There is a lot of porn there
And when they mix the two things get interesting. Having topless women selling (cow’s) milk was a very strange experience as a “prudish” American.
Yes, and the guy who took these "porno chic" pictures was outed as a creep and harasser.
No, that's why it's called pornography, very much to differentiate it from something "noble" like art, it's vulgar and trivial, by the very definition of the word it isn't art.
"Noble" is nowhere in any working definition of art. Some academic snob might use it with their in-crowd. Damien Hirsch's shark parts is considered art.
"everything I say is art is art", you basically. Well anything I say isn't art isn't art. Especially pornography in general, which sole purpose is sexual gratification of the audience through sexual exploitation, rape via human trafficking.
There is nothing snob is saying that. There something egregious and dehumanizing in saying what you say on the other hand and trying to normalize the very definition of vulgarity.
Not necessarily; plenty of pornography contains serious artistic contents and merit beyond the simple aim of sexual gratification, and they raise interesting questions on their own. This is why some have attempted to make another classifier of 'erotica', which IMO isn't needed.
>through sexual exploitation, rape via human trafficking.
Even if this were true for all porn (and it isn't), that dosen't make it any less art; it may make it 'lesser art' from a moralist perspecitve on the value of art, but this by no means of widely accepted relevance to aesthetic value nor to the property of being 'art'.
>the very definition of vulgarity.
A rude gesture or crass words seems vulgar. A video of a penis being sucked doesn't. "Vulgar" is the sort of word you might hear a shrill, paternal sitcom character use to describe a minor inconvenience or faux pas, and it's just as hilarious when people use it as an argument in real life.
In the mean time you can spare people gratuitous, graphic descriptions of explicit sex acts, AKA pornography, and keep your depraved fantasies for yourself.
Your certainly qualify as a vulgar individual given the fact that you feel the need to depict pornography here trying to make a point about god knows what.
Point about god knows what? Pretty sure it's been clear all along, art encompasses things we like and things we don't.
to depict: to represent or characterize in words; describe.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/depict
Then you keep babbling about your life like anybody cares.
If you think a blowjob being described in seven words to make a point about vulgarity is 'gratuitous', 'graphic', or 'explicit', your moral compass is severely out of whack.
Only some people define porn as degrading and rape-ful. Galleries are full of paintings of slaughter, is art about snuffing out life? Is all erotica porn? Where do you draw that line?
You sound anti-sex in dismissing sexual stimulation as non-artistic. I could stimulate rage and sadness in you with a painting of two girls stabbing a kitten in the eyes, why is that painting less art than a painting of two women making love to each other? Sex is a good thing, even outside of marriage imho.
Pornography isn't sex, it's a gross caricature of sex, usually shot from the perspective of male subjects involving the degradation of women, other men or children, purely for commercial purposes in order to give a false sense of sexual gratification. This isn't art, this is akin to butchery, with human bodies as meat ready to be consumed by incels and all kind of other frustrated males and depraved individual.
The former certainly like claiming pornography has any artistic merit as a way to justify their consumption of depraved content and their lack of any actual sex life.
Sex with another person is difficult to come by for many, and only comes sporadically for many more. You don't sound like you've been married for 20 years and bound by oath to not have sex with anyone other than someone who's physically lost all libido. I recommend some empathy.
You keep on making assumptions about your interlocutor, stick to the matter discussed.
I'd recommend you stop trying making things personal and have some empathy yourself for the victims of the porn trade and sex trafficking instead of trying defend pornography by labeling its critics "anti-sex". Porn is not sex and whoever gets off watching porn isn't having sex at first place. The fact that people have a non-existing libido is the least of my concerns.
You talk about sexual stimulation for people that can't have sex with other humans as though it's a bad thing. That's just being a prude.
You conflate sex with porn, then try to paint porn sick individuals as "victim" because they are not entitled to have sex, while being completely oblivious to the real victims of porn production and trade, trying to paint pornography as any other thing than violence, grotesque and vulgar and you have the audacity to call me prude because I'm against sexual violence and its effects on society? If that's being "prude" in the mind of porn sick individuals trying to paint their fetish as art, then I'll be "prude" all day.
Things can be "artistic" or contain art within them, but it doesn't make them art.
I don't buy that something done/created for the purpose of being viewed and evoking (even strong or many) reactions is enough of a criteria.
Otherwise things from trolling to 9/11 are "performance art" (an already barely hanging-on category), the latter of which was very "successful" at meeting this minimal set of rules.
The corpus is of art, not Art.
On the plus side, i appear to have not (yet) been trained. I can consider myself safe from the AI. For now.