I think we can all agree that erotica is a proper art form. It's nudes in tasteful poses, usually with artistic intent. Hell, one could argue that most art produced in the renaissance was erotica. Or the Statue of David for instance.
Ok so that's art.
Similarly, we all consider most types of drawings to be art. People drawing on canvas to produce emotionally and visually stimulating stuff has always been art.
Then take Pollock for instance. He is the complete bastardization of visual art. Pure colour and emotion with wanton disregard for any "form".
That is still considered art.
However, when you do the same to erotica and come up with porn ... it suddenly isn't art anymore?
I think it's mostly a matter of context. Porn is something you watch while you jerk off, and afterwards you throw it away. That's what it's designed for, and there's not much more to be seen if you watch it in any other context.
In fact, the OP is slightly off about the question of actual porn--porn is more or less the distilled version of erotica, not film, that takes away the art.
Now if you try to make porn, or make something that has the superficial appearance of porn, and then by accident or design end up creating something that's capable of greater intellectual or emotional depth, maybe that could be art. For instance, if the girl was holding the camera, it would be a subversive commentary on the male gaze. Creating art like that in the nominal form of pornography would in fact be deeply ironic simply because porn isn't art. (It wouldn't necessarily be erotica, because you've distilled the art away from the erotica to make the porn, and then added a different, ironic aspect of art on top of it.)
Art is whatever the janitor decides not to to throw in the trashcan. In other words, it have to be beautiful. It have to be something that an everyman want to buy. It does not matter what kind of meaning an artist put into a painting.
Erotica is art because it's beautiful. Sex stories, however explicit, is beautiful. Hentai are often beautiful because they are drawn by artists who care about beauty.
Porn are usually not beautiful. They have ugly characters and they are often completely forgettable.
Say what you want about modern art, as long it can make people show interest in a trash bag, it's powerful. Porn just exploits (and fools) your basic circuits, like drugs of addiction.
I assure you if I would paint something, it wouldn't be very beautiful either. Does that show that paintings are not art?
I didn't say painting aren't art. I say that beautiful things are not art. That being said, beautiful is a spectrum. So in my view, something could be art if it is slightly beautiful or done with some slight skills.
However, the ultimate test is whether or not it would be mistaken as trash.
Art absolutely, positively does not have to be 'something that an everyman wants to buy'. Art can quite happily exist with an audience of one. It also most certainly does not have to be beautiful - 'confrontational' art frequently violates this idea.
I think we can all agree that erotica is a proper art form. It's nudes in tasteful poses, usually with artistic intent. Hell, one could argue that most art produced in the renaissance was erotica. Or the Statue of David for instance.
Ok so that's art.
Similarly, we all consider most types of drawings to be art. People drawing on canvas to produce emotionally and visually stimulating stuff has always been art.
Then take Pollock for instance. He is the complete bastardization of visual art. Pure colour and emotion with wanton disregard for any "form".
That is still considered art.
However, when you do the same to erotica and come up with porn ... it suddenly isn't art anymore?
Why?