States, in attempting to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, summed it up when he said, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced, [b]ut I know it when I see it ..." For me, something becomes porn when the intent to arouse outweighs any artistic purpose. As they say, "It's the thought that counts".

    As one of the organizers of BOUND and The London Festival of the Art of Japanese Bondage, I am well acquainted with the challenges of presenting the artistic side of a subject usually only associated with SM porn. However, it is gratifying that the influence of shibari (Japanese bondage) is becoming greater and that censorship is becoming less puritanical within the art world.

  • There is no limitation for art

    Art is always something that is in the eye of the beholder. Art can be anything! An event, a painting, a song, a photograph, a movie, a dance, a being, a piece of clothing, literally anything. When you tear everything you have even known to pieces and look at it for what it is and not what you think it is, you start to see that everything in existence is an opinion.

    This is just a difficult concept to grasp when you've been taught your whole life to see things in one absolute perspective, which the mass majority seem to do.

  • I believe pornography is considered an art due to the fact that it is commonly viewed.

    Well in my point of view woman who enjoy showing their bodies off and pleasuring other men are showing art. People like to be closed minded and say it is perverted, immmoral, and downright disgusting. We all enjoy sex! Its what are minds are programmed to do. WHether it is softcore fetish style of porn or the hardocore bdsm style, it is still considered art.

  • Pornographic content is a measure of social values and norms.

    Whether or not something is pornographic is more of a measure of social values and norms, rather than an exact science. Sexual acts have every potential to be "art" or "theatre", depending on how accepting the audience is. At one point in time, a large portion of what today is considered "art" or "theatre" would have been considered pornographic. Just as, at one point in time, what may today be considered pornographic was "art" or "theatre".

    Posted by: KnownEvan
  • Porn is porn and Art is art. One can never be the other.

    Art is, by design, created to stimulate human emotion; an aesthetic feeling that move us humans beyond reality and place us in a state of enamoring bliss. Porn, on the other hand, was created to stimulate our base sexual desires and ONLY those. Its main goal is to profit from persons by fulfilling these ravenous, animal-like, simplistic desires. Art strives for something more. That said, expressing the sex act MAY be an aide to art. Suppose a sex scene in a film. If a scene representing the sex act is made to convey a message (The Bible's Song of Songs), express a character's situation/personality (Schindler's List) or present stronger, darker undertones (Song of Saya), then these may be considered art, since they are concerned with putting the viewer in an aesthetic state of mind, rather than satisfying carnal desire. If the goal of a scene IS satisfying an audience's libido, it is pornography, and it is tasteless beyond belief. And one of the many reasons I despise pornography.

  • I believe there is a fine line between what is art, and what is pornographic.

    While there are many art pieces and theater shows that are centered on human sex and sexuality, there is a point in which it can no longer be considered art. If the people involved are participating in sexual acts for gratification, then it is pornography, and should not be considered art.

    Posted by: StevyDemon
  • I fully believe that pornographic or sexual acts can be considered neither art nor theatre.

    Pornographic or sexual acts should never be considered for viewing for art, theatre or pleasure. Unfortunately sexual lifestyles have been so exploited in our world that the sex within marriage has gotten to the point where it is no longer considered sacred. When we are using these types of acts as art or theatre, it is exploiting women and men for the world.

    Posted by: AmazingJunior58
  • No, because pornography in all its forms is pornography, not art.

    Sex is sex, and art is art. Never shall the two meet. No matter how much you want to justify and glorify it, porn is not art. There's nothing artistic or even beautiful about the sex act. It's a private and often disgustingly perverse thing that was never meant to be seen by anyone other than the two people locked in intimacy. We spend far too much time making it the central part of our lives, when in reality, it's the one thing we do less of than everything else.

    Posted by: N3vinFace
  • Pornographic or sexual acts are just means of making quick money or fulfilling some desires.

    I disagree that pornographic or sexual acts be considered "art" or "theatre" because they are just means of making quick money or fulfilling some desires. In case of art or theatre, it is the exhibition and expression of your talent to the world. I think pornographic or sexual acts are possible with everyone, but art or theatre requires some skills.

    Posted by: I0rFashion
  • I do not think that sexual acts can be considered art or theatre.

    I do not think that sexual acts can be considered art or theatre. The human body can be considered a piece of art and used in art; however, I do not think that sexual acts can be considered art or theatre because it is more of a sport. Is running considered art or theatre? I think that sexual acts are more closely related to sports rather than art. There is more focus on movement rather than on enjoying the unique look of the body in action.

    Posted by: ObaICheese
  • Though I have seen where people have thought pornographic or sexual acts were art, it has no place in the art or theatre, because it is filthy and simply a disgusting sin.

    Anyone claiming sexual acts or pornography are art, are fooling themselves. They may try to add porn or sex acts with poetry or plays, but that is not making the sexual part of it a form of art or theatrical. It is not right to fool others into sinning and making bad decisions. Sex should be an act kept in the bedroom or between a man and woman who love each other. It is blatantly committing sinful acts if you perform sexual acts on stage or call it art. That is not art, that is not bringing out the art appreciating part of your brain, it is just you making an excuse to get sexually excited.

    Posted by: Pl4tinumCammy
  • I do not think pornographic or sexual acts should be considered "art".

    I have been to very few films or theater where showing pornographic or sexual acts actually added to the film. Often it is just the opposite and it distracts from the action or the story line of the movie. There have been a few times when the sex was the essence of the story and seemed appropriate to add it.

    Posted by: SilverMathi
  • There is a difference between a penis insertion, and a mock play of the sex act.

    A penis inserted inside a woman, is going to be porn no matter the case, there is nothing artistic about that. The cases where it is artistic may flaunt nudity, but never the act in its entirety, that is the difference I believe in art and sex/porn.

    Posted by: Bear
  • No pornography is pornography no matter the label that those who desire it wish to put on it, because it is a simple fact of human nature to justify wrongs by putting them in a prettier package.

    Pornography has been proven scientifically to have a need for escalation to maintain the pleasure or arousal level it induces in humans. Photos found in National Geographic were all the rage for young men of an earlier era seeking to see nudity when men's magazines either did not exist or were not so easily accessible to the young men. As long as adults promote pornography in any form, it will be highly desired and sought after by adolescent males. And with the Internet as it is, to make pornography just and "art" will open many more youths to the damages that the skewed view of sexuality that pornography gives.

    Posted by: Z Frye

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.