Why do you watch porn?

[mac.B]

The question is simple enough but is based on the fact that I watch hardcore porn mostly for its artistic or entertainment values. Its seldom that I watch porn to pleasure myself and there are only a few scenes that I go to for that reason. But is it the same for most porn connoisseurs? Do most even have the time to watch it like that? I'm curious about the topic and want to hear your thoughts.

For me porn is: 70% artistic/entertainment and 30% gratifying.

Whats the break down for you? Also, what do you like most about watching porn? Personally, I enjoy the cinematography the most I think. Theres a scene on TSplayground that ends with the camera focusing on a ladyboy's penis while she is being fucked hard after both of them had already came. The scene focuses on the penetration from the front of the girl and just fades out. I'd prefer more scenes had alternate endings like that as opposed to them just cumming and cutting off. I also pay attention to the overall mood of the scene, the girls(of course) and what type they are. Porn really is an art form and
I'm curious of who is in agreement and your take on why.

[timxxx]

For the articles.

[fred41]

I usually watch porn to masturbate, ...I'm funny like that.

[Dino Velvet]

Most of it I fall asleep after about 10 minutes or nod off err somethin'. That Morgan Bailey movie gave me a boner though. It was hot and fun with a retro/vintage porn feel.

http://shemaledvdreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/mbbadday.sleeve.jpg

[dderek123]

Franklin watches porn while making lists of stuff to complain about.

[TSCURIOUS]

^what fred said - daily!

[Ben in LA]

So I can squeeze one out when a lady isn't available...duh!

[youngblood61]

I usually watch porn to masturbate, ...I'm funny like that.Yep,and to see the pretty girls!:)

[MacShreach]

The question is simple enough but is based on the fact that I watch hardcore porn mostly for its artistic or entertainment values. Its seldom that I watch porn to pleasure myself and there are only a few scenes that I go to for that reason. But is it the same for most porn connoisseurs? Do most even have the time to watch it like that? I'm curious about the topic and want to hear your thoughts.

For me porn is: 70% artistic/entertainment and 30% gratifying.

Whats the break down for you? Also, what do you like most about watching porn? Personally, I enjoy the cinematography the most I think. Theres a scene on TSplayground that ends with the camera focusing on a ladyboy's penis while she is being fucked hard after both of them had already came. The scene focuses on the penetration from the front of the girl and just fades out. I'd prefer more scenes had alternate endings like that as opposed to them just cumming and cutting off. I also pay attention to the overall mood of the scene, the girls(of course) and what type they are. Porn really is an art form and
I'm curious of who is in agreement and your take on why.

Hmmm. Ok, I, like most of the posters here, do enjoy TS porn. This is almost all of very low quality in production terms. It works a treat for cracking one off, but as art...Let's put it this way: you would not get a place on any reputable Art School Degree programme with work of this quality. Not 'leave', get in with. Not because of the subject material, but because it's just not good enough. And I know of which I speak.

There is a difference between 'lo-fi' and shit, in art terms. Unfortunately this is often missed. And 'gonzo' is a term coined by one of the most seminal writers of the 20th century, Hunter S Thompson, to refer to a highly visual, flow-of consciousness, style of journalism. It was hijacked in porn to mean 'any old crap' by 'producers' like Nacho Vidal. I have to presume he can't read, in order to have done that.

Porn is certainly art insofar as any creative activity is art. The consequence of that, however, is that it can be criticised using the same techniques we would apply to any other art form. Unfortunately, most mainstream porn is so bad as to be laughable as art, though it might be good enough to crack one off to.

If you want porn that stands up as art, look at the late, and really so very, very sadly lamented Bob Carlos Clarke's, illustrations for Anais Nin's 'Delta of Venus'. Or Dahmane's 'Porn Art'. Or China Hamilton's work. Or Craig Morey's. Making a list would take all night.

You do not find quality like this, not by a lang Scots mile, in contemporary commercial porn and absolutely definitely not in TS porn. Because I am an artist who loves TS women I think that's really sad. There is just so much good art, which is also porn, out there it's amazing. Almost none of it is mainstream and even less TS.

[danthepoetman]

So I can squeeze one out when a lady isn't available...duh!
Ditto.

But strangely, I also just love it. I love porn! What's not to love when you see magnificent, adorable girls having done what you want to do to them yourself. Very often, I love some porn on and do something else, when I'm alone. I love to read with a porn movie on, for instance. I guess I'm some kind of a nut case, but it shouldn't come as a surprise...
Besides, I find that porn keeps you stimulated, which from a certain age on, is not a luxury...

[Merkurie]

I watch porn because I have the internet.

[Jericho]

If i'm not pulling to it, i'm not watching it! :shrug

[youngblood61]

Also relaxes me. Takes the edge off.:)

[Jamie French]

Porn is ridiculous to watch if you aren't in jerk off mode. It's not art by any measurable standard. It's craft. It's construct can not be separated from it's purpose. Because it has a purpose it is not art, production values be damned. My perspective is bred from my many years of experience as a consumer as well as a producer. I put a lot of work into my content but I would NEVER call what I do art.

[danthepoetman]

Porn is ridiculous to watch if you aren't in jerk off mode. It's not art by any measurable standard. It's craft. It's construct can not be separated from it's purpose. Because it has a purpose it is not art, production values be damned. My perspective is bred from my many years of experience as a consumer as well as a producer. I put a lot of work into my content but I would NEVER call what I do art.
That's very honnest of you, Jamie, and I agree. And it goes for many forms of entertainment also. One of the delightful aspects of porn for me is the fun of it; it's enjoyable to watch, it's stimulating, joyful, it evokes one of the most pleasurable aspect of life and you guys often mannage to put quite a bit of humour in it. To me, that's entertainment. Audio-visual forms of expressions are all about the solid artisanship of people who work in the end, to provide us with an essential part of our life, greater in terms of space, than true art itself; art is great, but we can't stay in a constant state of aesthetic attraction of fascination: we need to be "played" with, diverted. I suppose I am a little odd, but porn often has that effect on me -more in my maturity though than it was in my younger, very driven years.

[mac.B]

Is the stigma of sex too great that it makes us think that everything involved with is is dirty or worthless? Not art? Please! These days a dot on a blank canvas represents some great artistic expression these days when yo ask these pseudo-intellectuals. Even with its simplistic production value todays ts porn is still an artform seeing as how its a representation sex. Regardless of how exaggerated and phony a lot of it is. In fact, I would argue that that aspect of it is, in its own way, an interesting aesthetic in itself. Tell me what the difference is between nude art and ts porn? Those photos are most of the time minimalistic in concept and I would say that ts porn is also most of the time. Its incredible how some people who make this stuff really shit on it as a profession. No disrespect but maybe this is why we haven't seen that much growth in conceptual value from these productions. Why not try to find new ways to entice new consumers? Like it or not, the fact that people step in front of those cameras to perform even slightly nude for your enjoyment as a representation of sex in its many variations, is art. Dont believe me? Try this: whatch some of that ladyboy porn, pause the scene, then take a snapshot of the screen, turn it into a jpeg and voila!!! you have art. You can call it "Ladyboy Needs Money" or "Bored in the Ass"

[Jamie French]

I never said anything about the stigma of sex being a determining factor in whether or not porn should be considered art. YOU came with that on your own. (I'M IN porn for christ sake... how would I even begin to argue from that viewpoint?)
I never said porn was worthless either. It's how I make my living so that's obviously a viewpoint that you are projecting on to the pile as well.

You are confusing the definition of aesthetics with the definition of art. It's a simple and forgivable mistake.

I said this and ONLY this:

Porn = Craft.
Art = Art.

This is not to say that porn can't look amazing when crafted by the right mind, only that the amazing look does not equal art. Porn is a product designed to turn a profit. It is a quantifiable commodity with a single artless purpose for its producers and an equally artless purpose for its consumers.

Your viewpoint seemingly doesn't speak so much to your thoughts on what constitutes art but rather that you might get a little buzz out of being a contrarian about the finer points of a subject that truly has no finer points.

Ask yourself this... why is it so important to you that you need porn to be thought of as art? As a pornographer I think it's much more noble to cop to the fact that porn is specifically tailored for a definitive purpose and that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Let porn be seen as seemy. Let porn play to our most base instincts. Let porn degrade and devour. These things represent only a few of the many, many facets of of this condition we call humanity and thus are valid in their own standing without the need for the white washing title of 'art'.


Is the stigma of sex too great that it makes us think that everything involved with is is dirty or worthless? Not art? Please! These days a dot on a blank canvas represents some great artistic expression these days when yo ask these pseudo-intellectuals. Even with its simplistic production value todays ts porn is still an artform seeing as how its a representation sex. Regardless of how exaggerated and phony a lot of it is. In fact, I would argue that that aspect of it is, in its own way, an interesting aesthetic in itself. Tell me what the difference is between nude art and ts porn? Those photos are most of the time minimalistic in concept and I would say that ts porn is also most of the time. Its incredible how some people who make this stuff really shit on it as a profession. No disrespect but maybe this is why we haven't seen that much growth in conceptual value from these productions. Why not try to find new ways to entice new consumers? Like it or not, the fact that people step in front of those cameras to perform even slightly nude for your enjoyment as a representation of sex in its many variations, is art. Dont believe me? Try this: whatch some of that ladyboy porn, pause the scene, then take a snapshot of the screen, turn it into a jpeg and voila!!! you have art. You can call it "Ladyboy Needs Money" or "Bored in the Ass"

[mac.B]

I never said anything about the stigma of sex being a determining factor in whether or not porn should be considered art. YOU came with that on your own. (I'M IN porn for christ sake... how would I even begin to argue from that viewpoint?)
I never said porn was worthless either. It's how I make my living so that's obviously a viewpoint that you are projecting on to the pile as well.

You are confusing the definition of aesthetics with the definition of art. It's a simple and forgivable mistake.

I said this and ONLY this:

Porn = Craft.
Art = Art.

This is not to say that porn can't look amazing when crafted by the right mind, only that the amazing look does not equal art. Porn is a product designed to turn a profit. It is a quantifiable commodity with a single artless purpose for its producers and an equally artless purpose for its consumers.

Your viewpoint seemingly doesn't speak so much to your thoughts on what constitutes art but rather that you might get a little buzz out of being a contrarian about the finer points of a subject that truly has no finer points.

Ask yourself this... why is it so important to you that you need porn to be thought of as art? As a pornographer I think it's much more noble to cop to the fact that porn is specifically tailored for a definitive purpose and that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Let porn be seen as seemy. Let porn play to our most base instincts. Let porn degrade and devour. These things represent only a few of the many, many facets of of this condition we call humanity and thus are valid in their own standing without the need for the white washing title of 'art'.

Porn = film=craft+the implementation of concepts and/or visuals used to express certain aspects of real life= ART.

Painting=craft Photography=craft, film=craft ect.

All of these require skill and technical proficiency. However, when given concept the products of these mediums becomes art. So if someone makes a film and tries to sell it then it looses its art" status?
Artists are supposed to make money from their creations. Youre not making any sense. I'm not trying to be rude either and I'm not part of the " Great Intellectual society of Hungangels" either. You guys can have that. But you're argument of porn not being art just doesn't make any sense. Yes it is tailored to fit a specific purpose just like all other mediums but also like the others porn is not limited to what it has been and there have been many cases where it has stepped out of its primary function and tapped in to other aspects of sexual expression.


Im definitely not trying to go against the grain and my question was not meant to challenge any ideas whatsoever. It was asked under the assumption that most people on this board were in agreement with the porn is art notion to begin with. My argument isnt that porn should be considered art b/c to me it already is. I certainly didnt expect to argure this with anyone on a gd porn forum.



I didnt come up with that on my own. Another poster insinuated that they were "sick in the head" for having porn in the background during their reading sessions. But look at how you described the functionality of porn and how it plays to our lowest instincs, degrades and devours. That statement supports the opening question from my previous post. Your thinking takes the way the importance of healthy sexual relationships. Do you look at sexuality as something that we shoul evolve beyond or as a part of ourselves that we should explore and express with care and understanding?
Porn can be degrading but I've left several theatre movies this past year feeling completely insulted as a "African-American" b/c of images that I felt were degrading. Art degrades as it has that power. This is its purpose (one of them) to insight emotion and thought. Sex is not bad and expressing it via film, painting, sculpture or photograph is in fact ART.

[Ben in LA]

Porn is ridiculous to watch if you aren't in jerk off mode. It's not art by any measurable standard. It's craft. It's construct can not be separated from it's purpose. Because it has a purpose it is not art, production values be damned. My perspective is bred from my many years of experience as a consumer as well as a producer. I put a lot of work into my content but I would NEVER call what I do art.
Well...there actually are a few pornos out there that CAN be viewed while NOT in jack off mode. The film "Dream Quest" with Jenna Jameson actually had a cool storyline. Then there was "Pirates", a movie Digital Playground actually re-cut to exhibit to the non-porn viewing crowd. It (and the sequel) actually wasn't that bad!

Pirates - XXX - Trailer - Digital Playground - YouTube movies hd trailer - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNMdoXydWDk)

[MacShreach]

Well...there actually are a few pornos out there that CAN be viewed while NOT in jack off mode. The film "Dream Quest" with Jenna Jameson actually had a cool storyline. Then there was "Pirates", a movie Digital Playground actually re-cut to exhibit to the non-porn viewing crowd. It (and the sequel) actually wasn't that bad!

Pirates - XXX - Trailer - Digital Playground - YouTube movies hd trailer - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNMdoXydWDk)
True dat. It actually was not that bad.

There's a misconception which appears to have cropped up here that art has to have no purpose. If that were true, then religious art, which accounts for a vast quantity of all the art ever made, would not be art. All art has purpose, just like all art has concept. Very often that purpose is paying the rent, but I don't hear anyone saying that Michelangelo, Ruebens, Picasso, Moore or for that matter Gislebertus, the first modern European artist whose name we actually know, were any less artists because of that.

Music is made for people to dance to, but it is art, or at least can be. Portraiture is art, yet it has a specific end-- usually the gratification of the sitter and the remuneration of the artist.

Granted, a great deal of art today is made by people who may not have to rely on selling it for an income, because they are academics within the teaching of art. That, however is simply an institutionalised art market. The purpose, in this case, is keeping the professorship. It's an indirect way for your art to pay the mortgage.

For Camille Paglia, who is definitely qualified to comment, cinema is the great contemporary art, and she doesn't just mean low budget art-house movies, though she doesn't exclude them, and nobody in their right minds is suggesting that the generation of revenue is not the major motivation in the movie business.

At the end of the day, the distinction (if one exists) between 'craft' and 'art' is extremely subjective. Were Picasso's ceramics craft or art? Most people I hope would accept Edward Weston's photographs as art, but what about Helmut Newton's? Or David Bailey's? I mentioned Dahmane's 'Porn Art' before as an example of how it is indeed possible to make porn art...but what about David Hamilton? (And you couldn't argue with his technical or craft ability.)

There is no question at all that the depiction of sexually desirable bodies, and of the act of sex, has been the subject of a huge amount of secular art, a tradition which exploded after the Renaissance and the rise of secularism generally. The fact that so much film porn is so bad, is not because it can't be art. 'Pirates' was not exactly a high-budget movie but it made a decent stab at it, and French porn routinely demonstrates an aeshetic and technical quality that directly challenges any dogmatic assertion that 'porn is not art'. (In which it is not alone.)

Porn can indeed be art. However, whether or not it is art, an awful lot of it is just not very good at all, and the question that should be asked is 'why'? Could it, perhaps, have something to do with a deeply conservative culture's attitude towards sex in general?

[MacShreach]

Here's some Dahmane

[Quiet Reflections]

My dick talks back sometimes and I have to smack him around a bit. His beating go smoother with porn on.

[Jamie French]

I'd continue to argue with you about this but I know something that you will only come to learn in time.

Your capacity to consider let alone comprehend the things I've told you is lacking due to a mix of inexperience and blind passion.

Few things are as taxing as fighting for a sanctimonious cause which does not actually exist. It'll ware on you and one day your opinions will evolve to meet the standards of people who know what they are talking about. You are simply going through the paces of state that is commonly known as an 'the angry young man' phase. You have a cause and that's noble, but it's a misplaced notion you are defending and it's obvious that we can't communicate about this subject on an even keel.

So go, go my little caterpillar. One day you will return as a butterfly. You will share beauty with the world. Right now I'll leave you be to make your mistakes and learn your lessons.
Your views will mature and at that time you'll have something to say that's worth listening to, you will have found a voice that is not symptomatic of an artist who is still finding his footing.

As for the rest of you who are pointing out 'films' as evidence to my contrary... Look, I can't sit here while there's work to be done and take the time to account for everyone's bad taste on a case by case basis.



Porn = film=craft+the implementation of concepts and/or visuals used to express certain aspects of real life= ART.

Painting=craft Photography=craft, film=craft ect.

All of these require skill and technical proficiency. However, when given concept the products of these mediums becomes art. So if someone makes a film and tries to sell it then it looses its art" status?
Artists are supposed to make money from their creations. Youre not making any sense. I'm not trying to be rude either and I'm not part of the " Great Intellectual society of Hungangels" either. You guys can have that. But you're argument of porn not being art just doesn't make any sense. Yes it is tailored to fit a specific purpose just like all other mediums but also like the others porn is not limited to what it has been and there have been many cases where it has stepped out of its primary function and tapped in to other aspects of sexual expression.


Im definitely not trying to go against the grain and my question was not meant to challenge any ideas whatsoever. It was asked under the assumption that most people on this board were in agreement with the porn is art notion to begin with. My argument isnt that porn should be considered art b/c to me it already is. I certainly didnt expect to argure this with anyone on a gd porn forum.



I didnt come up with that on my own. Another poster insinuated that they were "sick in the head" for having porn in the background during their reading sessions. But look at how you described the functionality of porn and how it plays to our lowest instincs, degrades and devours. That statement supports the opening question from my previous post. Your thinking takes the way the importance of healthy sexual relationships. Do you look at sexuality as something that we shoul evolve beyond or as a part of ourselves that we should explore and express with care and understanding?
Porn can be degrading but I've left several theatre movies this past year feeling completely insulted as a "African-American" b/c of images that I felt were degrading. Art degrades as it has that power. This is its purpose (one of them) to insight emotion and thought. Sex is not bad and expressing it via film, painting, sculpture or photograph is in fact ART.

[Buddy Wood]

lol wow

[TSPornFan]

I watch it to see my sexual fantasies as if I was living them. The right kind of scene can really be sexually intense to watch.

[mac.B]

I'd continue to argue with you about this but I know something that you will only come to learn in time.

Your capacity to consider let alone comprehend the things I've told you is lacking due to a mix of inexperience and blind passion.

Few things are as taxing as fighting for a sanctimonious cause which does not actually exist. It'll ware on you and one day your opinions will evolve to meet the standards of people who know what they are talking about. You are simply going through the paces of state that is commonly known as an 'the angry young man' phase. You have a cause and that's noble, but it's a misplaced notion you are defending and it's obvious that we can't communicate about this subject on an even keel.

So go, go my little caterpillar. One day you will return as a butterfly. You will share beauty with the world. Right now I'll leave you be to make your mistakes and learn your lessons.
Your views will mature and at that time you'll have something to say that's worth listening to, you will have found a voice that is not symptomatic of an artist who is still finding his footing.

As for the rest of you who are pointing out 'films' as evidence to my contrary... Look, I can't sit here while there's work to be done and take the time to account for everyone's bad taste on a case by case basis.


There is no cause. I gain nothing from anyone on this forum classifying porn as art. Passion? Porn isnt even on the top ten of things that I'm passionate about. Really I'd like to run a porn site while I'm in film school b/c I'd like the challenge of doing it successfully and b/c I like it. My Overall professional goal is to be a well-rounded film maker in general. I have an appreciation for film and art as a whole hence my stance on porn.


During this post you have done a lot of name calling. First I was a contrarian, then I became an angry young man so I ask where are these views coming from? I have once challenged you as a person or questioned your successes as a pornographer. The reality is this: I'm young, I have my own money and a set amount that I'd invest in a porn venture. I have Ideas, time, energy, a free ride to film school(that teaches about the porn industry) the goal of being a well rounded filmmaker(among other things). Porn is not supposed to be "the" career.


I understand that you may have experienced things in your professional career that caused bitterness in you but that has nothing to do with me or the initial question that was asked. You make it seem as though you were providing a great amount of insight into the business of porn but in actuality all you were doing was bringing your bitterness and negative past experiences to a thread that was not supposed to promote any groundbreaking thoughts or ideas whatsoever. What was your overall point? That porn isnt art? I really see the light now. Let me ask you this: if it is or not what does it matter. There are going to be people in any field who look to stick with the formula or not. My overall idea is that if more people changed their formula then maybe there wouldnt be such a large gap between the most successful sites and the middle ground.

The fact that you come here trying to impose your pointless assertions on me ant this thread is a testament to your own failures as a professional i think. In fact, I had forgotten that you were even a performer or had you own site.

Maybe your right about my views maturing and one day I may no longer look at porn as something that can exist outside of the current formulas for scenes. In that case what really changes? Nothing. You cn try to talk down all you want but where has you 100% logic gotten you? What do you have to show for any of your knowledge? Ill wait.

But sorry to keep you from all of the work that you have to get done. Really, I can relate as I'm outlining a screenplay and I come here during breaks via mobile device. I'm home now though but Its late and I just want to focus on where I'll be spending the middle two weeks of July for vacation. If I decide on Rio then I'll have to send my passport away and go through the visa process. Ive narrowed it down to Lima+Buenos Aires, Cape Verde or back to Bangkok. I would, however, like your input on that.:)

[danthepoetman]

I’ll try to explain something many of you are probably familiar with, but I think is important to be repeated anyways. Classical art has its own particular codes. It’s mainly symbolic and would be said to be quite realistic in form, at first sight, but is on the contrary very codified. From the end of the XIXth century, these codes have been put in question and especially the form. Romanticism first, and then realism, paradoxically, have come to work at a deconstruction of the subject to bring out another meaning out of it. From the time of the Impressionists, at the end of the XIXth century, deconstruction was in full mode, but once again in the name of realism, in this case, scientific realism. A whole new sense of the object was developing, and especially of the relation between the observer and what is observed. Impressionists worked enormously on light, and on the effects of colours in the visual process. In the mean time, some other artists were getting back to symbolism, namely Gauguin and Van Gogh, but by working on colour as an integrate part of the subject, a tendency which was followed by the Fauves. Cézanne went beyond the light touches effect, still in this deconstruction process, but by delving into the visual process itself –the setting of the Mont Sainte-Victoire pictures, for instance, are full of colour spots only, yet you can literally travel through them. He also started in his still life to work on the angles of vision by which you see the art subject. As such, he was in a way reconstructing an art subject, but completely from a subjective perspective. Picasso and Braque built on that, precisely on the various angles: the cubists freakish pictures are made as such for realistic motives; they present the subject from every angle possible at the same time. As these artist were entering more mature production, Marcel Duchamp, in particular, started to not only put the subject in question, but the whole artistic process. He sculpted, for instance, a small cage full of sugar cubes in marble. Inviting people to weight the cage, everybody was surprised to realize how heavy it was. What’s real and what’s not? Where does art start and where does it end? He made a painting of a nude woman in a bunch of straw, but put it in a huge box with a door; you could only see the painting through a key hole on the door. What are the role and the place of the spectator in art? Eventually, he started signing urinals… What is an art object, and what role does the artist hand have in it? In the mean time, once again, other artists kept working on the subject itself, but this time, by getting completely rid of what they called the anecdote, which means anything that could allow a realistic lecture of it; so was developing non figurative art, concentration on the pure forms and colours, and on their effects. Deconstruction took its course all the way to minimalistic forms of art, a pile of bricks, “installations” of every day objects, the wrapping in coloured paper of a whole bridge, etc.
Now that’s a brief summary, of course, although I suspect some of you might find me terribly vain in presenting all of this. But what I’m trying to get at, is that yes, it is difficult, as Mac pointed out, to define precisely what a work of art is. And it is largely a matter of subjective value indeed. Yet, usually, the artist knows of this evolution, and try to place himself in it, he tries to innovate, or explore something in regard to that history (history of recent art). He tries to make a mark for himself in this multiplicity of tendencies as a continuation of this exploration of forms. It’s not without goal or end, but it is definitely not simple amusement or diversion.
I’m sorry, but in my opinion, Jamie is absolutely right. She’s very humble in saying what she is saying and she’s right on the money. Porn, no matter how beautiful it is, no matter how well done it is, never serves or explore strictly artistic purposes (or at least very rarely –and when it does, notwithstanding the old constipated Christian morality, you always suspect money has something to do with it, as sex sells, compared to unknown art). Tv shows, much of Hollywood cinematographic production (not all, of course), porn, and many other forms of audio-visual forms of expression, are not art but entertainment. Jamie is also right on this: to work, it requires tremendous craft and experience, it requires an exquisite know-how, but it doesn’t fit in itself in artistic preoccupations. It is entertainment.
This being said, yes, some of these forms of expression are so wonderful and impressive, that we tend to give them a tremendous value. We’re right to do so. And once again, as Mac alluded to, there is sometime a fine line. But to talk about “art”, you have to refer to art, to pure artistic preoccupations. Not to entertain people or make dough as your essential focus…

[mac.B]

I’ll try to explain something many of you are probably familiar with, but I think is important to be repeated anyways. Classical art has its own particular codes. It’s mainly symbolic and would be said to be quite realistic in form, at first sight, but is on the contrary very codified. From the end of the XIXth century, these codes have been put in question and especially the form. Romanticism first, and then realism, paradoxically, have come to work at a deconstruction of the subject to bring out another meaning out of it. From the time of the Impressionists, at the end of the XIXth century, deconstruction was in full mode, but once again in the name of realism, in this case, scientific realism. A whole new sense of the object was developing, and especially of the relation between the observer and what is observed. Impressionists worked enormously on light, and on the effects of colours in the visual process. In the mean time, some other artists were getting back to symbolism, namely Gauguin and Van Gogh, but by working on colour as an integrate part of the subject, a tendency which was followed by the Fauves. Cézanne went beyond the light touches effect, still in this deconstruction process, but by delving into the visual process itself –the setting of the Mont Sainte-Victoire pictures, for instance, are full of colour spots only, yet you can literally travel through them. He also started in his still life to work on the angles of vision by which you see the art subject. As such, he was in a way reconstructing an art subject, but completely from a subjective perspective. Picasso and Braque built on that, precisely on the various angles: the cubists freakish pictures are made as such for realistic motives; they present the subject from every angle possible at the same time. As these artist were entering more mature production, Marcel Duchamp, in particular, started to not only put the subject in question, but the whole artistic process. He sculpted, for instance, a small cage full of sugar cubes in marble. Inviting people to weight the cage, everybody was surprised to realize how heavy it was. What’s real and what’s not? Where does art start and where does it end? He made a painting of a nude woman in a bunch of straw, but put it in a huge box with a door; you could only see the painting through a key hole on the door. What are the role and the place of the spectator in art? Eventually, he started signing urinals… What is an art object, and what role does the artist hand have in it? In the mean time, once again, other artists kept working on the subject itself, but this time, by getting completely rid of what they called the anecdote, which means anything that could allow a realistic lecture of it; so was developing non figurative art, concentration on the pure forms and colours, and on their effects. Deconstruction took its course all the way to minimalistic forms of art, a pile of bricks, “installations” of every day objects, the wrapping in coloured paper of a whole bridge, etc.
Now that’s a brief summary, of course, although I suspect some of you might find me terribly vain in presenting all of this. But what I’m trying to get at, is that yes, it is difficult, as Mac pointed out, to define precisely what a work of art is. And it is largely a matter of subjective value indeed. Yet, usually, the artist knows of this evolution, and try to place himself in it, he tries to innovate, or explore something in regard to that history (history of recent art). He tries to make a mark for himself in this multiplicity of tendencies as a continuation of this exploration of forms. It’s not without goal or end, but it is definitely not simple amusement or diversion.
I’m sorry, but in my opinion, Jamie is absolutely right. She’s very humble in saying what she is saying and she’s right on the money. Porn, no matter how beautiful it is, no matter how well done it is, never serves or explore strictly artistic purposes (or at least very rarely –and when it does, notwithstanding the old constipated Christian morality, you always suspect money has something to do with it, as sex sells, compared to unknown art). Tv shows, much of Hollywood cinematographic production (not all, of course), porn, and many other forms of audio-visual forms of expression, are not art but entertainment. Jamie is also right on this: to work, it requires tremendous craft and experience, it requires an exquisite know-how, but it doesn’t fit in itself in artistic preoccupations. It is entertainment.
This being said, yes, some of these forms of expression are so wonderful and impressive, that we tend to give them a tremendous value. We’re right to do so. And once again, as Mac alluded to, there is sometime a fine line. But to talk about “art”, you have to refer to art, to pure artistic preoccupations. Not to entertain people or make dough as your essential focus…


i understand what your saying but:

art

/ärt/
Noun


The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,...: "the art of the Renaissance"
Works produced by such skill and imagination.



Synonyms
craft - skill - artifice - science - workmanship - knack
I googled it.

Thanks for all input. I guess I got what I needed from this so I guess I'll concede. Thank you all.

[danthepoetman]

MacB, we got your point nonetheless. I personaly put a very high value on beauty. And porn often manage to present it in a magnificent way. You at least convinced me, my friend, that I'm not a complete crackpot for enjoying it this way... :)

[samspud]

I like to dub into it non porn dialog from other movies.

[Lovecox]

I watch porn because:

1. My biological imperative is to propagate my DNA.
2. DNA is propagated through sex.
3. Evolution programmed my brain to visually recognize any possible sexual encounter.
4. My brain responds to the possibility of sex even when it's just an image in the same way that I crave food when I see a picture of a delicious pizza.
5. When my brain recognizes a possible sexual encounter dopamine is released and I feel pleasure.
6. The Coolidge Effect keeps me searching for different images in the same way mice in the laboratory tire of the same sexual partner but will mount fresh female mice non stop until they collapse with exhaustion. (named after the American president Calvin Coolidge. President Coolidge and his wife were touring a cattle ranch when the owner explained to the first lady that a certain bull could mount and ejaculate 9 times in one day. The first lady said, Please tell that to my husband. When the amused ranch owner did so President Coolidge asked, With the same cow? the owner answered, No. President Coolidge responded, Please tell that to my wife.)

The short answer is that I look at porn because I am addicted to porn and I cannot stop.

[maddygirl]

I don't actually watch porn... It doesn't do anything for me. I'd rather just have a cute guy in my bed to try out some fancy moves. Wooo. Maybe I just don't have a very good imagination. Loool.

[danthepoetman]

I don't actually watch porn... It doesn't do anything for me. I'd rather just have a cute guy in my bed to try out some fancy moves. Wooo. Maybe I just don't have a very good imagination. Loool.
Porn is a way to develop it, but I'd say exploring fancy moves is a good one too, Maddy! You know how it is: in biology classes, you study with girls and constantly ask: when's the practical course? And oh! same thing with anatomy! ;)

[Ananke]

That's very honnest of you, Jamie, and I agree. And it goes for many forms of entertainment also. One of the delightful aspects of porn for me is the fun of it; it's enjoyable to watch, it's stimulating, joyful, it evokes one of the most pleasurable aspect of life and you guys often mannage to put quite a bit of humour in it. To me, that's entertainment. Audio-visual forms of expressions are all about the solid artisanship of people who work in the end, to provide us with an essential part of our life, greater in terms of space, than true art itself; art is great, but we can't stay in a constant state of aesthetic attraction of fascination: we need to be "played" with, diverted. I suppose I am a little odd, but porn often has that effect on me -more in my maturity though than it was in my younger, very driven years.
Quite agree with you! It is the spark that keeps the chronologically challenged like me going!
As for the artistic value, I never thought of it that way, but there is a point!
Art, anyway, is in the eye of the beholder I would say!

[Prospero]

I am with Maddy on this (though obviously of course it's a cute girl I would have to be with.) I HAVE watched porn of course and enjoy many of the wonderful pictures here of beautiful girls/women. But in the end pornography is hugely boring - the movie variety - and the real thing infinitely preferable.

[danthepoetman]

I am with Maddy on this (though obviously of course it's a cute girl I would have to be with.) I HAVE watched porn of course and enjoy many of the wonderful pictures here of beautiful girls/women. But in the end pornography is hugely boring - the movie variety - and the real thing infinitely preferable.
Porn watchers are indeed often about too much theory and not enough practice... :fuckin:

[danthepoetman]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/1016606_567978796578152_1127871719_n.jpg

[mac.B]

I may have been wrong. I understand better where Jamie was coming from. Her assertion is that porn is not an art because its sole purpose for which it was made was to appease a certain type of consumer. When she talked about porn representing the base of society what she actually meant was fact that there are people who are willing to degrade and expose themselves just for money. Her comments had nothing to do with the stigma of sex in the society. I was wrong for not fully understanding her point of view and reacting anyway. I may have said some things that were offensive to Jamie and for that I apologize.

[Prospero]

Porn is ridiculous to watch if you aren't in jerk off mode. It's not art by any measurable standard. It's craft. It's construct can not be separated from it's purpose. Because it has a purpose it is not art, production values be damned. My perspective is bred from my many years of experience as a consumer as well as a producer. I put a lot of work into my content but I would NEVER call what I do art.

Excellent post by Jamie...

Porn is functional. Often it is for maturbatory purposes or sometimes as a mood arousa. Erotica is a different animal. Both are on show in this site. Porn tends to make sexuality very explicit while erotica suggests, arouses, implies... but is seldom full on hardcore images

[Stavros]

Why do I watch porn? Because I like pretending.

[MacShreach]

Not to entertain people or make dough as your essential focus…
The trouble with that, is that it is totally contrary to the foundation of contemporary art in the Quattrocento Renaissance, where the aim of artists was precisely to entertain and be successful. Both Burckhardt and Vasari make this quite clear.

It also seems to go along with a post-Raphaelite, patrician understanding of art as an elite and elitist activity which appears to be an undercurrent here.

The problem that you then get is the one that, once again, Camille Paglia eloquently identified, in that 'art' becomes emasculated, and ultimately remote and meaningless, since it becomes the sole province of the educated and wealthy elite; art in aspic, as Damien Hirst observed.

However, the most vibrant and seminal forms of recent art have sprung from popular culture where the ideals of the Quattrocento hold absolutely true. This has been the case since even before the salon des refusées, which gave birth to Impressionism. This dichotomy has completely confused the academic art establishment; you don't have to look any further than the example of Banksy to see this.

Porn can definitely be art. There is no doubt of it. You only have to wander round the Louvre or any other major gallery to see the proof. Artists from Botticelli and Donatello, through Fragonard and Bernini, Metisse and Roualt to Newton or Hamilton, have not merely dealt with the human body, male and female, as sex object, but the act of sex and prostitution itself. The case here is clear. Porn can indeed be art.

The reason so much contemporary porn is so bad is because it's just bad. Being good or bad is not the same as being art or not art. There's plenty of other bad art out there too, it's not restricted to porn. Porn is just a genre. Whether any individual piece, of whatever genre, qualifies as art is a purely subjective decision that tells us as much about the viewer as the art or the artist.

I wouldn't worry too much about Duchamp BTW. He was not only one of the greatest artists of the 20th century but remains one of the most completely misunderstood both within and without the formal art world, though for different reasons. One thing is for sure: he was definitely interested in entertaining and being successful.

[Stavros]

Picasso without the subtlety

http://1.2.3.10/bmi/web.org.uk/picasso/Mackerel.jpg

http://cdnimg.visualizeus.com/thumbs/33/a9/art,drawing,erotic,art,figurative,figure,labia,nud e,pablo,picasso,vagina,vulva,woman-33a9ed3b933f4123799f9347f266d352_m.jpg

[danthepoetman]

Oooo! Stavros, I'll spend the night masturbating over this! :)

[Cerberus]

Nothing else on telly!

[mac.B]

Heres my honest input: While I do find some artistic valued in TS porn I mainly watch it because I just like seeing the girls. Like most men I'm attracted to GG and TS but I watch TS porn exclusively b/c I rarely see them in my day to day. I see GGs' everywhere-beautiful ones- of all sizes and shapes so that side of my sexuality can be expressed easier. With women the opportunity to connect is always there and interaction is fluid but thats not the same with TS women b/c interaction with them is almost nonexistent for me and when I do see them I sort of forget how to connect with them. I walk in to TS events and get an erie feeling almost as if I'm not welcome. I supposed the porn is my subconscious way of balancing my needs and experiencing them in almost any way I can since the bars create a generally uncomfortable ambiance. Sometimes I don't even watch the porn but I watch youtube vids, in which the girls are fully clothed and bahaving in a nonsexual manner, and listen to podcasts on ts subjects/issues etc. This is probably why I'm so understanding of the lifestyle and the issues they face. I noticed that when I do manage to be around them I dont really partake in the consumption of any ts media because my needs are being met.

[mac.B]

...Knowing this about myself spurred the idea for the premise of my ts site. The idea that men watch for more than just sexual gratification and want to, in a sense, be inserted in to the lifestyle of a people who they want to interact with but rarely do. My idea was to offer more than just sexual imagery but provide a certain level of class and respect to the images that were overtly sexual. I understand how degrading some ts porn is and my intent wasnt to create anything that carried a similar stigma. Seeing images of girls who are forced to show coca cola smiles while having someones length in them, mashing fruit in to their orifices or penetrating them aggressively to the point that they start to tear are some of the things that I saw in ts porn that I wanted to offset. I wanted to have a sort of celebration of sex using only people who were either innately exhibitionist or simply had a similar vision for porn as I do. I had a theory that the majority of caucasian were like this making their scenes, well...just better and more involved. This is why I asked the question: "why do white ts seem to get fucked harder?".

[bluesoul]

...My idea was to offer more than just sexual imagery but provide a certain level of class and respect to the images that were overtly sexual.

that's pretty admirable, but i'm not sure how successful you could be doing this today (if it's even feasible) as it would require actually rounding up a large group of people that actually care more about the sex than the money (so they'd have to show up- put up with the long hours of shooting etc and more supportive of your vision than caring about whether you will pay them)

i remember michael ninn for a while was doing some artsy porn, but his last one, the four (http://vimeo.com/27895429), seemed to have a lot of finacial problems despite a lot of people claiming to have pre-ordered

imo- the european market (mostly the french) make the artsiest porn which is usually to my own taste as i prefer something with film-like narrative.

a lot of the czech and american porn unfortunately seems to be a return to nickeloden like gonzo clips where you can easily just watch a scene and not have to see the entire show to get your fix.

[mac.B]

that's pretty admirable, but i'm not sure how successful you could be doing this today (if it's even feasible) as it would require actually rounding up a large group of people that actually care more about the sex than the money (so they'd have to show up- put up with the long hours of shooting etc and more supportive of your vision than caring about whether you will pay them)

i remember michael ninn for a while was doing some artsy porn, but his last one, the four (http://vimeo.com/27895429), seemed to have a lot of finacial problems despite a lot of people claiming to have pre-ordered

imo- the european market (mostly the french) make the artsiest porn which is usually to my own taste as i prefer something with film-like narrative.

a lot of the czech and american porn unfortunately seems to be a return to nickeloden like gonzo clips where you can easily just watch a scene and not have to see the entire show to get your fix.


Perhaps youre right. I see some websites that add the class element when they shoot the girls but its not the majority of their content. There is a place for raunchiness in my vision but only if the girls arent being objectified and welcome that element. I think that the girls will maybe adhere more to my approach as apposed to them being fucked and tossed. I like the idea of sex without sociological or economic domination but would you say that the majority of consumers do not? Do you think that the girls would go more for that approach for similar pay to what they get now? I'm asking.

But thanks for bringing these examples of art porn to my attention. Interesting stuff.