/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.7261638]

Can porn be art?

[Anonymous No.7261640]

>>7261638
>can jews be artists
no. only dopplegangers at best.

[Anonymous No.7261642]

>>7261640
zis. joos dont have souls. simple ass

[Anonymous No.7261643]

Porn is genuinely demonic.

[Anonymous No.7261647]

>>7261638
Wish I was her

[Anonymous No.7261648]

>>7261638
>>7261643
Why is watching and looking at sex bad?

[Anonymous No.7261656]

>>7261638
It can, but 99,999% of porn isn't art.

[Anonymous No.7261657]

>>7261648
do zoomers really? imagine if you were watching 2 human beans having sex irl. that would make you a cuck. now imagine the same situation but you are watching em on video.

[Anonymous No.7261660]

it can absolutely be art
the thing is most of it is not treated as such by the creators
i also do not understand why sex is so demonized
i feel like it should be treated as a beautiful sacred act done between lovers

[Anonymous No.7261661]

demons and jews tricked me into erotic studies

[Anonymous No.7261664]

>>7261660
>it can absolutely be art
Post some artsy porn then

[Anonymous No.7261705]

>>7261638
> art is visual communication of a message or emotion, meant to resonate past immediate exposure
> porn is something you watch until you get off, only to immediately turn it off and forget about it.

If it is art, then it’s a pitiful version of it.

[Anonymous No.7261711]

>>7261705
That's not how everybody experiences porn. There's been porn that's left an impression on me in the same way any work of art does. Does that mean it's some high brow thing? Fuck no. But just because it has some practical use does not mean it does not also have some artistic value to some. To say that porn can't be art is to ascribe far too much value to notion of "art". Plenty of low brow garbage is still art.

[Anonymous No.7261718]

>>7261711
>There's been porn that's left an impression on me in the same way any work of art does
Again, care to share a particular example? I would like to laugh at it and deboonk it.

[Anonymous No.7261722]

>>7261711
>this guy

No way he just said he watches porn for the plot

[Anonymous No.7261726]

>>7261664
Not who you are replying to but here is one I love

[Anonymous No.7261733]

>>7261657
>that would make you a cuck
No, it wouldn't unless one of them is my partner.

[Anonymous No.7261735]

>>7261638
Probably? The issue is that if the end result is you turn the audience on more than conveying whatever else it is you're trying to say, or people are more focused on the sex than the aesthetic, than it really is just porn.
You may say,
>"well, can't the sex, and eroticism, be the intention?"
And the answer is no, because that's what porn is. You've just made porn.

I think picrel is an example of an image that isn't porn, despite it being a picture of a BJ, because (to me at least) it isn't really erotic and conveys a sort of horror from the openings/weakness we display during the act of sex.

[Anonymous No.7261736]

>>7261726
this is just porn, it's a pretty picture, but it's just porn

[Anonymous No.7261740]

>>7261736
>delusions of a nodraw

[Anonymous No.7261743]

>>7261722
Why can't you watch porn for the plot? Do you get overwhelmed by your libido?

[Anonymous No.7261745]

>>7261638
Everything that makes you feel is art, therefore porn is indeed an art

[Anonymous No.7261751]

>>7261638
This would be hot if the woman was black instead

[Anonymous No.7261758]

>>7261718
Debunk what? My own attachment to a work? Are you retarded?

>>7261722
Yeah, it's almost like I didn't even remotely say that.

[Anonymous No.7261760]

>>7261638
her face looks trans

[Anonymous No.7261771]

>>7261758
>Are you retarded?
yes,i am.
>My own attachment to a work?
post porn your lizard brain thinks its art.
>Debunk what?
i will debunk your belief system
>Yeah, it's almost like I didn't even remotely say that.
who are you talking to schyzo? my eyes are up here

[Anonymous No.7261775]

>>7261638
Can art be porn?

[Anonymous No.7261777]

>>7261740
>implying it's the artist who define what art is and not the nodraws, kek

[Anonymous No.7261778]

>>7261735
but it turned me on so it's not art anymore?

[Anonymous No.7261791]

>>7261726
That's ecchi at best, no genital organs shown

[Anonymous No.7261806]

>>7261778
Maybe not, there's a level of subjectivity here, as is always the case with the arts.

[Anonymous No.7261810]

>>7261791
She's masturbating, and that's the cover of a hentai magazine.

[Anonymous No.7261811]

>>7261777
You don't define anything, you just consume.

[Anonymous No.7261813]

>>7261811
keep coping

[Anonymous No.7261814]

>>7261813
With what?
When I decide to transmit a message or vision through my medium I am making art, whether you're capable of understanding it or not. Your opinion defines nothing, you're just a broken recipient.

[Anonymous No.7261816]

>>7261791
I would still put it under softcore.

[Anonymous No.7261817]

You know it when you see it.

[Anonymous No.7261825]

>>7261814
in your head you are Da Vinci, but in reality you are a beg anon who thinks pretty pictures is art. If you are incapable to pass on your message and vision to others, you are nothing but a failure and what you created is a failure.

[Anonymous No.7261832]

>>7261825
Transmitting an idea from one mind to another is a condition that's sufficiently fulfilled by sending an idea to your future self.

[Anonymous No.7261835]

>>7261832
cope more

[Anonymous No.7261837]

>>7261638
>>7261726
>>7261736
I think you'd need a story or context for it to be considered art instead of normal porn. Sex can definitely heighten the emotional investment and payoff in a story. It is a beautifully human thing after all.

[Anonymous No.7261848]

>>7261825
>If you are incapable to pass on your message and vision to others
I'm perfectly capable. If some people don't receive the message that doesn't disqualify my work, because it's not the viewer that defines art.

[Anonymous No.7261849]

>>7261825
I think art is an expression of skill.
>>7261726 clearly fits the criteria

[Anonymous No.7261852]

>>7261848
keep saying that to yourself if it makes you feel better.

[Anonymous No.7261853]

>>7261852
>I do nothing but I'm the one that matters!
>YOU are the one who's coping!

[Anonymous No.7261855]

>>7261853
it's so lovely when you seethe

[Anonymous No.7261861]

>>7261849
Even during Renaissance, which seems to be the origin and foundation for ppl of your mindset, what mattered was not raw skill, but what was achieved with it

[Anonymous No.7261874]

>>7261638
This image is pure anti soul.

[Anonymous No.7261887]

>>7261638
Can anyone post the pack? I want to see if porn can be art.
>>7261642
based Marge Bouvier enjoyer

[Anonymous No.7261893]

>>7261643
>>7261657
Pornoraphy has existed since the time we were living in caves, plus gods and demons do not exist

>>7261660
>i feel like it should be treated as a beautiful sacred act done between lovers

Most sex in human history has been rape, this sanitized perspdctive on sex was created by nobility and later on the bourgeoisie

[Anonymous No.7261898]

>>7261893
Exactly. Control sex, control the people.

[Anonymous No.7261985]

>>7261898
Having a population addicted too coom has proven that.

Why go out, get a girlfriend, get a good job, buy a house and start a family?
Just subscribe to Mandy on Onlyfans, she's having a special deal this month! Sexual liberation and female empowerment is a good thing to support

[Anonymous No.7262021]

>>7261638
Sure.
>>7261726
Holy shit, that is beautiful. The colors are gorgeous and I don’t understand how they work so well. She looks like a redhead in a white robe, but there’s so much going on here with the color. I think some of it is green bounce light from the painting in the background maybe? And the little horse statue is rendered so well.

[Anonymous No.7262037]

>>7261638

[Anonymous No.7262039]

>>7261638
I gotta say those are some really nice balls.

[Anonymous No.7262046]

I think Jeffery Epstein and John Podesta would make a strong argument in your favor.

[Anonymous No.7262049]

>>7261638
It is just a mass consumption product, unless it expresses something, it is not art, just people having sex, or common positions to excite the viewer

If you manage to excite a person outside of common porn, it is considered artistic, with allusions and stories.

[Anonymous No.7262058]

>>7261638
No, but there's art that happens to be porn.

[Anonymous No.7262067]

>>7261638
only if the male is as fit & handsome as the female and he is in the frame with face visible. so not your picrel

[Anonymous No.7262089]

>>7262058
Shit AI

[Anonymous No.7262099]

>>7261660
>>7261893
Reflection of someone who doesn't have sex and is addicted to porn

[Anonymous No.7262123]

>>7261648
sex without love is literal psychopathy.

[Anonymous No.7262131]

>>7261648
Because it takes you away from the real action, you prefer to watch than to fuck, that is explained by the low birth rates in the West where pornography is free, another case is Japan where they also have that problem, people do not fuck.

[Anonymous No.7262133]

>>7261985
onlyfans and today's "sexual liberation" is the opposite of female empowerment

[Anonymous No.7262135]

>>7261648
I have a question for you:
You, would you rather watch the girl in the op image having sex or fuck the girl in the op image???

[Anonymous No.7262138]

>>7262067
this

[Anonymous No.7262251]

>>7262133
it's 100% the result of female freedom of choice

[Anonymous No.7262253]

>>7262251
It is 100% the result of a political agenda, this freedom thing is a fraud, none of these idiots are free, they are all slaves to the porn industry.

[Anonymous No.7262271]

>>7262089
Jealous, I take it?

[Anonymous No.7262296]

>>7262253
But porn is art apparently. So it's the art industry.
Which is a good thing.
Also, inflation is good because we make more money

[Anonymous No.7262342]

>>7262135
Taking one look at people and declaring which one you would or not fuck is not any less demonic behavior

[Anonymous No.7262416]

>>7261718
nta but i cal always post porn if prompted

[Anonymous No.7262445]

>>7261657

I can never get over how amazingthis painting is. Wish Adolf Hiremy-Hirschl was less obscure

[Anonymous No.7262475]

Pornographic imagery, at the root, can never be considered art on more than the category of the medium it is presented with; Sure, it's "art" because it was drawn or illustrated, but the intended purpose is for you to jerk off to it.
There is no other thing or meaning to enjoy, except for its intended purpose being raw arousal.
>>7261638
>>7261642
>>7261718
>>7261726
>>7261735
>>7262058
>>7262416
One cannot objectively respect or deem these illustrations as art, only in name, as explained before; because they are shallow and uncreative at it's core.

>inb4 but this and that
Look, do whatever the fuck you want but don't go sucking dicks and tell people you're straight because you have relationships with women.
Just own up to it.
There is nothing wrong with porn being shallow and vulgar, as it is intended to be, but don't start trying to make mental gymnastics about it.

[Anonymous No.7262502]

>>7262475
shhh, if you say porn isn't art you are a nodraw in here, don't upset the coomers they are the true artist

[Anonymous No.7262508]

>>7262475
>Sure, it's "art" because it was drawn or illustrated, but the intended purpose is for you to jerk off to it.
I said the exact same thing as you:
>The issue is that if the end result is you turn the audience on more than conveying whatever else it is you're trying to say, or people are more focused on the sex than the aesthetic, than it really is just porn.
>"well, can't the sex, and eroticism, be the intention?"
>And the answer is no, because that's what porn is. You've just made porn.
So what exactly are you disagreeing with me on? Or are you saying the moment that nudity or sex are introduced into a piece of work, regardless of the other themes the other elements in the work, it immediately becomes porn because YOU become too turned on to think of anything else?
In that case, I completely disagree with you.

>inb4 but this and that
Look, maybe you need to immediately jerk off, right there in the art gallery, the moment you see a glimpse of a woman's skin, but for the rest of us the situation is a little more nuanced.

[Anonymous No.7262512]

>>7262475
>Sure, it's "art" because it was drawn or illustrated, but the intended purpose is for you to jerk off to it.
Rubbish. The intention of a creative work never matters.

>>7261638
Pornography /is/ art. The distinction between arousal and allure, and other emotions, is arbitrary, on a cosmic scale.
The only reason this distinction exists is because society has convinced itself that sex is not a normal part of life.
The concept of art is not compatible with the stigma societies have fabricated around sex, which is why obscenity laws are defended by the masses to this day.

[Anonymous No.7262514]

Porn does not necessarily stop at sex. We now have food porn, travel porn, and all manner of gratuitous excess. What defines porn? Something enticing that entices or arouses for the sole purpose of enticing or arousing. Nothing more. It exists only to stimulate your monkey brain primal instinct greed. Whether it's some cheeseburger photographed to glisten in grease that makes you want it, or some slag with her pussy out. Your greed activates because that's all the image was meant to accomplish. Want. I look at power-fantasies and harem animes and instagram pictures of peoples gay little dinners and skeevy romance novels the same way I look at someone's drawing of spitroasting a goblin. It's all porn. It's all worthless. It's mental masturbation to indulge in any of it. If your art isn't designed to elicit anything more substantial than mere "greed" or "want" then it is not art. It is porn. Like women? Try yearning. Try reverence. Try mystique. Try exploring your own humanity and need for human connection and communication of experiences beyond gimme gimme gimme you shit eating apes. But you won't. Because you don't like women or anything else for that matter. Nothing besides gratification for your egos through various abstractions of your greed. Visual or otherwise.

[Anonymous No.7262519]

>>7262514
>We now have food porn, travel porn
Confusing imagery of gratuitous excess with basic sexual act because the word "porn" is used for both and producing the all fish are mammals argument because of it.

[Anonymous No.7262522]

>>7262512
>The only reason this distinction exists is because society has convinced itself that sex is not a normal part of life.
The distinction comes from the perception that art is a higher form of humanity that separate us from animals and engages a higher form of intellect (and soul for those who believe in its existence) while having sex is basic and something animals can do too.

[Anonymous No.7262523]

>>7262519
I'm not confusing anything. It's all porn. Sexual porn is simply the last barrier that remains before that too becomes another totally accepted background noise in our pathetic, miserable self indulgent lives devoid of connections. I'm yelling into the void because I don't expect anyone here to grasp just how fucked they are. But you are. And we'll be reduced to drooling, mindless animals if we don't reroute the trajectory we are going in as a society. If we don't draw the line now at sexual pornography while we still have the chance, you cannot fathom the repercussions.

[Anonymous No.7262538]

>>7262523
Dude, the majority of people have been like this forever, there are always people who want to be more than animals, but the majority is just content with eating /shitting and being mildly entertained, and this is especially true in times when economy goes to shit, because everyone is more focused on how to survive than think higher thoughts, and you are feeling this more vividly because social media gives you an insight to what the masses think unfiltered and in great amount. Disengage because it will only make you severely miserable.

[Anonymous No.7262552]

>>7262514
The moral loading of the word "greed" is doing all the heavy lifting for you.
Porn can't be art -> because porn is greed -> and greed can't be art.
To accept your prerequisites of art, I would have to either completely arbitrarily exclude "excessive desire" as a driver for art, or speak of art prescriptively, in that porn /shouldn't/ be art -> because excessive desire is bad.

>the same way I look at someone's drawing of spitroasting a goblin. It's all porn.
Spitroasting a goblin has a purpose other than to be enticing or arousing.
You are immersing yourself into an alternative reality with a intelligent species that looks radically different from you.
More likely than not, you are also immersing yourself into an environment completely foreign to you, e.g. the medieval ages or a space ship.

Change your definition from "for the sole purpose of enticing or arousing" to "for the primary purpose of enticing or arousing", since you obviously failed to demonstrate your point in your own example.

>Nothing besides gratification for your egos through various abstractions of your greed.
This sounds like projection.
Your engagement with sexual pornography may be as shallow as you imply, but many of us enjoy porn differently from a gambling addict hitting the same button for a dopamine hit.

Have you never read a doujin where you were fully immersed in the scenario?
Simulating an intimate experience is much richer than whatever you've had in mind when you wrote that post.

[Anonymous No.7262555]

>>7262514
people cope with life through excess??

[Anonymous No.7262562]

>>7262538
While you're right that social media is a microcosm of all the worst humanity has to offer, it's affecting all of them as much as it is me. Making them worse than they would have ever been without it. Sure porn in all its forms has always existed. But we have never seen it become a literal staple of our everyday functions across the globe like this.
>>7262552
Fundamental misunderstanding. Porn can't be art because all it is, is stimulation of a basal instinct that all animals have. No different from a dog smelling a bitch in heat. It is not elevated in any way beyond this. It doesn't demonstrate any form of higher level communication relating to the human condition. Worthless. Your ramblings of "immersion" are also not elevated above basal animalistic reactions. I can immerse a chimp in VR too. You are clearly a gooner and I won't be trying to convince you any further, but how about you "immerse" yourself in the profound joy of being intimate with a woman and learn to conceptualize that instead of conceptualizing how wet your dick is.

[Anonymous No.7262573]

>>7262562
>Porn can't be art because all it is, is stimulation of a basal instinct that all animals have.
Porn is usually more than just a "stimulation of a basal instinct", as you've accidentally mentioned in your own example.
>No different from a dog smelling a bitch in heat.
I reject your empty notion that all forms of enticement are analogous until you actually demonstrate it.
A dog smelling a bitch in heat to me seems purely instinctual, which cannot be equated to me reading an incest h-doujin, which can engage my brain with all kinds of emotions and memories.
>It doesn't demonstrate any form of higher level communication relating to the human condition.
It's "worthless" because your prevailing perception of porn is a goon compilation of close-ups of 50 different penises entering 50 different vaginas.
>Your ramblings of "immersion" are also not elevated above basal animalistic reactions.
Immersibility is one of the most important defining aspects of art, regardless of how many animals are capable of doing it.
Without immersion, you're not even communicating a creative work. You're just communicating factuality. You have never written fiction in your life, and it clearly shows.
>I can immerse a chimp in VR too.
Yes, you can alter the perception of an animal by fooling it.
This is not what people mean when they talk about immersion.

The comparisons to animals are a very anthro-centric approach to defining art.
If it could be scientifically proven that chimpanzees were able to perceive art in every way you have defined it, would you make an exception for chimpanzees?
The idea of a definition of art hinging on the intelligence of other animals seems extremely arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.7262576]

>>7262573
>The idea of a definition of art hinging on the intelligence of other animals seems extremely arbitrary.

Animals don't seek to engage in art, it's not arbitrary.

Btw that other guy is right, you are either goner coomer or just love to argue for the sake of arguing.

[Anonymous No.7262577]

>>7262576
>Animals don't seek to engage in art, it's not arbitrary.
Animals don't seek to engage in cooking, yet the definition of cooking does not necessitate a species as a hard requirement.

[Anonymous No.7262578]

>>7262577
>going full retard mode
just enjoy your porn no need to think of it as something special, it's ok.

[Anonymous No.7262585]

>>7261657
just because you're an eunuch doesn't mean everyone else it

[Anonymous No.7262588]

>>7261638
yes and anyone saying otherwise either don't like porn/are mad it gets more attention/are coping about their technical skills.
>I might be drawing badly but at least I'm an ARTISTUH

[Anonymous No.7262589]

>>7262508
Can you justify why pornography and art are mutually exclusive?
Because I can take this,
>>And the answer is no, because that's what porn is. You've just made porn.
to mean that all pornography is art.

[Anonymous No.7262596]

>>7262475
>because they are shallow
What's the artistic significance of the painting in your file?
By all means, it is anything but thought-provoking. If she covered her breasts, I would put it on my wall, immerse myself a bit, then go on my day.
I would call it "aesthetics porn", but I've seen better.

I fully include aestheticism and immersion as parts of my definition for art, but they are not at all mutually exclusive with porn.

>and uncreative at it's core.
Drawn porn is creative by definition, since creativity means sourcing from your imagination.
If by creative you meant to say original, plenty of porn is original, plenty of works part of high culture are not.

[Anonymous No.7262613]

>>7262475
The problem is the English language calling everything and their mother "art"

[Anonymous No.7262637]

>>7262475
you could just have summed it up as "I don't like porn" but instead chose to act like a redditor.

[Anonymous No.7262683]

>>7262502
I know.
But look at them; no reading comprehension, no signs of intellect, just coom and insults because you didn't praise what they build an ego around.

goddamn porn should unironically get banned so these filthy animals can't have access to it.

[Anonymous No.7262711]

>>7261657
>imagine if you were watching 2 human beans having sex irl. that would make you a cuck
It would make you a voyeur you fucking retard. Or do you think you're dating every pornstar you watch?

[Anonymous No.7262723]

>>7261893
So what? That doesn't make rape good, you fucking cretin.
The fact that only relatively recently did we come up with the idea of universal human rights doesn't mean they are some new fangled nonsense, it means we have only just gotten society just barely stable and organised enough to be able to afford everyone a decent bit of respect and dignity, at least in principle.

The other anon might seem a bit naive, but he's absolutely got the right spirit. Sex ought to be nice, and can be art, and it doesn't matter a lick that for most of history it has often been violent. We live in better times now, and can aspire to even better ones tomorrow. If you step outside of the mainstream media echo chamber and look at the world around us (or you can just read some statistics if you prefer, like on how much rape and domestic abuse have gone down since women entered the workplace), it's undeniable that the conditions for real sex between real people is better than it ever has been.

This is obviously contrasted by what an absolute shitshow the porn industry continues to be, but even that is opening up to self-employment via Onlyfans and the like; trashy and cringe though that may be, it somewhat helps in offering a route that isn't open to manipulation or extortion by third parties, like in traditional porn. And yes, Onlyfans *can* be art, though I'd certainly argue that 99% of the time, but in principle it just depends on the intent and execution. The fact that it gets sold is a separate issue, since every other kind of art is commodified in some way too at this point.

[Anonymous No.7262725]

>>7262133
that's actually patently untrue
previously if you wanted to get into porn, you'd be essentially pimped out by third parties and have next to no control over your scenes and career
now you can be entirely self-employed

don't get me wrong, onlyfans is fucking cringe, but everyone is there by choice, which objectively makes it empowering, insofar as you can be as a sex worker.

what you are probably trying to critique is the larger issue of the wholesale commodification of sexuality in the modern era, which is absolutely a very real problem.

[Anonymous No.7262730]

>>7262514
This is a little contrived, but I kind of agree. It was also fun to read, if somewhat foaming-at-the-mouth.

[Anonymous No.7262735]

Only if it's interracial.

[Anonymous No.7262736]

>>7262735
this

[Anonymous No.7262787]

CuteSexyRobutts is art
OptionalTypo is art

[Anonymous No.7262797]

>>7262787
Serpieri is art
Milo Manara is art

[Anonymous No.7262818]

>>7261648
watching sex instead of having sex is gay
you are gay

[Anonymous No.7262828]

>>7261638
Sure why not.

[Anonymous No.7262830]

>>7262828
how is that art?

[Anonymous No.7262836]

>>7262830
Too busy admiring the craftsmanship to reach for my dick. Good art will do that for you.

[Anonymous No.7262862]

>>7262828
still slop
>>7262836
>outing yourself as a normie
damn

[Anonymous No.7262897]

>>7262828
this anon has taste
>>7262830
>>7262862
these anons are perma begged with no taste, sad!

[Anonymous No.7262901]

>>7262897
>>7262683
>lmao i just have taste!
slop for the normies

[Anonymous No.7262911]

>>7262897

>>7262502 checks out

[Anonymous No.7262987]

>>7261638
Yes. Look no further than Rondo Duo.

[Anonymous No.7263118]

>7262862
>7262901
Trying way too hard fit in newfag.

[Anonymous No.7263127]

>>7261985
>Why go out, get a girlfriend, get a good job, buy a house and start a family?
because this world is retarded and not worth the effort, definitely not because of porn. what a retarded thing to say, it makes more sense to blame prostitution for that, but you retards never do. also getting a house is borderline impossible even with a decent job. when are you getting the house? now, or will you indebt yourself like a good goy? you only think of best case scenarios which shows how you think at a juvenile, base level. yes "start a wonderful family". or don't because your kid has a severe case of autism and makes your life a living hell, or a chronic disease that seeps your money away. say goodbye to that house now, you're fucked

[Anonymous No.7263136]

To eveybody that said porn is not art. Please explain to me what art is, what is the purpose of it, why do we make it.

I don't like coom art, but I think you sound like uppity hipster.

[Anonymous No.7263153]

>>7261643
This is your brain on religion. Indoctrinated retards.

[Anonymous No.7263156]

>>7262475
>an opinion
Nothing more or less than that, sorry buddy.

[Anonymous No.7263166]

What's the line exactly between erotic and just porn? There's a lot of erotic art out there, and practically every artist is going to draw soemthing erotic in their lifetime even if it is not porn.
There's a lot of explicit and erotic art, I dunno if that disqualifies it from being porn or porn adjacent, so in my mind, yeah. It can.

[Anonymous No.7263169]

>>7263166
>What's the line exactly between erotic and just porn?
Penetration intercourse

[Anonymous No.7263171]

>>7263166
A girl inserting a baseball bat in her vagina, or a guy sucking his own dick, are circus acts. A clear image of a guy getting his hard dick on a woman's hole, that's porn.

[Anonymous No.7263175]

>>7262514
>Like women? Try yearning
A lot of porn does this though, so by your own definition is "art". Not all porn is furry inflation or hyper shit you see on twitter y'know, plenty of porn out there at the very least attempts to illicit feelings beyond "dick feel good". A good deal of porn sets out to depict an ideal, where dick feel good is just a part of it.

[Anonymous No.7263234]

>>7263175
You can elicit whatever you want but at the end of the day the purpose and intention was to make you horny. Just because an advertisement features a touching, well delivered story of someone's triumph against all odds, doesn't mean you call it a short film. It's an ad. It can be as moving or touching as you want, but we all know it's still trying to sell you something no matter how you spin it. It is by design an ad and therefore will always be an ad. Porn is by design porn and therefore will always be porn. Sprinkle as much sugar on it as you want, but the intention is absolute.

[Anonymous No.7263242]

>>7263234
The primary conceit here that you have not convincingly justified is that if it is one thing, it can not then also be another thing. I'm trying to argue that porn can also be art as well as porn, you're trying to argue that porn can only be porn. I'd say that I've experienced enough works that justify my stance, and I can only assume that you have not for you to hold the stance you do. I think that's kinda sad. I hope you do one day.

[Anonymous No.7263244]

>>7263242
You're free to live your life trying to squeeze meaning and purpose out of the pure insincerity of animalistic desire wearing a fancy hat. You're being played out of your own happiness and fulfillment by insidious forces, who were themselves suckers like you, that long to drag you to the bottom with them. But that's not my problem. I actually have nothing against porn. What I have a problem with is brain rotted addicts trying to inject their vices into everything as if everyone should just accept it as anything more than the worthless self indulgent slop that it is. It's ok to like slop. But it's not ok to pretend it's not slop. A manga that tells a story with purpose but also happens to have sex in it is not porn. It may be explicit, but the intention of the artwork itself is clear. It exists to tell a story. It was not made for your dick to go boing. That might still happen, but that was not the intention that drove the creator. If a work starts as porn, motivated by being porn, it dies as porn. A masturbatory exercise no matter what.

[Anonymous No.7263246]

You fags spend more time debating about what is and isn't art than making any.

[Anonymous No.7263252]

>>7263244
>A manga that tells a story with purpose but also happens to have sex in it is not porn. It may be explicit, but the intention of the artwork itself is clear. It exists to tell a story.
So you're trying to avoid admitting that you're wrong by saying that pornographic works that aim for more are not porn? Okay, thensure, if you rule out the stuff that disproves your argument then yeah I agree. But that's an arbitrary distinction that makes no real sense and I can guarantee this is a stance you only hold because it's the only way you can avoid admitting that you're wrong. Everyone considers those porn, even the authors. To claim otherwise is committing to some serious mental gymnastics to avoid admitting that porn can do more than arouse.
It's pretty clear your heels are far too dug in in this discussion to ever admit when the opposition has a point, so I expect you to devolve further into irrational arguments.

[Anonymous No.7263257]

>>7261638
Yes. But I don’t like like, random pornhub videos are exemplary here. Lots of good stuff has happened in the visual novel genre in regards to combining explicit sex scenes with interesting narratives. Subahibi, Euphoria, Muramasa.

[Anonymous No.7263264]

>>7263252
No. A pornographic work is a pornographic work. Unless you're claiming any and all sex is inherently pornography. Which it is not. Sex can be art. Porn cannot. Can you fathom this? Can you even compartmentalize these concepts? That there is more to sex than just blind monkey brained want? And that porn is something that plays solely on the worthless thoughtless stimulation lacking in any elevated thought? You can't, that's clear. You don't seem to grasp the idea of "intention" at all. Do you also think the waitress nice to you at a diner is doing it because she actually likes you? A work including sex is not always porn, but a porn with other stuff in it is always porn.

[Anonymous No.7263300]

I think this idea that porn can't be art is so odd. Like immediately people jump to shitty 70's heavy bass line VHS tapes and not drawn erotica or even filmed/photographed erotica with an artistic vison behind. It could even showcase genuine skill in various aspects of art.

Just because Pornography is pornographic doesn't mean it can't also be used as a tool by it's creator to study and practice art technique or to just be a visually appealing piece of art. Something being porn doesn't automatically mean you have to see it purely as sex or that you have to treat it purely as a masturbation tool.

Idk there's some artists who draw it who's work is really interesting technique wise, and I think if most people were to answer this genuinely they'd say that yes, porn can be art

[Anonymous No.7263305]

>>7263252
Simple test. Ask yourself:
>is the artist consistently attempting to arouse me?
If the answer is yes, it's porn. And before you say "that includes a lot of stuff!" Yes. It's all porn. You lack the perspective of a world that pre-dates the pervasiveness of easily accessible porn and the consequences it has had on our collective behavior and expectations. You don't realize how much of what you're looking at every goddamn day of your life is pornography, sexual or otherwise, that does nothing but fellate you and milk you for your time and energy in return for absolutely nothing of substance. Look at pointless picture after picture, experience neuron activation, covet what it represents, then repeat. And the only thing it motivates is for you to keep doing that over and over for all eternity. Walking addict husks that you are. Break your conditioning. If you're consuming something, and get incidentally aroused a few times, or if touching upon sexuality happens to benefit the depth of the preexisting expressions of what you're consuming, it's not porn. But those expressions within what you're consuming must be preexisting without the intention of arousing you. Those preexisting expressions must be elevated above the lizard brain. They motivate you to greater heights and exploration of your own sense of self instead of a senseless feedback loop of dopamine where you slowly wither away your life and potential as a being capable of higher thinking. Why do we separate murder and manslaughter? One is intentional. One is not intentional. In both cases someone is killed. Porn intends to make you want and covet. Art with sex in it doesn't intend that. In both cases someone is aroused. Try to wrap your head around these things. You will despair at how much around you is trying to steal your humanity and the gift of self awareness from you.

[Anonymous No.7263370]

>>7263300
pretty pictures aren't art
technically perfect images aren't art because they are technically perfect.

[Anonymous No.7263375]

just draw pretty people

[Anonymous No.7263442]

>>7262475
nigger youre actually retarded
>i have sexual energy/emotions/ideas to express (the entire fucking point of art in the first place)
>capture an image of it actually happening
wow such a hard concept to understand

[Anonymous No.7263480]

>>7262589
>Can you justify why pornography and art are mutually exclusive?
Well, like I had stated before, I feel that for pornography to be elevated beyond 'just being porn', it needs to communicate something other than arousal or sexual desire to its audience. As I said earlier, you may argue that the arousal in of itself should be considered artistic communication, but I just disagree, I see it as no different than say... Eliciting hunger from a person using a plate of food; does that plate of food become art now that it's aroused something from an audience?
In the same way having food making people hungry isn't art,
I don't think having a naked woman (or having her get fucked) and turning people on is either.

There's a lot of subjectivity here though; one piece of work that may illicit no sexual desire from one individual, may be incredibly arousing for another (>>7262475 's picrel is a good example, I don't find the work erotic, but find it more of a study of the beauty of the human body... as pretentious as that sounds. But then you have those Indians or cumming over themselves because of how erotic they find the painting).
There's also just the general subjective opinion of 'what even is an "Art"?'. I say it needs to communicate something other than just the base desire of sex and inspire deeper meaning, but perhaps to another person art doesn't need any meaning at all - blank canvases are hung up as "art" all the time, so it'd hardly be surprising the same person hanging those up would also think a human getting drilled is also an act of art.

So don't interpret what I'm saying with an authoritative: This is art!
I'm saying: I THINK, in my opinion, that I believe, personally, this is what art is.
I'm just trying to explain my justification for that opinion.

[Anonymous No.7263481]

if you see porn as anything more that just jerk off material; you're either a kid or an animal.

Might as well buy a bycicle and call it a car because you feel the heckin gforces when you go fast.

[Anonymous No.7263494]

>>7261638
If it's made by a woman (non-Jewish)

>>7261657
No, I was at a BDSM Dungeon just a few weeks ago watching two lesbians engage in pegging while I was spanking my wife
from a nearby couch.

[Anonymous No.7263495]

>>7261638
Here you go: >>2809497

[Anonymous No.7263496]

>>7263495
Oh. Go to /e/ and look at the classy thread.

[Anonymous No.7263497]

>>7262522
This is basically what it boils down to. Very well said.


Once any of you at least grasps and understands the concept of showing without seeing, if you ever manage to break your monkey programming, we'll talk.

[Anonymous No.7263506]

>>7263480
>Eliciting hunger from a person using a plate of food; does that plate of food become art now that it's aroused something from an audience?
I know what you mean, but I kind of think it does. You can probably design your food to look more appetizing, and I'd call such a creative endeavor "art".
Would you call a fancy oil painting of food that is supposed to make you feel hungry at a high-end restaurant not art, because its primary intention is to make you hungry?

It becomes more complicated, though. Have you ever heard of "nakige"?
They're a Japanese visual novel genre that is supposed to make the reader sad.
Do you think that fiction written for the sole or primary purpose of making someone sad is not real art, because sadness is a basic emotion?
We can apply to this to all kinds of emotions. Art that is intended to make you happy, angry, scared, and so on.

>but perhaps to another person art doesn't need any meaning at all - blank canvases are hung up as "art" all the time,
That's a naive interpretation of abstract art.
You're not looking at the blank canvas in a vacuum, the blank canvas consumes the entire art gallery and makes it become part of the painting.
The meaning of the "blank canvas" would be derived from being in an art gallery.

But in most cases, the title of an art piece makes the art whole.
This one is called "who's afraid of red, yellow and blue" and Jacob Geller made a cool 30 minute Youtube essay about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5DqmTtCPiQ

If your definition of art is equal to "it needs to convey an idea", this piece of art would be "more artistic" under your definition, since it *does* incur an identifiable deeper meaning, more so than beautiful oil painting portraits painted for the purpose of capturing someone's appearance.

[Anonymous No.7263508]

>>7262555
you never got shitfaced?

[Anonymous No.7263604]

>>7261660
>the thing is most of it is not treated as such by the creators
I've been wondering this on and off, but I think it comes down to "what is the point?" For the coomers, are they going to pay more to compensate for the additional time/effort/skill needed to elevate porn to art? For the art snobs, they will reject the work based on the subject matter without further consideration.

[Anonymous No.7263611]

>>7263246
I have to do something during the downtime at my dayjob

[Anonymous No.7263620]

if it is, it's one of the if not the most shallow forms

[Anonymous No.7263629]

>>7262578
Hate to break it to you but you're a pseud and a loser

[Anonymous No.7263630]

>>7262818
does this mean watching gay sex without having it is...straight?
brb

[Anonymous No.7263694]

>>7263481
>Might as well buy a bycicle and call it a car because you feel the heckin gforces when you go fast.
I wish I could go back to the simplicity of childhood embodied (probably accidentally) by this statement

[Anonymous No.7263807]

>>7261837
Guess the Mona Lisa is not art, then? It's only a portrait.

[Anonymous No.7263813]

>>7261806
How the fuck is a drawing not art, despite any intention the creator must have? A human grabbing a tool to engrave an image to represent something is quite literally as art as it gets.

[Anonymous No.7263817]

>>7261985
What if I don't want to get a girlfriend, get a good job, buy a house and start a family?
I already have a inherited house, got a job to sustain myself and coom feels good, what's so bad about it?

[Anonymous No.7263819]

>>7262067
UBkino is peak art, tho.

[Anonymous No.7263838]

>>7263807
>so the tax cut asset is not art?
yea

[Anonymous No.7263861]

>>7262475
that's cause you think jerking off to something somehow devalues it

This is a commonplace misconception that luckily is getting debunked now that sexual freedom and dogma destruction is taking place

Remember that most artist just wanted to draw something to jerk off to without being burned at stake, and that stuff is in the top museums in the world today. It's just a prudish sentiment that will die eventually

[Anonymous No.7263865]

>>7261638
Porn is direct whereas erotica is indirect. for a piece of art to have meaning, it must have imagery eliciting the implied themes the artist set out to execute. Therefore, porn isn't art. It's too straightforward. Too crass. No shred of beauty even as two supposed humans are engaging in intimacy. In short, porn can never be art.

[Anonymous No.7263868]

>>7263865
these are the exact same mental gymnastics artists did when Monet first proposed impressionism. What the consensus considers art changes with times, deal with it

[Anonymous No.7263874]

>>7263865
Is a drawn picture of somebody sad art? It's pretty straightforward. Elephants and dolphin are shown to be able to be sad. Dogs can be sad. Outside of something like bugs or simple celled organisms, there isn't anything unique about the ability to feel sad and yet you and other people would likely consider it art as long as it was drawn nicely.

[Anonymous No.7263932]

>>7262475
>most of the replies are just retards and minors not worth engaging with
this post is more art than porn will ever be

[Anonymous No.7263956]

>art is whatever you want it to be!
>art is whatever elicits le feeling...
>art cannot be defined

no.
shut up faggots
i already did the legwork for you last thread and created a perfect universal definition
it's a scale that goes from 0 to 100
where 0 is an entity that is entirely non-artistic, and 100 is forged by God himself

there are 4 criteria

criterion uno: Art reflects beauty of the world
the more beautiful something is, the more it is art
ugly things are not art

criterion dos: Art is created with skillful work
throwing shit onto the canvas is not art, being a /beg/ means your art is less artsy, a master-genius-savant creates art that is high in the 80s-90s

criterion tres: Art is an original novel idea
remaking, recycling, plagiarizing, generating with AI, reusing stuff = less artsy. Nobody can argue with that
the more new and original shit you add, the more art it is

criterion cuatro: Art has the sole purpose of obtaining Godhood through creativity
or, if you're an atheist: true art has no other ulterior motive than itself.
SO, if you make slop for money, or want to send a message (propaganda for example) or if you're creating a decoration for something, or making an ad, or chasing vanity and fame, that's less artsy than just doing art for the sake of it. Again, that's simply a truism, a fact of life that nobody can argue with.

so for example, a soulless cashgrab movie that is also a sequel/remake/reboot, that is also poorly made, will be in the low 10s. A work made by a skillful master that is entirely original and made just because he felt like it - a 90. It can never be 100 because that's too perfect, but you get the idea.

notice how neither of the 4 criteria have anything to do with your retarded shit like "expression" and "response"
it doesn't matter what the AUDIENCE thinks of the art or how it responds. That's first of all, subjective, second of all, irrelevant. art doesnt change with the observer, none of that Schrodinger shit

you're welcome

[Anonymous No.7263961]

>>7263956
so, to answer your question: "can porn be art?"
notice that to answer this, we do not need to tap into my subjective opinions or preferences. the 4 criteria are objective, empirical, maybe even scientific if you'd like them to be. Just apply the metrics and voila:
pornography tends to violate criteria 3 and 4 the most:
- it is made to arouse and attract
- it repeats itself a lot
so generally pornography will NOT quite be art

that's it, you can close the thread now
sayonara niggers

[Anonymous No.7263982]

>>7263956
So where do you place things like Saturn eating his son, or the Picasso Guernica piece? Because those were both intentionally made to be ugly.

[Anonymous No.7263991]

>>7263956
>>7263961
Unless you make a 100k word essay explaining every single minute shit in detail, you will get retards thinking you hate bread because you like waffles.

You are absolutely correct though but you're trying to get a fish to imagine walking on land.

[Anonymous No.7264040]

>>7263961
>Just apply the metrics and voila:
>pornography tends to violate criteria 3 and 4 the most:
>- it is made to arouse and attract
>- it repeats itself a lot
So when someone makes an image of two people making love, but does so with the intention of reflecting the natural beauty of the act, the bodies in motion, etc., it would move more into the "art" space. I think that explains why >>7261726 works well. The camera angle and pose isn't designed to get as many "naughty bits" in the image as possible, physics be damned. The body isn't grotesquely proportioned. The colors harmonize nicely. And so on.

[Anonymous No.7264059]

Igedoaha, Nakamura Kuzuyu, Menea tue Dog, Higashiyama Show.

Theres plenty of artists whose eromanga evoke something other than horniness that can stand on their own.

[Anonymous No.7264060]

>>7262475
Purpose is irrelevant when considering whether something is art. I have no idea where you got your retarded opinion from.

[Anonymous No.7264093]

>>7263127
>does what the jew wants
>calls others goys
You filthy kike, there is a reason they are buying up the housing market, and don't want to to own one. There is a reason they run the porn industry. They don't want you to own a house, or have children. They are plenty of people in the world, they can just import whoever they want.
>Oh no I have no go into debt to buy a house! They are making it so hard!
Yeah, no kidding? Are you not able to put 2 and 2 together? Maybe you aren't a kike, just a dumb nigger.

[Anonymous No.7264137]

>>7263982
lower than beautiful things
but still high-ish because of the other criteria

[Anonymous No.7264153]

I would die for those feet.

[Anonymous No.7264177]

>>7262723
>all sex is rape
just tear your balls off and feed em to your cat bro

[Anonymous No.7264179]

>>7262046
artist sauce?

[Anonymous No.7264185]

>>7261638
you want to know if you are a virgin with a porn addiction or an artist? you are the former, end of story.

[Anonymous No.7264215]

>>7263370
Stop being stupid

[Anonymous No.7264271]

porn is awesome
you just dont understand it and have bad taste

fucking puritans why do they hate sex so much?
anyone got an erp furry diaper loli discord i can join?

[Anonymous No.7264324]

>>7264271
Ah yes a shitty good for nothing pedo >>7264271
YoU DOnt UndErStAnD iT nigger your whole post reeks of a smelly fagot who's living like shit might as well kys

[Anonymous No.7264328]

the reason why /ic/ is a red board is because there might be some nude drawings or models for figure drawing. but you coomers just take advantage of this and post straight up porn and turn the website about how to make the most coombux. you creatures are vile.

[Anonymous No.7264330]

>>7261638
>Can X, Y, or Z be art?
Yes.
Literally anything can be art.

[Anonymous No.7264357]

>>7263813
I don't think a medium immediately qualifies something as art. If a drawing is art by default, then an advertisement must be art by default too, as it also uses an 'artistic medium'. Every family photo, no matter how blurry and scuffed, are also art then. A teen boy idly scrawling dicks in his textbook while listening to listening to a teachers speech in maths class would also be creating art at that very moment.

You may disagree with me and think all those are art, and that's fine, but we're just going to have to disagree then.

[Anonymous No.7264383]

>>7264324
>>7264328
wow why do hate sex so much? what is it with these pol puritans
lmao

No one ever posts porn outside of the threads, i swear
in fact we should post more porn
i think you're just jealous because epic nfsw artists have big following make more money than you

gotcha

[Anonymous No.7264407]

>>7261638
has anyone posted a link to the reference pack already? I'm not reading through all the schizoposting and moralfagging in here

[Anonymous No.7264469]

Art
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power
In other words everything people create is art, you might like the art or might not, it doesnt make the art less arty

[Anonymous No.7264496]

>>7264469
Do lolis look like prepubescent children?

[Anonymous No.7264526]

>>7263956
>the midwit has entered the thread

[Anonymous No.7264577]

>>7264383
a retarded and uncreative response as expected. it's not about any of that. it's about people taking advantage of a feature and drastically changing the board.

[Anonymous No.7264594]

>>7263956
you definition of art is at least a century behind

I'd recommend looking into futurism (point one), and pop art (point two and three).

For point four (which I agree with), you can look at comics, which were considered slop to be read and thrown away and today became a form of art. Meaning that the way a field is used in an era is not indicative of its artistic potential.

Porn is the same exact thing, still considered slop without artistic value, but tides are slowly changing

you guys are simply too thick to realize that you can't contain art in a box cause it'll always overflow. It's always been like this

[Anonymous No.7264613]

>>7264577
lurk moar, newfag

[Anonymous No.7264727]

Porn is one universe, and the fine arts another.
Art focuses on the artist who created it and is a retelling of the history of an individual at a certain place and time. They are separate spheres and should be kept as such. You go to the museum for a clinical feeling.
Art is ultimately ambiguous, carefully crafted, omission, mystery and consciousness. It is subtle, where porn is explicitly direct. Porn makes you feel like you are the master. It offers a fantasy, if you choose to accept it. Art on the other hand, makes you feel small. It makes you question, wonder and feel. Porn is a form of propaganda that focuses on the viewer, a demonstration of one’s base fetish, dressed up to invoke carnal feelings of lust through exaggerated proportions and primal symbols. It is appealing to the artist and anyone who shares a similar fetish.
Isn’t the internet already an art gallery? I don’t keep a separate nsfw account and sfw account and my art does not get numbers and numbers of views. I finally understood why when someone pointed out to me nobody wants to see porn if they aren’t actively looking for it. The algorithm is a curator. It’s a frustrating feeling when your computer doesn’t do what you want: You are expecting one thing and getting another.

The main problem is of two camps: Artists that draw nothing but NSFW and those that never do. Take Egon Schiele and Hitler. It is obvious Schiele’s art, despite eminating a soulful naiveté, never got a chance to crystallize into a true vision because of the artists young death. Hitler’s art is perfectly chaste and almost a complete suppression of sexual desire. Schiele’s art was obviously hidden, and when I look at his art, I feel shame, vulnerability, fear, excitement. What if someone sees this and judges me for it? It’s what gives NSFW its humanity, but it is not art.

[Anonymous No.7264761]

>>7264594
futurism still reflects beauty
pop art requires less skill and originality, and yes that's why it's less artistic
>today became a form of art
i already told you, the way someone else views the art does not change anything. Comics are slop because the original author intended them to be slop. They can't "become a form of art". Even if every person on the planet at any point in future time decides that they are amazing art, this is irrelevant. The criterion only denotes the intention of the creator - the comic artist.

you did not understand the purpose of these criteria
>>7264526
shut up nigger

[Anonymous No.7264886]

No.
Erotic art exists, but porn is by definition not art, nor is it trying to be art.

Just like a bulldozer. It's has a definition, and a function.
It ceases to become a bulldozer, when you cover it with concrete, security cameras, and kill holes. It has now changed what it is, and what it's purpose is. It has ascended to being a Killdozer

[Anonymous No.7265091]

>>7261648
It's genuinely so sad that someone can ask a question like that without a hint of realization.
Maybe it's just subhumans without an inner voice? Idk.

[Anonymous No.7265101]

>"EWWww... porn!, get it away from meeee"
That's why everyone in the site think that this board is full of homos, faggots, autists and retards.

[Anonymous No.7265322]

The TL;DR of this thread
>this art isn't real art because........ I DON'T LIKE IT!!!!!

[Anonymous No.7265367]

>>7264761
>Comics are slop because the original author intended them to be slop.
What kind of reasoning is this? You assume that comics are slop because they intrinsically "are" with no reasoning, then say that therefore any comic artist must have also agreed with this definition and that furthermore wished to make more of said "slop." There is an entire foundation you have willed into existence without looking at it.

[Anonymous No.7265410]

>>7262828
artist name. now.

heres my current study unfinished in exchange

[Anonymous No.7265454]

>>7264179
>Mon
Biljana Djurdjevic

[Anonymous No.7265466]

>>7261638
No. But ecchi can be art. Which is why
Ecchi > Porn

[Anonymous No.7265485]

>>7265367
>You assume that comics are slop because they intrinsically "are" with no reasoning
are you fucking illiterate or do you forget things when they leave your field of vision? CRITERION 4 - AUTHOR'S INTENTION
>any comic artist must have also agreed with this definition
if you pay attention, you will find that my original post constructs the 4 criteria entirely out of truisms. You can't agree or disagree with truisms. I'm just organizing the objective facts of reality for your convenience. You are being ungrateful

>humans value beautiful things
>humans value novel things
>creating things that are in a 1:1 correspondence of their material nature with your vision in your mind requires hard work and skill
>having ulterior motives tends to violate the other 3 criteria

You cannot argue with this without being disingenuous. This is just known.

inb4
>what if a comic artist actually wants to make good and original art, and not just for money?
then his work will be more artistic compared to the artist who's just riding the trends and stuff
i've specified multiple times that it's a scale and not a black vs white def

sorry for yelling.

[Anonymous No.7266253]

>>7261638
There are a few adult comics with legit good plots

[Anonymous No.7266258]

>>7263956
>it doesn't matter what the AUDIENCE thinks of the art or how it responds. That's first of all, subjective, second of all, irrelevant.
If everyone thinks that what you did isn't art, good luck to you on calling it art.

[Anonymous No.7266310]

>>7266253
It has way too much loli, but I'm caught up in the story of Camp Sherwood. All the toons I grew up with, and the author definitely knows the characters, and writes them well. Never cared for fanfic, but damn

[Anonymous No.7266353]

>>7266310
>Camp Sherwood
>too much loli
What the fuck are you smoking?
If anything, it doesn't have enough loli because the artist can't decide who to appeal to.

[Anonymous No.7266361]

>>7266353
Anything with Timantha or Tootie is loli.

[Anonymous No.7267168]

>>7265410
@Nat_the_lich she used to post in the old oc threads till about a year ago.

[Anonymous No.7267547]

>>7267168
>Nat_the_lich
>she
lol,
lmao even

[Anonymous No.7267592]

>>7267547
>he doesn't know
Heh.

[Anonymous No.7267598]

Yes. Art is simply a tool/process for humans to transmit and express emotions and feelings. Horny, lust, lascive, desire, etc are emotions just like any other. The difference is that most "lascive art" is made with the mere objective to make you COOM, and thats a low bar, like if a smiley face would make you happy.
So most porn is very bad art, but there is pornographic material that is also beautiful and not only "CUM, CUM, CUM NOW"
such as >>7262828

Or, this is an example i like to give

[Anonymous No.7267602]

>>7267598
Id also like to ask if one, both or none of these is art according to you

[Anonymous No.7269291]

>>7267598
nta, but what was the original intent of the painting on the right? was it meant to illicit arousal, or is it an an artist's take on what aphrodite was meant to be? or, was it both?

[Anonymous No.7269313]

>>7261638
Yes it's art but it's of the lowest wavelength of art in the same way that a negroid banging on a wooden drum is music of the lowest functional sort.

Coom says nothing about the human condition other than "I am addicted lol look how addictive the power of exposure to pornographic art is as a kid look how I've thrown all of my efforts and energies and time on this earth into making my dick hard" then you die with regrets.

[Anonymous No.7269322]

>>7264383
artist?

[Anonymous No.7269325]

>>7269322
That's AI anon

[Anonymous No.7269331]

>>7269291
to make coomers shill on patreon

[Anonymous No.7269346]

>>7262828
Dis be gud

[Anonymous No.7269375]

>Me contemplating whether porn is art

[Anonymous No.7269424]

>>7267598
>>7267602
both of the og paintings were meant push boundaries in their times, because as much as porn addicts like to schizophrenically screech about puritans, those times were filled with genuine puritans who knew nothing about sex and church being the highest moral authority.
The birth of a venus was an honest to god shitpost mean to piss of the church and shock people since it was displayed out in public.
The sin was meant to insult and be edgy because of the subject matter.

Modern pornshitters are not the same. Not even by mistake.
What message or boundaries are the to push anymore in the modern world? Subscribe to their patreon with your parents paypal account to btfo drumpfnazispuritanstransphobes???

All porn in the modern era IS just "cum now". Saying otherwise is simply delusional and uneducated.

[Anonymous No.7269427]

I never had sex.

[Anonymous No.7269429]

if you ever had sex you wouldn't put porn on a pedestal.

[Anonymous No.7269461]

>>7269331
on the right, not left. clearly the left is made to illicit arousal, though it is skillfully done

[Anonymous No.7269473]

>>7269461
oh right, I was talking about the left one. The right one is a statement, most say that it was to show that physical beauty could make one contemplate the divine, it was the first secular painting to depict nudity, which was one of the reason it was controversial at the time. One interesting fact is that it was commissioned by Medici and was made in a time that the absolute power of Church started to shake.

[Anonymous No.7269496]

>>7269424
Idk, if you wanna be pedantic, you can say that abortion toddler fart guro snuff art is an insult to morality and making a point about grotesqueness and rebellion of societal norms.
Or talking about our relationship with death and degeneracy, or this is about the organ trade and child exploitation. You can say that modern porrn is "CUM NOW" as much as old porn is.

[Anonymous No.7269501]

>>7269424
I could say that many of shindol's works (this, the chickens one, and henshin emergence) are about exploitation and abuse, if the old paintings are contra cultural and edgy, and therefore art, this can easily be art then.

[Anonymous No.7269510]

>>7269496
>>7269501
>extreme, graphic and absolutely unhinged fetish porn created exactly to sell as porn and meant to be consumed as jerk off material is the equivalent as some vanilla shit made to piss off the church.
Jerking off to porn isn't an excuse to be this absolutely low IQ.

Might as well chop your dick off and call yourselves women if that's your logic.

[Anonymous No.7269512]

>>7269510
You admitted that what you now are calling "vanilla shit" was edgy and pushing boundaries, can't even keep your logic straight? Back in the day that was edgy, nowadays, this is edgy, get a better argument than "this is edgy therefore art" if you don't like it, is your logic, not mine retard

[Anonymous No.7269513]

>>7269501
if the old paintings are contra cultural and edgy, and therefore art

They made an impact by being contra culture and edgy.

> this can easily be art then.

Did normies talked about it day in day out? Did it create large scale debates? Did it changed anything? No? then no.

[Anonymous No.7269517]

>>7269512
You absolute dog shit slurping retard.
It has nothing to do if it's edgy itself.

Your loli guro abortion rape mindcontrol porn isn't contra cultural, it doesn't question cultural or social boundaries, it doesn't challenge authority; it's just fucking porn.

Are you done or do you have more witty reddit strawman to pull out of your gaping ass?
Goddamn, nigger.

[Anonymous No.7269518]

>>7269513
So the Kardashians are art? Why does it matter if normies talk about it? art is personal, not societal, and the impact of art doesn't matter in order to determine if its art or not, were Francisco Goya paintings only art once they became public and not when he painted them in secret?

[Anonymous No.7269519]

>>7269517
You malding cause you cant argue? Im pretty sure Lili guro abortion fart fetish is the definition of societal boundaries retard, not my fault you live on the internet and think normal people are ok with it you porn brain coomer

[Anonymous No.7269520]

>>7269519
what a fucking chatgpt ass bot post

nigger unironically kill yourself

[Anonymous No.7269521]

>>7269520
You first malding retard

[Anonymous No.7269523]

>misunderstanding, strawmanning and overall being ignorant about everything is arguing now
>UUUUUHM MY FETISH PORN IS EXACTLY LIKE REAL ART BECAUSE RAPING LOLIS AND CHOPPING THEIR LIMBS OF IS COMPLETELY NORMAL AND ITS UNREASONABLE TO NOT BE ACCEPTED
no wonder society is dying

[Anonymous No.7269525]

>Speaks about strawman
>Says the opposite of what the argument is (Loli is contra cultural and not normal)
many such cases of brainlets
>Muh billions must die
Kekd

[Anonymous No.7269527]

>xyz fetish is contra cultural
the absolute state of porn addicts

[Anonymous No.7269528]

>>7269518
Kardashians made a social impact, not an artistic impact, you moron. They are people not art too, idk why the f you are bringing them into conversation.

>were Francisco Goya paintings only art once they became public and not when he painted them in secret?

What Goya has to do with this? He didn't make those paintings as edgy statements. Art that is created as a statement does not exist without an audience, it's made to create a conflict and dialogue, it needs audience to achieve that, put it firmly in your scull. Goya's black paintings have nothing to do with statements, he did not made them to be contra culture and edgy.

[Anonymous No.7269537]

>>7269528
Chose your current topic then morron, hazbin hotel, electric circus, current normie goyslop, is that the best art? Everyone speak about it.

Art is self-expression retard, if no one sees your statement It's still art. If art needs an audience to be art, then you are affirming that those painting were not art in secret and only became art once made public. He made the paintings because he felt like he had to (therefore there is something that needs to be depicted, but he knows is inappropriate for the public, thats a statement in itself) but once public they became subject of talks, therefore, according to your logic, they were not art, and once they became public and people talked about it, they became art.

[Anonymous No.7269539]

>nooo the weird porn i jerk off is totally normal and accepted by everyone
Porn brainrot is scary, get help sicko

[Anonymous No.7269541]

>>7269537
> is that the best art?
Interesting how you felt the need to put "best" in it.

Also fun to see how you keep using blanket statements just so you can argue, while I don't.

[Anonymous No.7269543]

>>7269541
Whats the blanket statement? You literally said.

"Did normies talked about it day in day out? Did it create large scale debates? Did it change anything? No? then no."

Therefore
>Everyone speaks about it? Art
>ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE speaks about it? the most succesful art ever
>No one speak about it? Not art
Which is the most retarded definition of art I've ever heard, that's more appropriate for judging the effectivity of marketing rather than art.
Art doesn't need to make an impact in order to be art, it doesn't need to be popular, it doesn't need to be famous. I don't see the blanket statement.

If anything, you are refusing to define art and draw lines in the sand, just be general and vague about what art even is.

[Anonymous No.7269544]

>look how heckin smart i can argue because i twist words!!!
how come i watch lots of porn yet i can't even pretend to be this mentally retarded or pretend that porn is art?

[Anonymous No.7269546]

>Look momma i made le reddit speech, im le good at strawmaning

Also, a Serbian film is quite pornographic, violent, incestual etc, and it was literally made as a protest against current censorship laws, societal norms, sparked discussions, and yes, made a change, so there, even more clear-cut for you retards, is a Serbian film the same as the old paintings?

[Anonymous No.7269552]

pic related is art
porn will never be real art

[Anonymous No.7269554]

porn is the tranny of art

[Anonymous No.7269555]

>>7269552
cope with your delusion

[Anonymous No.7269559]

>>7269552
>"this is art"
>managed to trigger the entire nsfw sphere
>it's just a comic portraying how social media only cares about horny content
>this is observable, objective and true
>bots are still seething about it years later
Now this is contra cultural

[Anonymous No.7269562]

when everyone and their mothers is a porn addicted hedonistic egomaniac with no morality or boundaries; what would be the opposite of it?

Ah, yes, more extreme porn.

[Anonymous No.7269569]

>>7269543
maybe chill and actually read what I said?
I drew a very specific line.

You said that if all that is needed for something to be called art is to be edgy and contra culture then x is art. To which I replied that if something wants to be considered a contra culture and edgy in art (as in that specific type of art), it needs to create impact and for that it needs an audience. The purpose of contra culture and edgy art is to challenge, to make a statement, if nobody gives a fuck about your soap box, it's a failure. Art that is created as statment isn't about self-expression, even though you may (or may not) be expressing yourself. And before you go all "but it's still self-expression". Well not always and even when it is, the thing is that with statement art the fact that the creator expressing themselves isn't what makes it art, it's whenever what he has to say successfully transmitted to their audience. The purpose of statement art is not to express self, it's to pass a message.

You are the one who keep pushing the blanket statement of art on me and just keep arguing about irrelevant things. And honestly, if you think that everything is art and want to argue with me on that ground, I don't give a fuck. If everything is art, Kardashians is art, dog pooing in the alley is art too. Pick up all the doodles in the beg thread and hang them in the museum for all I care.

[Anonymous No.7269571]

>>7269569
How about YOU chill and read? Where did i said everything is art? I said specifically
"Art is simply a tool/process for humans to transmit and express emotions and feelings"
To that you came with
"THAT ART IS NOT ABOUT EXPRESSION, IS ABOUT EDGY"
Then i asked "is this edgy art not the same?"
then you move the goalpoast "it has to have a message"
"Doesnt this have a message?"
"No one speaks about it tho, it needs to make an impact"
"Is this generic thing that made an impact art then?"
"No, even tho the Kardashians are literally actresses, they are celebrities, not artist"
And keep moving the goalpost further and further away.
Still, if we assume everything you said is true, then It's still art, did it change society? No, but bad art, unsuccessful art, It's still art, do you agree?

[Anonymous No.7269575]

>>7269571
>Where did i said everything is art?
>bad art, unsuccessful art, It's still art

> do you agree?
<---

[Anonymous No.7269580]

>>7269575
So, because this is unsuccessful (compared to the mona lisa from da vinci) extremely unsuccessful so, it's not art, got itm thanks for the imput.

[Anonymous No.7269583]

>>7269580

[Anonymous No.7269585]

>>7269583
it was a yes or no question, you said no, don't blame me cause you regret your answer or not putting any caveat nigger

[Anonymous No.7269587]

>>7269585

[Anonymous No.7269588]

>>7269587
Got you so mad you went to your boomer rebuttal images folder?

[Anonymous No.7269591]

>>7269588
no, I just think that you need to talk to my hand and apparently you love to.

[Anonymous No.7269593]

>>7269591
Dman nigga, you first go all boomer, and now you're trying to go all toddler? You're trying to confuse me about your age grandpa?

Also, good job making me talk to your hand, you literally answered me retard kek, you ain't even good at trying to look uninterested

[Anonymous No.7269595]

>>7269593
you stopped talking about art, so i became interested. any more nigga insults or this is where your creativity stops? Sitting here, waiting impatiantly.

[Anonymous No.7269596]

>>7269595
keep waiting nigga, now that i know that word bothers you nigga that much, ima keep niggering like a true street nigga, nigga, why doesnt it surprises me that you are more interested in being a nigga than to speak about art? non draw nigga

[Anonymous No.7269598]

>>7269596
i rather be nigga than talk art with you, that's all.

[Anonymous No.7269600]

>>7269598
Youd rather be called nigga and bitch than to speak about art cause you are a little dirty disgusting whore craving for cock nigga, you crave for attention you fatherless slut, come be my prostitute rather than an artist, im sure you'll be better at it nigga

[Anonymous No.7269602]

>can't read
>obviously melaninated basketball dribbler
>accuses everyone of being mad because they won't engage his """"epic trolling"""" dumbass
How do third graders even find their way to this board?

[Anonymous No.7269605]

shieet nigga, you think im trolling and keep responding? You really mad nigga

[Anonymous No.7269607]

>>7269600
oh, look! Verbal diarrhea.

in all seriousness, are these things really pass off as insults or are you just as bored as I am?

[Anonymous No.7269611]

>>7269607
I just have you on my second monitor, saying dumb stuff cause indeed, I'm probably as bored as you are, wondering if you are bored or if somehow you actually feel offended/invested in the conversation.

[Anonymous No.7269616]

>>7269611
well that's a bit wholesome, desu

[Anonymous No.7269619]

ITT: unsuccessful sfwlets projected malding

[Anonymous No.7269631]

>>7267598
>>7269291
>>7269424
The Birth of Venus was an actual study on nature, myths, biology and occultism. The meanings of the painting are virtually infinite. Another obvious proof of this is that The Birth was paired with La Primavera, Mars and Venus and other unknown paintings that Savonarola destroyed. Neither La Primavera nor Mars and Venus have nudity, so it's pretty fucking clear that the entire pictorial cycle was not meant to arouse someone (what a retarded take in general btw) but to study ancient myth and symbolism.

[Anonymous No.7269646]

>>7269631
>that the entire pictorial cycle was not meant to arouse someone
tell that to the porn addicts

[Anonymous No.7269648]

>>7269646
That's meant for them as well

[Anonymous No.7269658]

what's with genuine retards getting utterly obliterated in an argument and then going on about how everyone is angry and upset?

This only shows you're actually butthurt hard af.

[Anonymous No.7270778]

>>7262058

Good but Mai is supposed to be Japanese.

That looks like a white woman.

[Anonymous No.7271476]

lars von trier made it art once so I guess it can happen more

[Anonymous No.7271574]

>>7270778
>That looks like a white woman.
One of the big problems with Japan's art. If they draw characters that are more diverse and interesting, they'll inevitably look like a white person because white people are probably the most diverse ethnicity visually whilst also being pale skinned like most Japanese; if the Japanese they try sticking closer to reality, they'll end up with with boring same-samey looking characters.

It's a tricky situation for them.

[Anonymous No.7271637]

>>7271574
Nah, that's because anthropology is a meme and that "white" is not a race but many different ethnic groups grouped under the same banner thanks to a desert religion. Japan is big on stylization and abstraction so it's even dumber to think about race for their drawings.

[Anonymous No.7271657]

>>7271637
>"white" is not a race but many different ethnic groups grouped under the same banner
Sure, but "Black" then also means many differing ethnic groups under the same banner. People still know what you mean when you say black, and likewise, know what you mean when you say white.

>Japan is big on stylization and abstraction so it's even dumber to think about race for their drawings.
True, and I know that the cartoon dude with red spiky hair and big blue eyes going to a Japanese school is likely Japanese (if I even were to think about race at all), but we're just talking about if we are were to look at these characters' race purely through their visuals.

[Anonymous No.7271925]

>>7263244
> It may be explicit, but the intention of the artwork itself is clear. It exists to tell a story. It was not made for your dick to go boing.
What if the story involves making your dick go boing as well.

Valid usecase: Horror story about a succubus, you obviously want your audience to feel tempted (on a primal level) and due to that... vulnerable.
Not "Wow Satan was really scraping the bottom of the barrel the day he sent us this one." or "I'd win"

[Anonymous No.7271932]

>>7261638
The answer hinges a lot on what deffinition of the word "art" we are using.

[Anonymous No.7271936]

>>7264727
>Porn makes you feel like you are the master. It offers a fantasy, if you choose to accept it

What if it's a fantasy where you are submissive.
Would there be a way for porn to make you feel "small" or "beneath"

[Anonymous No.7271992]

>>7271925
As long as making you cum is not the main purpose of its creation, it's fine. Say your horror story plot is some recently married dude who moves his new family into a new house but the previous owner summoned a succubus in the basement and she lurks in the home at night. The plot centers around the conflict between the man's fidelity to his new bride and the temptation of the demon and every time he resists her sex she gets more vindictive. In that case, the point was to tell a story with a purpose elevated above making you cum. Themes of adultery, overcoming temptation, coping with weakness, bravery in the face of evil. The dick boing is just a load bearing support beam in that instance.

[Anonymous No.7273991]

>>7261638
First , how do we define art?
What definition are we even using?

[Anonymous No.7274003]

There's no distinction to me. Porn is always art.

[Anonymous No.7274007]

>>7271992
What if it's some sort of half and half.

Like say instead of a couple... it's a desperate incel... the succubus wasn't summoned by anything within his control , but simply by the fact that "His heart cried out to her". The plot centers around the cat and mouse game between the two. The theme of overcoming temptation is still deffinently there but the dick boing is a stronger load bearer.

[Anonymous No.7274039]

>>7274007
Then the intention was to get you horny which makes it porn, how is this so hard for you degenerates to understand

[Anonymous No.7274042]

>>7274039
they just need to find that loophole.

no pun intended.

[Anonymous No.7274073]

>>7274039
My question is more about where the line would be drawn... or is there a triple-point like gray area where we can't say which one it is.

[Anonymous No.7274148]

>>7261638
Footfags ruin everything. Put those dirty dogs down already.

[Anonymous No.7274157]

>>7261638
wheres the link?

[Anonymous No.7274167]

no.
>hurrr you're just hate porn and sex, incel
nope. just busted one out on /gif/.

[Anonymous No.7274958]

>>7262613
The problem is multiple words for one thing.

[Anonymous No.7274960]

>>7269517
It does push cultural/social boundries... so do warcrimes.

[Anonymous No.7274962]

>>7274167
>i just busted a nut
and that means you're actually projecting your own addiction and you can't get laid

hehe checkmate
im very smart

now stop badmouthing porn
porn is amazing

[Anonymous No.7275749]

>>7261638
names?

[Anonymous No.7275804]

>>7261657
>that would make you a cuck
That's a complete fucking bullshit. Cuckold happens when you fap to someone hooking up with somebody you love.
But even if it actually does make me a cuck, so what? You have no right to tell what is right or wrong based only on your viewpoint, in the same manner you can't tell me I must enjoy strawberry ice cream only because you do. Period.YGYMGS

[Anonymous No.7275880]

>>7275804
>You have no right to tell what is right or wrong
Murder and Sexual Assault is back on the menu boys!

[Anonymous No.7276187]

surely. The xenomorh is heavily based on genitals

[Anonymous No.7276225]

>>7274962
it's the other way around. porn-addicted porn drawers want their addiction to be validated.
i don't imagine porn drawers are having sex. it's an expression of a desire which they cannot fulfill.
didn't bad mouth porn. just said it's can't be art.

[Anonymous No.7276255]

>>7276225
>i don't imagine porn drawers are having sex
Are all the female porn artists really sexually frustrated incels?
That's really hot actually, fuck....

[Anonymous No.7276324]

nsfw artists are just incels with talent.

[Anonymous No.7276383]

>>7276225
wow stop badmouthing epic porn artists you're just seething and mad jelly that they have followers and you don't and earn money which you also don't

Didn't think i was this smart, eh? checkmate

[Anonymous No.7276467]

I hate that hegre art always puts slavic males instead of white males next to the women.

[Anonymous No.7276714]

>>7261638
No, never.
But art can sometimes be porn.

[Anonymous No.7277621]

[Anonymous No.7278073]

>>7276255
Wife.

[Anonymous No.7278089]

>>7262514
Based.

[Anonymous No.7278111]

>>7276255
>female incels
lmao
>are female porn artists just sexually frustrated?
No. They're just attention whores because there is no female porn artist who doesn't post herself naked as well.
Their porn is a self-projection or self-insert.
>that's really hot
Yeah, why don't you donate to their onlyfanspatreon? Maybe you got a chance!

On the other hand
>are male porn artists sexually frustrated?
200%. Sex is a "need" for males so if they don't get it, they're going to start doing other shit to replace it.
Males not getting pussy is how we got most of the current technology.

[Anonymous No.7278402]

Hot damn a 300+ reply thread full of anons performing mental gymnastics to morally justify their porn addictions. Imagine if all this collective effort was put into drawing instead.

[Anonymous No.7279713]

>>7261657
>that would make you a cuck
that would make you a voyeur

[Anonymous No.7279724]

>>7263956
Nigger, your definition excludes humongous portion of literature, especially Russian 19th century literature from being art, therefore you are a faggot and your opinion is shit.

[Anonymous No.7279773]

>>7261849
Art is an expression of "feelings" through skill.
The skill level isn't the emasurement of art but the covneyence level of it.

[Anonymous No.7280411]

>>7278111
> no female porn artist who doesn't post herself naked as well.
From what I have seen most of them don't. Artist behind Lost Case and Beckymastery would be 2 examples I know.

I assume because they do not want their IRL identity tied to NSFW art (or maybe also some sense of dignity).
Women do also tend to be more risk adverse and do not want crazy stalkers/death threats.