Hacker News Reader

Comment by VladRussian | Hacker News Reader

>3.Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography;

i bet it is much harder than produce a new scientific theory ( or may be it is just my Math MS talking :)

I've often wondered who the Hitchcocks and Coppolas were of the Adult Film Genre. I've considered the idea that there are masterpiece films, dismissed for being erotic, that have gone unseen and unappreciated by the masses.

Alas, I have yet to find a nice thorough list, akin to the AFI top 100 for the lewd.

* If you know where this is, maybe you can also direct me to some reputable cult list; you know, that would have Todd Haynes and Kenneth Anger etc...

inquiring minds want to know!

I don't know of a list, but I knew a girl in university who took a class titled "Sexuality in Film". She described it as basically the history of porn.

There's actually been much debate towards whether pornography can even be considered art, thus calling into question whether a Hitchcock or Coppolas of the Adult Film Genre can even exist.

I personally am of the belief that porn isn't art, due to its use and audience. When someone views porn, the pornographic material is almost invariably acting as a means to an end, namely satisfying sexual desires of the viewer. Art on the other hand isn't a mean to any end. Art is to be appreciated for what it is.

What about the porno chic movement?

If you're still categorizing art into "not art" and "art" you have a long way to go. As you say, Art is to be appreciated for what it is.

Something can't be art simply by virtue of being called art.

A previous discussion showed us that it can. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3284760

Reply on news.ycombinator.com