U.S.Capital, Building began 1793. From what I see in this picture is the way the structure is built an designed. In those earlys days of congress when George Washington was president its seems to me that it was a symbolic meaning of treasury maybe because, the Amendments were being wrote at the time slavery an racism was really a masquerade for the KKK an the senates weren't able to control what was happending having no congress built an set guidelines for the United States. Looking at the the color an the definition at that time was truly a remarkable since of pride having it white to let out an expreesion to the people, saying we are fighting for what it right at this time. I also see where all presidents use the buliding as a aesthetic in many ways, hhaving a feeling of supremecy an the awareness of the flag, giving of red, white, an blue, as the United States was being built, states coming together to unite the people as one free world.
Art and pornography. Where is the line drawn between the two? It is a discussion debated countless numbers of times and is lightly mentioned in our text, when discussing Jeff Koon's series of "Made in Heaven". I'd like to bring more of a focus on the subject and am most interested in anybody else's thoughts on the matter. I've heard arguments discussing the content of pornography to be: offending, tasteless, explicit, purely for arousal. Then again, where would art be now days without such things? This is not to say modern art is no more than explicit or arousing content, but to make a point that such does have a major impact in an artist's intent to get across their vision. So once again where is the line between art and pornography? Many would like to say it is best to differentiate the two by looking at the artist's intention. Well, pornography is intended to arouse, full fill fantasies, possibly even to intentionally disgust. Has arousal, fantasy, or disgust never been a topic conveyed in any art content? I think not. I actually believe pornography in its first arrivals could have actually been considered art. Imagine the feelings overcome: shame, excitement, disgust, arousal and all from watching sexual acts that have been practiced since the beginning of time. Though I will say in art's defense pornography is not art, for the mere reason it is now mundane. Pornography is now a widely known thing made of several corporations producing photos and films of the typical pouty lipped face. Very little curiosity can be found in such simple mass marketed films or pictures. Though sexuality will continue to be a fascinating thing, which is why it continues to be a major genre in the art world. It is amazing how practically every country and culture in the entire world practice these acts themselves and yet can still be a taboo point of discussion. Sexuality is something the entire world can eventually relate to, and with this the world will continue to analyze every aspect it has to offer bringing with it new and innovative pieces of art. -Maria M. David
On the subject of Art vs. Pornography: I competely agree with the author above me. Art is a way of expressing one's emotions, with nudity involved, unfortunately, in modern times it can be percieved as pornography. But also with these modern times, "fine art" had developed a new meaning, once again altering the perception of nudity. Also, the phrase "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" comes to play when attempting to differentiate between art and pornography. -meredith b.
art can be anything that someone creates that has a special meaning to them. even if that piece of art has some nudity in it, it can still pose an inner meaning to probabily how the artist was feeling at the t9ime of the creation, every time i look at some kind of "fine art" i always see at least one painting with nudity in it, and i always try to derive the meaning from it. art is not art without a meaning, so those nudity paintings would not be in the museums that habitate them. there is no wrong in it if there is a meaning behind it.
I agree with Maria. Like she said, many spectators view the nudity in art as immoral. Some people become alarmed thinking that it's an offense. In my opinion it's a form of art. Each painter has a right to portray his/her painting in the manner in which they please. Afterall, it's their work of art. I would never dare to call it pornography! In my opinion it's Fine Art.I would also like to add that many times nudity ties back art work to Adam and Eve (religion). In addition, nude women are painted to depict fertility. -Mayra Ruiz
I would never call art pornography. Any artist can paint or draw whatever they want. Art is about expressing yourself and expressing anything you want to. I don't think an artist drawing a naked girl is bad at all. Artists making nude pieces of art is a great way to express their fantasies or to express how beautiful the female form is. Like in the painting Grande Odalisque the artist seems to have painted a picture of what he considers to be the perfect woman with perfect curves and a perfect body. Its good that artists can express their feelings anyway they want even if its offensive to some people.
nudity in art has been around for centeries before jeff koons Made in Heaven...so for people to be surpise by the painting amazed me. i think that people should get past the sexual meaning to it and look at the art itself. like how the coloring and brush strokes in the art work and only critizies it on the bases of artwork. i think that art in any form that it is in should be appreciated. there other factors that play in artwork nude or not and that is the message that the artist is trying to bring and i think that is what should really matter before all else.
Art uses the Human body and different types of poses to produce its own image of sexuality. Of course the images are in these positions that the artists create them in. Sexuality cannot simply be portrayed by naked bodies with no expressions, there is always something about an image that gives you some sort of insight about the art works sexuality that you are supposed to interpret. In Jeff Koons 'Made in Heaven' he has a portrait of hiim and his lover naked and clearly having sex, but Koons shows his comfortability with his sexuality in the painting by the way he painted himself looking at the viewer with a confident almost arogant look. This clearly states his stance on sexuality and the painting tells me that all people should be comfortable with sexuality rather then demonize it, I'm not saying people should start running around naked but maybe look at the human body and sexual acts as a thing of beauty rather then some disgusting act that people commit. -Jonathan Torres
It is wrong to say pornography is in the same realm as other "Fine Arts" such as the Mona Lisa, but it can still be viewed as a type of art. The person(s) creating it may be trying to express an emotion or convey a meaning and that is what art is about. The person(s) viewing the material may find their own meaning in it and consider it a piece of art. That is what art is. So while it is greatly diffrent from "Fine Art" it can still be considered an artform under the correct context. -Jordan Nicholson
I agree that pornography should not be considered a "Fine Art" like The Scream but maybe in its own class/category. Fine art is a devoted, time taking, hand skilled project whereas a porno is just people having sex. But in a sense, people could argue that porno is an art. Porno allows people to escape our reality and enter this realm of fantasy. Also that it is representational of life. If you look at the older paintings vs. Jeff Koons', they are basically enticing but saying that it would be wrong, whereas Koons' Made in Heaven, is saying that everybody does it and theres no shame or guilt. On a side note, I believe that Your Body is a battleground, by Barbara Kruger, focus on the face is to show the two conflicts within the lady's head, henceforth the color side and negative side.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009 Art Vs. Pornography Get a better outlook on Art and your mind out of the gutter!! I agree with Dax whomever Dax may be. Art is about expression not questioning the artist. Art will always have a point, or a statement. Also to call art pornography!! That is outrageous because Art is higher up then pornography it is a class all of its own. Look at the detail the artist does before you think about whether its moral or not because that question has been around for centuries. Art is all about is it realism, sexual or expressionism. What is the artist point?To change that idea is wrong. Look at the guerrilla girls for example they're taking nudity to a whole different level. Why do all women have to be nude? Why can't men be nude? Or both? To consider their artwork pornography because of the nudity you have got to be joking. I also will use that African royalty sculpture as an example of sexuality. When that piece was carved sexuality was a good think the women was the example of sexuality and fertility. Now in response to the Koons painting I believe it has a lot to do with sexuality and to show people Nudity is okay. The reason for all these opinion's is because art is opinionated.
As we have learned in class, this subject of sexuality in art has been around for many centuries. The only difference is that the looks of it changes due to the era and the culture. History also changes what is sexuality and how society views it. Even so that there was an actual turning point in society were the meaning of sex changed from representing "reproduction" to just meaning being sexual. I like how we compared the meaning of two paintings that have similar looks, that reflect what era it was painted on, but they also prove how a similar image can be translated into two toally different contents. Titian, Venus of Urbino, 1538. This painting represents everything that was socially exceptibal in that time and what was not in reference to sexuality. Every detail was placed in the painting for a reason...each had its purpose. The Manet, Olympia, 1863 does the same of representing what society considered to be acceptable and what was not. The difference is that the first painting shows some class, some innocence, with a raw element of sexuality. The second painting is forward, inviting but intimidating, and the woman as not so pure. -Vasthy Villalobos
Art vs. Pornography: To me people who are involved in pornography do it because they are heavily interested in sexuality. My opinion is that they are into pornography because of the money and somewhat fame they get by doing it. Painting and sculptures that show nudity are forms of art that express what the artist was feeling at that specific moment.
Some people may not consider pornography as art. As the professor said at the beginning of the class, “the term art has no specific definition” art could be anything the artist wants it to be, whether it is porn, or not. Sexuality can be represented in different ways: soft, delicate and pure (Titian, Venus of Orbino, 1538) or wild and gross (Manet, Olympia, 1863). We all can see that nudity in art work has been created since long time ago. For example the piece of stone “Venus of Willendorf” represents a naked woman, where the boobs, hips and vagina were emphasized. Nudity has always been there, but now days it is represented in detailed. I have nothing against pornography, but I don’t agree with having pornography in billboards. Such as the one called “Made in Heaven” the artist is allowed to represent art as they want it to be seen. Pornography in billboards can be harmful and perverse for the children. Most of little children don’t know what pornography is and this “expressions of love” might create side effects on their minds and brains. -SANDRA GARCIA
Art and pornography get mixed results when these two types of arts combine on a canvas. The one painting that stuck out in my eyes was the Turkish bath painting. By looking at this painting anyone would think a pervert had painted it. But I think that the artist was briliant when it comes to showing the sexual side of the Turkish bath. The way that some of the women were portrayed by the softness of the colors the artist used was very good. Some of the girls in the painting looked like they wanted to be viewed from the front as if they knew that they were being watched by other people. The colors in the painting were soft but dark because it semm that it was like a theater setting the way the artist wanted us to see the girls. I tought that it would have more of a steamy effect with bright lights like waht you find at the day spa. Every man that walked by this painting probrable thought of a sex gold mine when they looked at all these beautiful women in the turkish bath. But this painting was done well cause the artist took the audience into consideration when he made the painting look like a peep hole. But the expressions of love that a women wants to be noticed is there in full force regardless of who is looking at this painting.
The piece that astounded me was the Venus of Willendorf. This piece of beauty gave the perfect example of what beauty is and its modern day distortion. The shape of the sculpture signifies a woman’s body when she is expecting and how she should look in later life; with the pride of her body loosing its original form. It also clarifies women as the living vessel to life and the ability to be able to tolerate the development and the caring of that life. The smoothness of the stones texture and form of the sculpture [the shape of her body and the covering of the facial features] adds to its significance as a fertility statue. This gives the reality of hope to those who culture is symbolized around the domestic/ nurturing role of women.
Comparing Art to Pornography, Pornography is not Art. Pornography is there just to get you off. When someone looks at a picture of a naked women in a Playboy, They don't look at the formal elements of the picture all they see is sex. This to me is a good thing, It draws a big line between the two. Now when we look at Art we see the difference. For example Manets painting "Olympia". You can now look pass that theirs a naked women on a couch next to another women. We can look at the formal elements, why was she painted and also why is she naked. There is a big difference in Playboy and Manet.
When a piece of art is created and has nudity in it, the purpose of the nudity is that it adds a little extra beauty to the piece. Art and pornography do not go hand in hand. Sure they both show private parts of the female and male at times, but that is about as close as they get to being the same. The artist who illustrates a naked person in their picture is doing it for the beauty and meaning of the pieace not for sexual benefits. Nudity has been in art since the very beginning and is a very key factor in some creations of art. Art has no definition so some might therefore go to the extremes of saying pornography is art in some sense. I can not agree or disagree with the above statement because the defintion of art is what you make it out to be. **Jason Bahramian
I believe that nudity is art in the purest form. When people think of nudity as immoral or wrong and something to be looked down at, I think they are confused. Women are conscious of the way they look and they dress. When they show and bare all, it is quite a beautiful thing. The imperfections they have make them even more gorgeous. That is true art. The human body.
Sexual and reproductive art... is such a touchy subject. How an artist can create an image suggesting how a gender should act or how they are portrayed in that era of time. One can create a counter image to ones thought of gender. like for example the picture of the pregnant man..it makes you think, can a man be nurturing? The soft gentle look down says so but his arm position begs to differ. What is the artist trying to get at? The sexuality of art has changed quiet a bit. Before, there were many pictures of naked dude and society was okay with that and moved with their day. Now it kind of flip flopped and women's breast and pocket books hahaha are more acceptable. In many of the pictures you showed us in class the women had curvy flowing bodies and the men had shard hard flows. Doesnt that kind of remind you of how we should look at each gender? Its funny how art can translate so much at the tip of a brush stroke.
Many people think they know the absolute difference between art and pornography, but when looked at closely, the line can be blurry. But there is almost always a key difference. Art has a meaning to it, one that the artist intends specifically for the viewer, and this meaning goes beyond simple pleasure. Works of art can deal with deeper issues, such as the role each gender has in society, and whether that role is justified or not. It can call into question such roles. Other purposes can be to bring into question the sexuality of individuals, and whether some are right to embrace such sexual lifestyles. Such art has higher meaning than simple pornography, which is more of a business than an art form.
When it comes to art, nudity is still consider immoral and even shocking. But there have been paintings and sculputes of men and women who are naked and that was not shocking; that is who we are. Every single human being have the same reproductive syste, why censor? Also, the Jeff Koon buildboard might have started controversy but part of the portrait was meant to be funny, his gaze and the over dramatic backgound makes it so chessy. Many of the scuplture used in Peru are very explicit, displaying a couple have sex and this sculpute was made years ago and peruvians did not have a problem with this. When did art have censorship? Art should be a freedom to express what ever you want.
I feel that Sexuality in art has transformed from a basic appreciation at the art and beauty of the human body and curiosity in human anatomy to a more primal sexual desire. It went from tasteful ambiguous images that left much to the imagination to lustful images that leave little to the imagination if anything at all. This has come with the change in society where sex is become more of an open subject for normal discussion and for sexual and enticing images have become more common place. These are most easily seen in advertisements as people have discovered a long time ago that sex sells. This of course is best supported by the porn industry. Most pictures of women nowadays tends to be for the purpose of enticing or ensnaring ones sexual desires and fantasies instead of being a nice addition to ones foyer.
Art from the past and present has been used to portray and support fertility. History of art has lots of art works of nude women which are created by males artists for lust enjoyment of male consumers. Art about love making falls under the category of reproduction. Many artists past and present have been concerned with the controversial topics of reproduction and sexuality. The Venus of Willendorf is an example of an art object that may have been used as a fertility symbol. The large navel, breasts and private part suggest it.
Your body is a battleground. This is the message depicted on Barbara Kruger's poster for an abortion rights rally in 1989. I found it interesting how different people found different meanings or messages from the poster in our class. The poster depicts what seems to be the face of a model split in half, positive image on the right and negative image on the left. The author's opinion of the image is that the poster alludes to other battleground body issues such as race (black/white) and gender (hetero/homo). Professor Stubblefield mentioned how Kruger could have intended to raise awareness of how a woman's body is literally a battleground. In the sense that companies are fighting to make women feel insecure about themselves in order to make money off of them. I found it interesting how deep people could get while interpreting art.
Sexuality and/or reproduction is a common theme within art. Art intends to mimic life or present ideas that reflect articles of life, tangible or intangible, and because sex is something we can never ever evade it is often an element of human expression. Whether demonstrating reproductive or erotic themes - fashion, advertising, pornography, fine art, can all be considered forms of art which incorporate sex. In response to several posts on the discussion of pornography, I must disagree and say that it can be considered an art. Art asks us for a reaction, art can have class or be raunchy as hell, art can come on a whim (no pun intended) or be perfected through trial and error. Martial arts for example is considered an art form is it not? Yet it is more so an athletic practice or code of honor system than typical craft type arts. Yes, pornography is intended for erotic use, but every art form serves its purpose. "Art" is an abstract word if you think about it, there is no concrete value to its meaning. In modern life, where "who's fucking who" is a prominent topic, art tends to depict sexuality in an erotic manner not only in its most blunt form (pornography) but everywhere else we look from billboards, commercials, film, etc. What really blows my mind is how women are objectified more and more and more over the decades. As a woman I am forced to ask myself, "is this how we like it? or are we pushed into this existence through force of habit and conformity..."
Sexuality can come in any form. Whether it's an art or not. The examples of the venus figure or the breast feeding lesbian mother demonstrate both both the sexuality and reproduction in humans. Could preproduction and sexuality be considered pure art? What's more pure and non representative the human nature? There is nothing more ideological than the human body and that's why artist have been drawing it for centuries. Sexuality and reproduction is living historical content. -S.Stocum
U.S.Capital, Building began 1793. From what I see in this picture is the way the structure is built an designed. In those earlys days of congress when George Washington was president its seems to me that it was a symbolic meaning of treasury maybe because, the Amendments were being wrote at the time slavery an racism was really a masquerade for the KKK an the senates weren't able to control what was happending having no congress built an set guidelines for the United States. Looking at the the color an the definition at that time was truly a remarkable since of pride having it white to let out an expreesion to the people, saying we are fighting for what it right at this time. I also see where all presidents use the buliding as a aesthetic in many ways, hhaving a feeling of supremecy an the awareness of the flag, giving of red, white, an blue, as the United States was being built, states coming together to unite the people as one free world.
ReplyDeleteArt and pornography.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the line drawn between the two? It is a discussion debated countless numbers of times and is lightly mentioned in our text, when discussing Jeff Koon's series of "Made in Heaven". I'd like to bring more of a focus on the subject and am most interested in anybody else's thoughts on the matter. I've heard arguments discussing the content of pornography to be: offending, tasteless, explicit, purely for arousal. Then again, where would art be now days without such things? This is not to say modern art is no more than explicit or arousing content, but to make a point that such does have a major impact in an artist's intent to get across their vision.
So once again where is the line between art and pornography? Many would like to say it is best to differentiate the two by looking at the artist's intention. Well, pornography is intended to arouse, full fill fantasies, possibly even to intentionally disgust. Has arousal, fantasy, or disgust never been a topic conveyed in any art content? I think not. I actually believe pornography in its first arrivals could have actually been considered art. Imagine the feelings overcome: shame, excitement, disgust, arousal and all from watching sexual acts that have been practiced since the beginning of time. Though I will say in art's defense pornography is not art, for the mere reason it is now mundane. Pornography is now a widely known thing made of several corporations producing photos and films of the typical pouty lipped face. Very little curiosity can be found in such simple mass marketed films or pictures.
Though sexuality will continue to be a fascinating thing, which is why it continues to be a major genre in the art world. It is amazing how practically every country and culture in the entire world practice these acts themselves and yet can still be a taboo point of discussion. Sexuality is something the entire world can eventually relate to, and with this the world will continue to analyze every aspect it has to offer bringing with it new and innovative pieces of art.
-Maria M. David
On the subject of Art vs. Pornography:
ReplyDeleteI competely agree with the author above me. Art is a way of expressing one's emotions, with nudity involved, unfortunately, in modern times it can be percieved as pornography. But also with these modern times, "fine art" had developed a new meaning, once again altering the perception of nudity. Also, the phrase "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" comes to play when attempting to differentiate between art and pornography.
-meredith b.
art can be anything that someone creates that has a special meaning to them. even if that piece of art has some nudity in it, it can still pose an inner meaning to probabily how the artist was feeling at the t9ime of the creation, every time i look at some kind of "fine art" i always see at least one painting with nudity in it, and i always try to derive the meaning from it. art is not art without a meaning, so those nudity paintings would not be in the museums that habitate them. there is no wrong in it if there is a meaning behind it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Maria. Like she said, many spectators view the nudity in art as immoral. Some people become alarmed thinking that it's an offense. In my opinion it's a form of art. Each painter has a right to portray his/her painting in the manner in which they please. Afterall, it's their work of art. I would never dare to call it pornography! In my opinion it's Fine Art.I would also like to add that many times nudity ties back art work to Adam and Eve (religion). In addition, nude women are painted to depict fertility.
ReplyDelete-Mayra Ruiz
I would never call art pornography. Any artist can paint or draw whatever they want. Art is about expressing yourself and expressing anything you want to. I don't think an artist drawing a naked girl is bad at all. Artists making nude pieces of art is a great way to express their fantasies or to express how beautiful the female form is. Like in the painting Grande Odalisque the artist seems to have painted a picture of what he considers to be the perfect woman with perfect curves and a perfect body. Its good that artists can express their feelings anyway they want even if its offensive to some people.
ReplyDeletenudity in art has been around for centeries before jeff koons Made in Heaven...so for people to be surpise by the painting amazed me. i think that people should get past the sexual meaning to it and look at the art itself. like how the coloring and brush strokes in the art work and only critizies it on the bases of artwork. i think that art in any form that it is in should be appreciated. there other factors that play in artwork nude or not and that is the message that the artist is trying to bring and i think that is what should really matter before all else.
ReplyDeleteArt uses the Human body and different types of poses to produce its own image of sexuality. Of course the images are in these positions that the artists create them in. Sexuality cannot simply be portrayed by naked bodies with no expressions, there is always something about an image that gives you some sort of insight about the art works sexuality that you are supposed to interpret. In Jeff Koons 'Made in Heaven' he has a portrait of hiim and his lover naked and clearly having sex, but Koons shows his comfortability with his sexuality in the painting by the way he painted himself looking at the viewer with a confident almost arogant look. This clearly states his stance on sexuality and the painting tells me that all people should be comfortable with sexuality rather then demonize it, I'm not saying people should start running around naked but maybe look at the human body and sexual acts as a thing of beauty rather then some disgusting act that people commit.
ReplyDelete-Jonathan Torres
It is wrong to say pornography is in the same realm as other "Fine Arts" such as the Mona Lisa, but it can still be viewed as a type of art. The person(s) creating it may be trying to express an emotion or convey a meaning and that is what art is about. The person(s) viewing the material may find their own meaning in it and consider it a piece of art. That is what art is. So while it is greatly diffrent from "Fine Art" it can still be considered an artform under the correct context.
ReplyDelete-Jordan Nicholson
I agree that pornography should not be considered a "Fine Art" like The Scream but maybe in its own class/category. Fine art is a devoted, time taking, hand skilled project whereas a porno is just people having sex. But in a sense, people could argue that porno is an art. Porno allows people to escape our reality and enter this realm of fantasy. Also that it is representational of life. If you look at the older paintings vs. Jeff Koons', they are basically enticing but saying that it would be wrong, whereas Koons' Made in Heaven, is saying that everybody does it and theres no shame or guilt. On a side note, I believe that Your Body is a battleground, by Barbara Kruger, focus on the face is to show the two conflicts within the lady's head, henceforth the color side and negative side.
ReplyDeleteTuesday, September 29, 2009
ReplyDeleteArt Vs. Pornography Get a better outlook on Art and your mind out of the gutter!!
I agree with Dax whomever Dax may be. Art is about expression not questioning the artist. Art will always have a point, or a statement. Also to call art pornography!! That is outrageous because Art is higher up then pornography it is a class all of its own. Look at the detail the artist does before you think about whether its moral or not because that question has been around for centuries. Art is all about is it realism, sexual or expressionism. What is the artist point?To change that idea is wrong. Look at the guerrilla girls for example they're taking nudity to a whole different level. Why do all women have to be nude? Why can't men be nude? Or both? To consider their artwork pornography because of the nudity you have got to be joking. I also will use that African royalty sculpture as an example of sexuality. When that piece was carved sexuality was a good think the women was the example of sexuality and fertility. Now in response to the Koons painting I believe it has a lot to do with sexuality and to show people Nudity is okay. The reason for all these opinion's is because art is opinionated.
As we have learned in class, this subject of sexuality in art has been around for many centuries. The only difference is that the looks of it changes due to the era and the culture. History also changes what is sexuality and how society views it. Even so that there was an actual turning point in society were the meaning of sex changed from representing "reproduction" to just meaning being sexual.
ReplyDeleteI like how we compared the meaning of two paintings that have similar looks, that reflect what era it was painted on, but they also prove how a similar image can be translated into two toally different contents.
Titian, Venus of Urbino, 1538. This painting represents everything that was socially exceptibal in that time and what was not in reference to sexuality. Every detail was placed in the painting for a reason...each had its purpose.
The Manet, Olympia, 1863 does the same of representing what society considered to be acceptable and what was not. The difference is that the first painting shows some class, some innocence, with a raw element of sexuality. The second painting is forward, inviting but intimidating, and the woman as not so pure.
-Vasthy Villalobos
Art vs. Pornography:
ReplyDeleteTo me people who are involved in pornography do it because they are heavily interested in sexuality. My opinion is that they are into pornography because of the money and somewhat fame they get by doing it. Painting and sculptures that show nudity are forms of art that express what the artist was feeling at that specific moment.
Some people may not consider pornography as art. As the professor said at the beginning of the class, “the term art has no specific definition” art could be anything the artist wants it to be, whether it is porn, or not. Sexuality can be represented in different ways: soft, delicate and pure (Titian, Venus of Orbino, 1538) or wild and gross (Manet, Olympia, 1863). We all can see that nudity in art work has been created since long time ago. For example the piece of stone “Venus of Willendorf” represents a naked woman, where the boobs, hips and vagina were emphasized. Nudity has always been there, but now days it is represented in detailed. I have nothing against pornography, but I don’t agree with having pornography in billboards. Such as the one called “Made in Heaven” the artist is allowed to represent art as they want it to be seen. Pornography in billboards can be harmful and perverse for the children. Most of little children don’t know what pornography is and this “expressions of love” might create side effects on their minds and brains.
ReplyDelete-SANDRA GARCIA
Art and pornography get mixed results when these two types of arts combine on a canvas. The one painting that stuck out in my eyes was the Turkish bath painting. By looking at this painting anyone would think a pervert had painted it. But I think that the artist was briliant when it comes to showing the sexual side of the Turkish bath. The way that some of the women were portrayed by the softness of the colors the artist used was very good. Some of the girls in the painting looked like they wanted to be viewed from the front as if they knew that they were being watched by other people. The colors in the painting were soft but dark because it semm that it was like a theater setting the way the artist wanted us to see the girls. I tought that it would have more of a steamy effect with bright lights like waht you find at the day spa. Every man that walked by this painting probrable thought of a sex gold mine when they looked at all these beautiful women in the turkish bath. But this painting was done well cause the artist took the audience into consideration when he made the painting look like a peep hole. But the expressions of love that a women wants to be noticed is there in full force regardless of who is looking at this painting.
ReplyDeleteThe piece that astounded me was the Venus of Willendorf. This piece of beauty gave the perfect example of what beauty is and its modern day distortion. The shape of the sculpture signifies a woman’s body when she is expecting and how she should look in later life; with the pride of her body loosing its original form. It also clarifies women as the living vessel to life and the ability to be able to tolerate the development and the caring of that life. The smoothness of the stones texture and form of the sculpture [the shape of her body and the covering of the facial features] adds to its significance as a fertility statue. This gives the reality of hope to those who culture is symbolized around the domestic/ nurturing role of women.
ReplyDeleteComparing Art to Pornography, Pornography is not Art. Pornography is there just to get you off. When someone looks at a picture of a naked women in a Playboy, They don't look at the formal elements of the picture all they see is sex. This to me is a good thing, It draws a big line between the two. Now when we look at Art we see the difference. For example Manets painting "Olympia". You can now look pass that theirs a naked women on a couch next to another women. We can look at the formal elements, why was she painted and also why is she naked. There is a big difference in Playboy and Manet.
ReplyDeleteWhen a piece of art is created and has nudity in it, the purpose of the nudity is that it adds a little extra beauty to the piece. Art and pornography do not go hand in hand. Sure they both show private parts of the female and male at times, but that is about as close as they get to being the same. The artist who illustrates a naked person in their picture is doing it for the beauty and meaning of the pieace not for sexual benefits. Nudity has been in art since the very beginning and is a very key factor in some creations of art. Art has no definition so some might therefore go to the extremes of saying pornography is art in some sense. I can not agree or disagree with the above statement because the defintion of art is what you make it out to be.
ReplyDelete**Jason Bahramian
I believe that nudity is art in the purest form. When people think of nudity as immoral or wrong and something to be looked down at, I think they are confused. Women are conscious of the way they look and they dress. When they show and bare all, it is quite a beautiful thing. The imperfections they have make them even more gorgeous. That is true art. The human body.
ReplyDelete- Michael Kim
Sexual and reproductive art... is such a touchy subject. How an artist can create an image suggesting how a gender should act or how they are portrayed in that era of time. One can create a counter image to ones thought of gender. like for example the picture of the pregnant man..it makes you think, can a man be nurturing? The soft gentle look down says so but his arm position begs to differ. What is the artist trying to get at? The sexuality of art has changed quiet a bit. Before, there were many pictures of naked dude and society was okay with that and moved with their day. Now it kind of flip flopped and women's breast and pocket books hahaha are more acceptable. In many of the pictures you showed us in class the women had curvy flowing bodies and the men had shard hard flows. Doesnt that kind of remind you of how we should look at each gender? Its funny how art can translate so much at the tip of a brush stroke.
ReplyDeleteMany people think they know the absolute difference between art and pornography, but when looked at closely, the line can be blurry. But there is almost always a key difference. Art has a meaning to it, one that the artist intends specifically for the viewer, and this meaning goes beyond simple pleasure. Works of art can deal with deeper issues, such as the role each gender has in society, and whether that role is justified or not. It can call into question such roles. Other purposes can be to bring into question the sexuality of individuals, and whether some are right to embrace such sexual lifestyles. Such art has higher meaning than simple pornography, which is more of a business than an art form.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to art, nudity is still consider immoral and even shocking. But there have been paintings and sculputes of men and women who are naked and that was not shocking; that is who we are. Every single human being have the same reproductive syste, why censor? Also, the Jeff Koon buildboard might have started controversy but part of the portrait was meant to be funny, his gaze and the over dramatic backgound makes it so chessy. Many of the scuplture used in Peru are very explicit, displaying a couple have sex and this sculpute was made years ago and peruvians did not have a problem with this. When did art have censorship? Art should be a freedom to express what ever you want.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Sexuality in art has transformed from a basic appreciation at the art and beauty of the human body and curiosity in human anatomy to a more primal sexual desire. It went from tasteful ambiguous images that left much to the imagination to lustful images that leave little to the imagination if anything at all. This has come with the change in society where sex is become more of an open subject for normal discussion and for sexual and enticing images have become more common place. These are most easily seen in advertisements as people have discovered a long time ago that sex sells. This of course is best supported by the porn industry. Most pictures of women nowadays tends to be for the purpose of enticing or ensnaring ones sexual desires and fantasies instead of being a nice addition to ones foyer.
ReplyDeleteArt from the past and present has been used to portray and support fertility. History of art has lots of art works of nude women which are created by males artists for lust enjoyment of male consumers. Art about love making falls under the category of reproduction. Many artists past and present have been concerned with the controversial topics of reproduction and sexuality. The Venus of Willendorf is an example of an art object that may have been used as a fertility symbol. The large navel, breasts and private part suggest it.
ReplyDelete-Michael Comrie
Your body is a battleground. This is the message depicted on Barbara Kruger's poster for an abortion rights rally in 1989. I found it interesting how different people found different meanings or messages from the poster in our class. The poster depicts what seems to be the face of a model split in half, positive image on the right and negative image on the left. The author's opinion of the image is that the poster alludes to other battleground body issues such as race (black/white) and gender (hetero/homo). Professor Stubblefield mentioned how Kruger could have intended to raise awareness of how a woman's body is literally a battleground. In the sense that companies are fighting to make women feel insecure about themselves in order to make money off of them. I found it interesting how deep people could get while interpreting art.
ReplyDeleteSexuality and/or reproduction is a common theme within art. Art intends to mimic life or present ideas that reflect articles of life, tangible or intangible, and because sex is something we can never ever evade it is often an element of human expression. Whether demonstrating reproductive or erotic themes - fashion, advertising, pornography, fine art, can all be considered forms of art which incorporate sex. In response to several posts on the discussion of pornography, I must disagree and say that it can be considered an art. Art asks us for a reaction, art can have class or be raunchy as hell, art can come on a whim (no pun intended) or be perfected through trial and error. Martial arts for example is considered an art form is it not? Yet it is more so an athletic practice or code of honor system than typical craft type arts. Yes, pornography is intended for erotic use, but every art form serves its purpose. "Art" is an abstract word if you think about it, there is no concrete value to its meaning. In modern life, where "who's fucking who" is a prominent topic, art tends to depict sexuality in an erotic manner not only in its most blunt form (pornography) but everywhere else we look from billboards, commercials, film, etc. What really blows my mind is how women are objectified more and more and more over the decades. As a woman I am forced to ask myself, "is this how we like it? or are we pushed into this existence through force of habit and conformity..."
ReplyDeleteSexuality can come in any form. Whether it's an art or not. The examples of the venus figure or the breast feeding lesbian mother demonstrate both both the sexuality and reproduction in humans. Could preproduction and sexuality be considered pure art? What's more pure and non representative the human nature? There is nothing more ideological than the human body and that's why artist have been drawing it for centuries. Sexuality and reproduction is living historical content.
ReplyDelete-S.Stocum