I agree entirely with what you are saying. There has always been art with sex and nudity in it because art is intended to provoke feelings and emotion, and the fact that people quickly pass judgement on it when they don't understand it proves that it does just so.

And what is considered art is fairly subjective as well. Norman Rockwell was dismissed for decades by "art" critics as a mere illustrator, and not an artist. But they were biased by the schools of abstract and non-representational themes as being the only worthy artforms. In fact, NR was a brilliant artist, and though his work was done for publication, it was very editorial and also beautifully and exquisitely rendered. Illustrators ARE artists in my view anyway... But it goes to show how prejudiced lines are drawn in these debates.

I agree. Many of his pieces tug at the heart-strings.

Actually--I agree with you entirely. I was trying to be ironic, but obviously unsuccessfully. His paintings were so diluted to be almost to the point of of being "craft", and yet are considered to have greater artistic merit than the best porn--but even there is a problem, because I consider most "crafts" to be "art". Art is a VERY subjective term.

Essentially, Bob Ross was simply trying to share an artistic ideal with a wide and diverse audience. He wanted people to be able to create art, even if they weren't normally talented in painting.

But I think "happy little trees" did move his soul, and I think the people he reached were also moved by his work and instruction. So he was indeed an artist. His art wasn't to my taste, nor was it critically acceptable, but in a way it was folk art. And it was all it needed to be.

And you're right--religion is incredibly subjective as well. Since there is no actual, rational or provable evidence, people are free to adopt, interpret and relay whatever they feel they can relate too. Personally, I don't think people desire a connection with something greater--I think they are mostly just afraid of death.

I think in the case of Bob Ross, a lot of his career was made not of his artistic talent, but of his performances in creating art before a camera. It was the joy of seeing something rather realistic emerging from a few strokes of a palette knife that energized people.

There's always been a problem of definition, as with the distinction between "erotica" and "pornography" or "art and craft" In days long ago, when artists were apprenticed to masters, craft was the method by which art was created. There essentially couldn't be art without craft, and that is what the critics of the time referred to when they said something was "well painted."

People are always trying to make themselves seem more distinctive, and elevate themselves at the same time. This has led to some fascinating discussions I've had with artists regarding the difference between art/illustration, porn/erotica, craft/creativity, etc. Even at the extremes, it's not so easy to make the distinctions without introducing artificial conditions that inevitably fall apart under close scrutiny.

If you want to call your artwork "porn" I don't think that automatically makes it inferior, despite what one prudish dictionary writer claims. I think prurient interest is entirely independent of artistic merit (especially judging by the quantity of really bad art that is still arousing).

If its artistic, its not longer considered pornography?

I wouldn't call it pornography, instead just call it erotic art ^ ^

I dunno where I'm going with that, art is waaaay too subjective.

That's the thing--I WAS going to stop calling my work "porn" and was going to use "homoerotic" instead...but now I feel like I need to take a stand!

Eh, that's from a very conservative view point. And people who can't see beauty in porn are friggin' blind, I've seen gross things that were very well drawn :O

I think your drawings are the perfect definition of pornography, taking into account the first definition, this is, the real definition.

I hate to see people saying they define something and they state an opinion about it. Baaaastaaaaaarrds.

Pornographers are artists. If they weren't, there wouldn't be award ceremonies dedicated to porn.

I think its what you define yourself as and not other people that is important.

Pff. Buncha Puritans.

I call myself a furry pornographer. I try to make my porn as artsy as I can get away with. No one seems to complain :p

I have a feeling dictionary.com is run by a bunch of christians/puritans. :D

REDUNDANCY, YAY

We are obviously kindred spirits.

^0^

We're sensible human beings. :>

Amen! Let's hear it for free thinking individuals.

I agree, that is really really weird.

And I view adult drawings as art. One of the most beautiful drawings ever, "Birth of Venus", would be considered "adult" by today's society, yet it's a classic. Michelangelo's David is one of the greatest sculptures ever, but because he's in the nude, people want it banned.

I think the major problem is that America is a Christian run society, and Christianity has a major problem with anything sexual. I don't have a problem with keeping with your old beliefs, but things have to change with time. Japan, for instance...they keep their old roots almost perfectly in tact, yet they're arguably the dirtiest pervs in the entire world.

Not all christian sects have problems with "anything" sexual.

I agree with you that the particular brand/flavor of Christianity in this country (US) does have a problem with reality...

Thank you. I personally have no problem with Christianity itself, and like the ideas behind it.

It's the fact that they see fit to mold everything in this country to their will that upsets me. Oh well...guess that's what happens when your founding fathers are super strict religious guys.

That's actually a misnomer that the founding fathers were strictly religious (tho the religious right tries to push that). Some were Masons (George Washington) which is a highly secular group. Ben Franklin for instance was far from a strict religious christian.

I was actually referencing the Puritans from the Mayflower when I said founding fathers...guess I shoulda been more specific, heheh.

Yes. Our ancestors were the ultra-religious who were kicked out of europe for being so narrow-minded and religiously intolerant that nobody could stand to live near them.

Sex has more to do with life than people think, and it also influences many decisions people make, so it is only natural that it shows up in art.

I used to shun the term pornography, but I completely agree with you that art is meant to arouse emotions, especially sexual ones. If people don't like it, they don't have to look at it, but they've no right to denounce it.

I agree. Nothing infuriates me more than some judgemental do-gooder crusading against furry artists as 'whoring themselves out' or saying that 'an art website is for ART, not porn!' Art is meant to arouse feelings in the viewer, and anyone who says lust isn't a feeling needs to get their heads out of their arses and into someone else's crotch X3

Mmmm....the business end of a gloryhole. That brings back so many good memories...

And yeah...that should be a "Guess which definition was written by a staunch, Republican asshole" game. (And yes, I know a few, decent and likable Republicans, so I'm not referring to *ALL* of them).

Quit defaming assholes! They are necessary, useful, and can be a hole lot of fun!

You're preachin' to the choir on that one, humpalicious. I luuuuuvs me some asshole. Fast, hard, deep, and continuously.

Don't forget your YiffyLube™!
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/369702/

And remember...bleached foxes are NOT arctic foxes.

ROWaterbedLOL!
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/619828/

Wow! You must be filled up nicely indeed to sound like you're rolling on a waterbed.

Well supplied! Here is my latest sperm count:
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/378584/

do you retain them anally?

You mean like not letting the seed pour out after you've been knocked up?

o.o that's a bit more graphic than what I was going for but... yes... yes indeed. Also, cucumber.

Mmm...sliced thin...but still crisp....and allllllll over a nice salad. Good stuff.

more partial to a good slice of tomato with salt and pepper and a bit of mozzarella cheese

Fresh basil as well?

Why not? You'll smell so good, everybody will want a lick!

*snicker* I pretty much get that anyway. But....basil is often nice!

Hehe, I can vouch for this! Both the fact that he smells good AND that other people think so as well. I looooooooooooooooooove the way my wolf smells!

And I looooooooooooooooooooooooove the way you vouch!

and maybe some olive oil or balsamic vinegar.

Nice.

Just no pizza grease. It makes a horrible lube.

and basil doesn't? xD

Trendane holds up a little flag on his left side, "Point, Tigris!"

I can appreciate anal retentive people. I'm very much an anal retentive person, myself. Especially in the kitchen. There's a place for everything, and everything has to be in it's place.

I dislike being referred to as OCD because I like anal.

Wait....what?

You too? I get called OCD because I like things to be in their place and put away properly, pictures hanging straight and proper on the wall, etc... And when it's not, it bothers me because it's not where it is supposed to be. If things are not in their proper place, how the hell are you supposed to find anything? And if things are not put away correctly, how the hell are you supposed to have room for everything (especially in the limited confines of an appartment)? And if the pictures are tilted it looks like it's not secure to the wall and it's going to fall. And if furnishings or rugs are not straightened out or put where they belong, you trip over them, along with whatever else might be left on the floor.

I mean HELLO?!? I like things organized, thanks. That SOOOOO does NOT make me OCD, thankyouverymuch.

Yeah--isn't OCD when you have to touch every other brick with your elbow on your way past a building and stuff like that?

I wish I was a bit MORE OCD if it means being organized...I'm a big slob!

OCD or Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is a condition that makes a person do a compulsive behavior or group of behaviors that they cannot control or are not aware of and can be mild to severe, to the point of interfering with normal everyday function.

(The following is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCD if you would like to read more)

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a psychiatric anxiety disorder most commonly characterized by a subject's obsessive, distressing, intrusive thoughts and related compulsions (tasks or "rituals") which attempt to neutralize the obsessions. It is listed by the World Health Organization as one of the top 10 most disabling illnesses in terms of a diminished quality of life.[1]

The phrase "obsessive-compulsive" has worked its way into the wider English lexicon, and is often used in an offhand manner to describe someone who is meticulous or absorbed in a cause (see also "anal-retentive"). Such casual references should not be confused with obsessive-compulsive disorder; see clinomorphism. It is also important to distinguish OCD from other types of anxiety, including the routine tension and stress that appear throughout life. Although these signs are often present in OCD, a person who shows signs of infatuation or fixation with a subject/object, or displays traits such as perfectionism, does not necessarily have OCD, a specific and well-defined condition.

To be diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder, one must have either obsessions or compulsions alone, or obsessions and compulsions, according to the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria. The Quick Reference to the diagnostic criteria from DSM-IV-TR (2000) describes these obsessions and compulsions:[2]

Obsessions are defined by:

1. Recurrent and persistent thoughts, impulses, or images that are experienced at some time during the disturbance, as intrusive and inappropriate and that cause marked anxiety or distress.
2. The thoughts, impulses, or images are not simply excessive worries about real-life problems.
3. The person attempts to ignore or suppress such thoughts, impulses, or images, or to neutralize them with some other thought or action.
4. The person recognizes that the obsessional thoughts, impulses, or images are a product of his or her own mind, and are not based in reality.
5. The tendency to haggle over small details that the viewer is unable to fix or change in any way. This begins a mental pre-occupation with that which is inevitable.

Compulsions are defined by:

1. Repetitive behaviors or mental acts that the person feels driven to perform in response to an obsession, or according to rules that must be applied rigidly.
2. The behaviors or mental acts are aimed at preventing or reducing distress or preventing some dreaded event or situation; however, these behaviors or mental acts either are not connected in a realistic way with what they are designed to neutralize or prevent or are clearly excessive.

In addition to these criteria, at some point during the course of the disorder, the sufferer must realize that his/her obsessions or compulsions are unreasonable or excessive. Moreover, the obsessions or compulsions must be time-consuming (taking up more than one hour per day), cause distress, or cause impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning.[2] OCD often causes feelings similar to those of depression.

Thank you, Dr. Eclypse! Remember kids--don't step on any cracks, and only walk on the white squares of the checkerboard lenolium!

Seriously, that is a LOT of info, but it's nicely organized! ^0^

*chuckles* I figured I would post the info to clear up any confusion for those who don't know the full story. Just trying to be helpful, is all. *smiles*

Typical. Artwork has always been meant to evoke some kind of emotion, otherwise it isn't really doing its job. Sex or sexuality is a core one because it's part of those base emotions, the ones you feel and know you're feeling when they occur.

Sounds like one definition was written by a Man of reason, the other written by a religious man.

Bingo!

Too true. One of my all time favorite quotes is: "Europe suffers from two narcotics, alcohol and Christianity." Nietzsche was right, such things disable your ability to think rationally and see what is really going on in the world. Logic over dogma any day.

As a writer, I'd say porn takes skill to write. If there are dozens of spelling errors, bad grammar, and negligible punctuation, the story could contain every turn-on there is, but it won't be fun to read, and it probably won't turn you on.

A good yiff story has to be, first and foremost, a good story.

"Erotica" sounds so much classier than "porn" or even "p0rn". My problem with "porn" is that it suggests the boring same-old same-old that photos of aging flabby unattractive "models". Far more variety with furry couplings!

based on "art is emotions" that I heard somewhere

Pornography is more art than erotica.

pornography is raw lust, no viels put over it to make it "acceptable" it shows wo what sex is all about, the good, the bad, even the best forgotten.

Erotica is what comes just before pornography, the tender words, the warm looks, the candle dinner .

I have nothing gainst either one of them, and in some case I'll prefer well crafted erotica over porn, BUT porn remains art

Dictionary.com seems to have dropped the ball on this one. Pornography is almost undefinable. As one supreme court justice stated, "I can not tell you exactly what pornography is, but I know it when I see it." Porn by definition has artistic and expressive value since it is protected by the first amendment.

Porn can tell a story, albeit sometimes a poor one, of love, passion, and human nature. Some of the best works out there in literature have "pornographic" aspects. Even the bible has portions that can be considered pornographic if you stretch it far enough.

What Dictionary.com did is slip in parts of the definition of obscene into the definition of porn. Obscenity is something that has no real artistic value, is shocking in a disturbing or immoral way (whose morals is not defined but knowing this country it is the Christian morals), and is unprotected by the first amendment since it has no real purpose of conveying a message other than to be offensive or shocking. The problem is that depending on who views it any work of art can be deemed offensive. Look at the Piss Christ work that caused such an uproar, or the picture of Mary that had feces as one of the components. While some saw these as an expression of dissatisfaction with the religion, others saw these as obscene.

I would not worry about it. All your work, sexual or not, is great art and is not obscene. There are always crazy people out there who think even seeing skin (Muslim), bare arms and legs (Puritans and Victorians), both groups basically see anything is obscene. Puritans were even directed to have sex with their clothes on so that they would get as little enjoyment out of it as possible.

Do what you want to do and be happy. Nothing is better for you, and nothing infuriates them more.

Whoever wrote the dictionary.com entry was apparently working on the conservative side of the pornography debate. In communication law, the definition of obsenity is one of the loosest, most subjective lines in the sand anywhere. Additionally, the debate over whether pornography is obscene continues to rage on.

My personal opinion; if you are creating art, just because it happens to be porn does not render it not art. I might be more agreeable with calling 'traditional porn' (i.e. video of people having sex, et all) obscene and not art, but hand-created images? No, that is first art and secondarily porn.

But, all in all, you don't have all that much to worry about; the FCC won't really care about you, which is good, because the FCC is EVIL!

I like the way you think, you have my support.
art is emotion, the fundamentals on which this world is based on, should be embraced, not cased out.

I like your art D:


Prove them wrong! Make some "Passionate Porn!" :D


(And you bring up a very good point!)

"Art is, by it's very nature, intended to arouse passions--whether sexual, angry, pity, or whatever. If it doesn't engage your emotions on SOME level--it isn't art!"

Very true, that. Art is an extremely personal thing and it can definitely be considered one man's bread but another man's poison, to use an old addage.

I see a lot of pornography that isn't art, there's no effort, no thought beyond the immediate, and that in itself degrades the work. Perhaps this is why Erotica appeared, that is, images of a not overtly sexual nature, treated artistically and sympathetically.

If some artists put in as much effort to their pornography as they do their clean work, perhaps there wouldn't be such an artistic stigma toward the genre and perhaps we wouldn't have to wade through the sea of untalented doodles, photo-morphs and other abherrent, lazy monstrosities that cloud our monitors!

This is a subject I'm currently trying to resolve with my own sense of artistic integrity since I do not wish to be labelled as a porn baron but rather respected as a developing artist. Part of the reason I'm feeling pushed away from the furry scene is that my work does not arouse the same level of emotion as when I put a cock in it, and that's not right.

I would prefer if you didn't leave, as I rather enjoy your work, but, that's your call. As far as not arousing the same 'level of emotion', I would say that's not entirely true. They are certainly different emotions but, on the same level for many I would imagine. Just because a good number of the people that view and enjoy this site would rather see a big ol' schwantz than anything else, doesn't mean all of us feel like that (not that I have anything against or dislike seeing it myself, mind you), but, I find beauty and enjoyment in all sorts of art and situational interpretations. So, draw what makes you happy, and to hell with the rest. ^.^

Of course, I'm only saying that porn=art in it's broadest sense--creating something that didn't exist before to illicit emotional reaction. That is not to say that all porn is equally good. Just that on its most basic level, it IS technically "art".

But there's a lot of crap out there--and I've created some of that crap myself. Still, my desire as an artist is to create beauty and illicit emotion. I prefer to make beautiful things than ugly things...but both have their place in the universe of artistic expression.

I have struggled with the integrity of doing erotic imagery for a long time, and I finally decided--for myself--that it's something I enjoy, so I'm going to do it. I have probably lost a lot of potential customers and have probably irrepairably damaged my reputation as a "serious" artist because of it, but I no longer give a fuck. I'm at the point in my life where I want to do art that is important to me and the people who appreciate it with me are the only ones I care to impress.

For yourself--do what you love. That's the best advice I can think of. Just because I want to do porn, that doesn't mean that I think anyone who doesn't do porn sucks.

Personally, I don't care much for furry porn. But I'll be dipped headfirst in molten fuck before I pass judgment on someone who does. Referring to porn as "obscene" is a judgment and matter of opinion which is why I think that definition is wrong. Aren't official dictionary definitions supposed to be unbiased? Or am I mistaken on that?

I think the key word in the second definition is "obscene". What I consider obscene may, and probably does, differ greatly from your own. Not only that, but it not only may, but I can guarantee that it DOES differ from day to day, or hour to hour sometimes, depending on my mood. Pornography and even erotic art is entirely subjective, dependent solely upon the viewer and situation. As someone pointed out, Michaelangelo's "David", may very well be considered 'pornography' and 'obscene' by some.

Now, I think we can all, or mostly all agree that some wolf guy blasting spoo all over some fox guys face is, indeed, pornography, and will cause all sorts of emotions (and other things for a lot of people here) to rise. But, at the same time, so can the perfectly clean work of quite a few artists (such as charha, max_haibane, Katrkoriza and shima_luan, just to name a few). All of them, without being pornographic, or even erotic in nature. At least, not to me.

So, we have to look at that, I think, and ask, where precisely is the line between art and eroticism drawn? Or is there one? Can eroticism even exist without the 'art' side? Some may say, "Yes.", but, I doubt it. As you say, it's there to garner emotion and reaction, and just because 'art' is considered, by most, to be a drawn/painted form, there are other arts as well. Dancing is an art form, and can be extremely arousing, as can be simply talking, eating, and even walking down the street for some.

Therefore art, just like pornography, eroticism, and obscenity, are obviously, as I said earlier, solely dependent upon the individual experiencing it.

And this is the problem when you begin to censor things--because it's all so objective. Where do you draw the line? Whose standards do you use as a model? I mean, I'm not saying that art HAS to be erotic to be art, obviously not. I appreciate lots of "clean" art--but see how even that implies that pornographic art is "dirty". It's nearly impossible to route out the influence of religious zealotry from our language... :P Hell, I can't even swear without resorting to religious invocations.

But yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder...and so is ugliness...and "dirtiness", but that doesn't mean that it isn't art.

You could always go back to the etymological roots and say it's the drawing of whores. In which case, since most of us sleazeball furries will do just about anything with anyone for our FA fix, the term is entirely applicable.

More seriously, I agree with previous commenters that the term 'obscene' is misleading. There's a lot of stuff that's definitely porn, but which I find merely gorgeous and delicious. Heck, some of it's yours.

truefully thier has to be a bit of art to pornography otherwise it wouldnt grab interests and all that jazz. plus whats obscene is in the eye of the beholder. or at least what i think

I totally agree with almost everything you just said, except...I like Bob Ross' happy little trees. :(

Remember to cover your trees with a condom to prevent pregnancy and venereal disease.

So just to say something new, who are the models?

Hmmm, I've seen another definition of the word "pornography" "Writings written for or by harlots"... I agree with you, certainly. To close off access to anything, even stuff that might make me uncomfortable, is censorship, and thus it's pretty evil, in my mind. Some things, obviously, I have trouble with; cub-art, for example.

LOL Yeah, that's where the word comes from in the original Greek. But it's come a long way since then. I understand about your feelings on cub-art, BUT, even though I am uncomfortable with it too, I don't think it should be censored either. People think it's child porn, but I disagree--because the people that like it usually identify with the cub. I think it's actually a reflection of the desire of the fur to recapture their innocence and wonder and thrill of early sexual interest. Besides which, I don't believe that even child porn is wrong--as long as it's only imaginary and no actual child is involved. If it's drawings or stories or whatever. It's only wrong if you actually "use" a real child. I mean don't get me wrong: child molestation or rape is horribly wrong, of course.

Well, there is the argument that 'cub-porn' (or any child porn) encourages pedophiles in their broken interest...

I do really despise censorship- I believe that people, if trained properly, can be responsible enough to decide for themselves what is right and wrong. But laws are made for the stupid, the selfish, and the greedy; responsible beings wouldn't think of stealing, murdering or raping a kid.

As for art, it's definitely more than what 'goes with the couch'. Even Bob Ross' 'happy little trees' count as art. To me, awful, but to others, soothing. Which is about all the merit I can see in it. I gotta admit, though, that his technique is good, even if his subject matter is repetitive and vapid, but I actually used to WATCH that guy when I was a hatchling.

Because I wanted to know how the heck they do that...

I've been in the position of the 'cub'- there was no 'innocent exploration of first sexual desire'. It was humiliating, repulsive, physically painful and frightening. Now, if my first experience had been with someone my own age, instead of a forty year old rapist, then, yeah, maybe it could have been different. But what does a six year old know of sexual interest? Next to nothing.

I'm sorry, but while I understand your argument, and it stands fairly well on it's own, I cannot see even 'make-believe' children having sexual contact with adults as worth defending under 'freedom of speech'.

I very much enjoy erotica, and
I classify much of what I see here as such; it is well-drawn, for the most part, and usually shows consenting adults in sometimes very romantic poses. Snuggle pix happen to be my favourite. Touch as comfort, as loving expression, as a communication of "I love you".

As for the cub stuff- surprisingly, ditto. A little too much jism for it to seem real to me, but I understand that is a turn-on for some folks. But the cub stuff I actually like- shows cubs, only. No adults. The ones showing scenes of 'initiatory' sexual play between an obvious adult and an obvious cub bother the fuck out of me. Probably due to our somewhat messed up culture's take on sex and my own unfortunate experience.

But ethics becomes incredibly difficult in regards to what is seen as decent and what is obscene; where do we draw the line with censorship? We can allow any and all artistic expression, including cub-porn, or we conclude that cub stuff is obscene and thus forbidden. Grey area is hard for me to see in this one.

And what about that sub-set of 'erotic' imagry, photos, and the like, that depict obvious ADULTS dressed up and 'cutified' as 'children?' Is this possibly obscene? To me, no. This one goes back to your argument that the adults viewing it are having nostalgic feelings (however sexualized) about their former sexual innocence...

Anyway- your stuff is NOT obscene, in my view. It is extremely well-painted. The craft is there. The titillation is there, too. Eroticism and painterly studies on the beauty of the anthro form are brought into the realm of "Art" to me.

And who give's a rat's rancid ass if it goes with my couch?

Some of my work goes...under the couch! Especially when the Pastor comes acallin!

*cackles, falling off of her rock* Got me there, guy! I have a few 'stroke pix' that I just don't show to very many people... The fact that they're all dragons might have something to do with that...

Oh, and have I said recently that you absolutely kick ass? If I haven't, you may whip me with wet noodles at your discretion, for I am lowly and deserve it. *kowtows*

I've seen different definitions. The one I prefer simply states that pornography is something create for the purpose of sexually exciting the viewer. That means that pornography is in the eye of the creator. Frankly it depends on how conservative the dictionary in quetion is. B.T.W., dictionary.com is not a literary authority.

It is sad that is what you found, especially since some of your work is some of the best I have ever seen of the anthropomorphic genre. But then again, we can't all be acceptant of everyone, and obviously dictionary.com is filled with racial bastards, oh well.

I agree that porn is art,

I've read some wonderful erotic stories with moving plots and alot of feeling in them, I've seen moving statues that can inspire a vast area of emotion. those are both art.

I've also read erotic stories that were just terrible and pointless, I've also seen a bust of Elvis sculpted from cigarette butts and spent shotgun shells. Thats art too.. It's just to me thats not very good art.

I'm with ya man!

A lot of the time, I hear people drawing a distinction between erotica and pornography. I think there is one. But I don't necessarily think that this means erotica=good, pornography=bad.

I totally agree with you man!

I actually disagree.
But I don't feel like debating so I'll leave it at that.

So, what's the point of posting, if you don't actually want to participate in the debate? *blinks* I, for one, would very much like to see your reasons for disagreeing with Deathpuppy. It could be enlightening. Really. Your opinion is worth something. Agreement isn't necessary.

I don't know. Someone posted something once and I thought it was pointless. When I responded to it, I had half the forum of said group after me because I made a stupid decision. It's... not related to what we're talking about, sorry.

I mean, as long as I don't have people yelling at me for what they think is a wrong opinion, I'll do it...

So.
While it does take art to create pornography, I cannot view pornography as having artistic value. If this is different than artistic merit, then ignore me.
Pornography makes us feel good, but because something is good doesn't mean it has any sort of value. I think popular music is good, but the little effort put into the repeating 'song,' as well as the fact that it is missing musical elements (similar to art elements), can only define such a song as having little musical value.
While it is not the same for pornography, it is similar. Pornography is for the simple act of arousing us. As far as I am concerned, sexual arousal is not an emotion, just a state of being. This in itself is an arguable thing.

...I have no idea if that made anything clear at all. I do suppose whether it has artistic value or not is all in the artist and eye of the beholder. Sorry, I'm out of it...

*Applauds, loudly* Well said, sir! Well said! Well, as I said, I don't have to agree with you to enjoy your response. I thank you for doing so, by the way.

There are no 'wrong' opinions, only 'wrong' methods of dealing wiht opinions we don't happen to agree on. 'Yelling' at soeone for voicing a view most won't agree with is rude, and something I try not to do.

Now, that said, on to your points.

Something that 'feels good' DOES have value- to the person who enjoys it. It even has value to those who hate it; they value it as something to despise and call down- possibly their form of perverted 'fun'. Heh. As for popular music, while like you, I find most of it banal money-making drek, it still has value, if only in the ealm of dollar signs. Artistic value? Quite possibly. i've heard some so-called 'popular music' that had musicality, good craft, and attention to the deatils of the song. An example for mmy own collection; "Dead Man's Party" by Oingo Boingo- Danny Elfman's old outfit before he became a movie composer. "Oh, Fortuna" by Carl Orff- if that isn't well-crafted art, call me deaf. And it is popular, in a strangely-wide range of groups; from opera buffs to Goths.

Pornography, I agree, is too often poorly done, hackneyed drek intended for the simple purpose of pimping out virtual sex to the lonely, maladjusted, perverted losers out there who don't know what soap or social skills are for... Even here, I've seen some sad examples of same. But I'll point you toward  ultraviolet And  necrodrone13  slash0x  ssithto and many others, including the fellow who's page we're on, who do BEAUTIFUL ART. Sexual, yes. Pornographic, certainly, but in all of these people's galleries are sensual, sexual pix showing caring, loving attention to one's lovers, as well as the usual, splattery, jism-covered fare.

Our culture is so fascinated and frightened by sex. Which is such a pity. These artists show that sex is to be celebrated, not hidden-away in brown paper bags under the mattress.

Sexual desire is both an emotional response and a biological response. To have it be just a physical reaction would mean that if you touch the relevant areas, no matter what the circumstances, that person you've just touched will become aroused and mate with you. If it were that easy, most of us wouldn't spend so much time alone. The emotion MUST be there, firmly attatched to the biological fact of a wet gnetital response, in order for anything to happen. Fuck her brain, that's where all the action is! *grins*

So, to sum up- don't agree with you, sorry. *hug* Pornography IS art- art not everyone likes, but all 'value' in some way. It serves a purose- it arouses... emotion. Well argued, sir. Poke holes in my replies? Thanks again! *bows*

Only hole I have to poke in your reply is that I'm not a sir. ;)

Ooops. Well, you certainly have my apologies. Seems I'm a sexist old lizard- I keep assuming that the faces behind many of the icons I see are male ones. dunno why. Probably too many years of being in SF and gamer fandom where I was about the only female within a hundred miles...

And hey, didn't yell at you once. Thanks again! :)

FYI--it's perfectly OK if you disagree with me, but I'm glad you came back to say why. I guess we do disagree, although I will certainly allow that while not all porn is good, good porn is art! But bad porn is art too...just bad art. Bad art is also art...but is bad. Not too long ago an artist made sackfulls of money by hanging ceramic urinals on a wall in a museum. Hell, they weren't even connected to anything, so they were in fact, completely pointless. He didn't even make them, just bought them. He argued that their very uselessness made them art.

Art is a VERY subjective critter.

*hugs you* So, see--we can still be friends. ^0^

That's crazy. The urinal thing, I mean.


It would be bizarre if you agreed with someone on absolutely everything out there, anyway...

I actually KNOW a guy who does just that; a sad little wierdo with the social skills of a four year old, who parrots the strangest, free-associative things in the delusionary belief he's having a conversation with you... One of his most common phrases; "I agree". But when you try to find out WHY he's "agreeing", you discover that he really didn't understand the conversation he'd just butted into, and had said something just to participate in it. He's a nice boy, but very odd.

As for the urinals, Da-Da-ist art is like that- it makes it's comment by hitting you with the absurd. To me, it's like the Zen Koans; odd little stories that, on the surface, don't make sense. Their intended purpose; break the mold of our channelized thinking about the nature of reality. Some Western philosophy does the same... Some... put urinals on walls in museums.

Give your reality a shake- see what comes out. *grins* And, in case you're wondering, I rather LIKE the Da-Da-ist approach. Perhaps I'll post a pic that's a favourite of mine; it's a hand-thrown pottery sculpture of a pair of penises, one pointing up, the other, down. They are labelled "On" and "Off", respectively. I laughed so hard when I saw the pun, I peed.

Though, a row of unconnected urinals WOULD look a little odd over my couch. *giggles*

Meh, my reality got pretty shaken up today, I'd rather not shake it myself by doing something bizarre like that...

Oooh, hope it wasn't a BAD shaking... *opens her wings, offering a hug* The kind of shaking I refer to, of course, is not always of a painful variety.

YOU GO PUP SHOW THE MAN WHO IS BOSS SHOOTING STARS IS ONE THAT TOUCHES MY HEAR. IT SHOWS IF ONLY AMERICA WAS MAKING LOVE NOT WAR IT WOULD ALL BE BETTER SOME HOW. MY PANTS ARE OFF TO YOU SIR.

P.S ( i though this post deserved caps to make it more empowering )

I feel very empowered...but mostly by the taking off pants thing...

^0^

yay everyone take off there pants.

*blinks, because non-anthro, feral dragons don't WEAR pants* Uh, I'm with you in spirit? *giggles*

All pantless entities welcome.

*bows, giggling* Indeed! And thank you! Heh. *wiggles her pantless rump, her tail swinging in time to her giggles*

Strange, that a site called dictionary.com would have an inaccurate definition.

Woah yeah that kinda pisses me off. I think the church owns dic.com

Define the word Pornography.

You can't. It's like trying to define deviance. It's something that we all know with out a doubt when seeing it, but you can't nail it down to a single or even multiple identifications. Who's to say it's not for example art, or otherwise. Basically what I'm getting at is it comes down to what do you give meaning to the word? Words are not only ambiguous and have many different meanings to different people, but what's important is. So create, and call it whatever you'd like.

And sorry for my lack of mid-thought, grammar fragments.

Not to worry! Grammar has no place in this brave new world of blogging and texting! I just used "text" as a verb!!!!

Well...if thats the definition, then I like my art to have "little artistic value" *chuckles*

"Obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit." Especially those having little or no artistic merit? 'Artistic merit' is such a subjective value that it is almost impossible to classify beyond a closed group.

Trashcat (a ficticious name) and I constitute a group. We both agree that Furryruler's art is drop dead gorgeous. You come along and declare it to be garbage. So then are we justified in declaring you tasteless when it comes to art? That's assinine.

I agree with you DP that art, good art, evokes an emotional response from the viewer -- but not all viewers. Some viewers do not have the ability to HAVE an emotional response and so art of any kind is indifferent to them.

Pornography, religious or political drawings, paintings and sculpture becomes art when in doing it the artist considers and plans for the effect it will have on it's viewer.

I enjoyed hearing your thoughts on this. You gave it a lot more philosophical and critical thinking than most, and the very concept of freely discussing the matter in such a way is very refreshing indeed.

It's definitely gratifying to know that I'm not the only person who feels this way. Sometimes when I see the way the world is headed, I worry that thoughtful, rational people are just far too greatly outnumbered by reactionary people who place the "wishes" of an arguably imaginary entity above the rights and needs of actual human beings.

If it stirs an emotion other than lust, it's "art"
If it "raises my flag" and I feel the urge to "quell the uprising", it's "pornography"
If it does both - that's a fucking artists!
(IMO, of course)

*applauds, with a bright, huge, dragony grin* Huzzzah! Simply said, but oh so simply WELL said!

I agree with you completely - pornography can be very beautiful, and I'm a big supporter of it. You've gotta have some guts though, to call your work pornographic instead of erotic. Not because it's not pornographic, but because you'll get a lot of judgment thrown your way. I admire you. :)

LOL Don't be TOO impressed--it's easy to call it porn when I'm "preaching to the choir"!

Did you know ultra high quality photographs of cars, zoids(mecha), and certain other objects are also considered pornography? It is not limited to just creatures with naughty bits(though you could equate certain parts of vehicles and objects as naughty bits technically)

I've heard Chuck Palahniuk, the author of Fight Club say that he liked to use both high art and low art in his works. High art being victorian literature and eloquence and the like, and low art being things like splatter painting and pornography, things intended to grasp the visceral nature of the human state and act upon it. Well, I think Jackson Pollock managed to prove that splatter painting can be high art, and more and more people are proving every day that pornography can be something a little better.

I myself also tend to stray from the word 'porn' to describe the writing I do. Kyell Gold is perhaps the most prominent Furry Writer, and his work is classified as Erotica. I prefer the term Erotica, as it suggests not merely the mechanical 'fucking' scenes we see in cheap port films, but mixes erotic scenes, or even a primarily erotic theme, with 'high art' themes such as romance or intrigue.

You will find sex in most of what I write now, but if you ask me what I write, I won't say porn or erotica. I'll say I like to write romance.

Erotic scenes nowadays are definitely being used as an artistic tool. They can be used to grab the readers/viewers attention, or they can be a 'high art' all their own.

You seem to be going on a parallel track that I am going, with my constant struggle to improve the fandom's public name...still rather difficult, mind you.
But an argument that constantly is pulled up is that, even though I can label the fandom of a group of people liking a similar art genre, I often get hounded by the conservatives who still bring up their opinion on yiffy art. They constantly say its perverted and complete pornography, no matter how artistically based it is. I allow them to acknowledge that it is porn, but some of the yiffy art is on a level that is close to Michelangelo's sculpture of "David". If I were to take their viewpoint, I could say "David" is pornography, while it clearly is not.

I like how you classify art as being "intended to arouse passions--whether sexual, angry, pity". I have used a different definition, which classifies art as a medium of telling an interpretive story, in which its main goal is to stir up emotions for the story. With art, it usually comes down to who is interpreting it, and who is providing an analysis on it. I think if someone comments negatively on art, they are completely wrong (mind you, I'm talking about art by my definition; if someone comments on something the creator claims to be art, but it isn't, its fair game). Art shouldn't be looked at for what's bad in the picture, unless the artist is asking for negative viewpoints, which often doesn't occur.

If the comments are negative, then its an issue of tolerance and ignorance towards art that is held by the observer. Do whatever you want, so long as its really art!
~(:

Many people HAVE stated a belief that nudes like "David" are obscene... One of the Popes hired artists to paint breeches and loinclouts on Michaelangelo's Sistene Chapel paintings once. I think they've been restored now though...

*winces- she's a true art lover, and Michaelangelo is one of her personal favourites, along with the great Leonardo...* What a travesty. *shudders* Covering their nudie bits? the beautiful bits the Creator gave us? That should be considered an act of sacrilege, not of "modesty"!

Art originated as a form of fertillity rite ie pornographic sculpture. It is only obscene to the prude. Given an open minded view nothing is pornographic.

In the dictionary.com definition, it depends upon what is the meaning of obsene is. But if you look at all art with an open mind nothing is obscene; so since dictionary.com is biased, i would take nothing of what this reference states as being true or a correct diffiniton.
I have older and a couple ancient dictionaries, pornography is not even listed.

Back on topic: in the Victorian age where showing the ankle was considered obscene, imagine these prudes reaction to witnessing the fertility base relief frieze of India, in marble as the decoration on a temple, discovered in thier time. They saw the orgy depicted as horrible and imensely obscene. But in the age in India when it was created this was the piniacle of artistic expression.

Our art in this time is excelling to embrace ancient India, only a prude would think it to be obscene.

As for the person above that desires to leave Furry art because of not wishing to participaite in creation of sexually explict artworks, stay anyway prove your point in your art!
Not everything i do is explicit or badly done. It just depends upon my mood at the time. Sometimes though not often, i do a really nice drawing, and as it happens those really nice ones i could show to my grandma. Though she would inquire why i have a horse as the main character, :)

My Collins Concise Dictionary gives a similar definition of pornography to your desk dictionary. It would seem, though, that at least the American Heritage Dictionary entry underneath the one you saw gave a more neutral definition.

the same argument has been made in almost every artistic movement gone before. i wouldn't worry about it for the most part. just do what you like to do and let the prudes cluck their tongues. we all know that they're more ashamed of their reaction to the art than the art itself.

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/455028/

Couldn't put it better :P

Oooo, thanks for that--I didn't even realize he was on FA! now I can find his work. Cooooool.

I didn't even realise you knew of me. I'm honored :)

I'm a fan of 2, and you are on 2's show, so it's only natural! (I also love your segments, BTW! There're like 2's rants combined with Masterpiece Theatre!) LOL

Pornography is a neutral concept: the depiction of sexual things. Praise or blame for various motives is added by the various commentators.

I very much agree with you, but... why rip on Bob Ross? :( Just because he made happy little trees doesn't mean he wasn't awesome as hell. ;_;

Though weirdly, I can't remember the last time I heard him say the phrase "happy little trees."

(btw I know you were kidding)

You're right, I am ashamed of myself for picking on poor Bob Ross. And you haven't heard him say that in a long time because he's been dead for years and years. RIP, HLT...

Yep. :( Deads. Oh wells~ Watching old shows of his on YouTube is ridiculously calming.

YouTube is the new immortality!

Yay for the internets!

By the first definition, as long as it's not INTENDED to arouse desire, it's not porn! That means a nude statue isn't porn, but a fully clothed dragon with intentionally large feet is! (no I'm not into feet) Thank you for giving me this insight so I can drive my mom crazy both by looking at nude sculptures that weren't intended to arouse, and also tell her shoe magazines are! :D