[Locked] Art or Porn?

My brother sent me this picture, he got it from a site containing 'art,' pretty much all along the lines of this.

Now, this was obviously taken by a skilled photographer. Makeup and lighting are both most likely present, and it's B&W. However, the unavoidable truth is... shes deepthroating a guy.


So I ask: Is it Art, or is it Porn?


Note: I did not add a 'both' option because I didn't think it would add anything to this conversation.

Definitly porn. Shouldn't this be in like random or incoherent babbling?

I was wondering that, but I don't really think this is a mind numbing question... It's a serious question. What makes art different from porn? Where is- assuming there is- the line between the two? If it is artistic, it's art... Unless there is a naked chick? Or only if the naked chick is being sexual?

My belief is that anything can be art comparing to what people think. Hey you can make 2 girls and 1 cup art just because someone says so. The line is where YOU put it. Personally I don't think anything porn related is art even though it hand painted with oil paints. Porn is not art in my opinion.

Can I go with a "Neither"?

I mean, a black and white cutoff of a blowjob isn't auto-erotic unless one has a strong blowjob fetish, and a simple b&w cutoff of a blowjob has no real meaning or commentary inherent to it's existence, so I don't feel it qualifies as art, either.

Meh, like I said its what people believe in.

It is a porn art, or just art if you considered porn as an art.

Because of my beliefs, I'm going to have say this is art. While the subject material is definately a little risque, I don't think that this is any more erotic than someone posing nude. In other words, I don't think this was created in order to give someone sexual thrills, unlike a violent pornography.

Ahhh, TMS on my side.
As others have said, it's personal belief. And at first glace, it really does just look like porn. But really, after looking longer it does not seem like it was made for a masturbation aid... It's too sleek, intellectual, and visual... too deep.

Or as my Brother stated earlyer,
"“My opinion is art primarily evokes emotion in the viewer, ex. presenting another way to view the world.
For instance, images I felt were porn typically evoked feelings of invitation or desire to participate. This image presents good framing, clean lines, deep visceral emotions and a view of the world not often seen. You can almost feel the textures and the slight tongue elicits the idea of sensations entirely beyond most everyday experiences. While there are still desire and the participatory urges I feel this only adds an erotic mystique to the image. So, I say art."

Art, like many words, has no exact definition (varying from person to person). As a result, I won't even label it art or say that it isn't art.

However, unless the goal is to produce erotic material/porn, why would you even take a photograph like that? Seems kind of stupid to me.

If what you are asking is the difference between porn and art is, its nothing.
Porn IS art, because if it isn't art, what is it? A science? Don't get me wrong, it is a special kind of art because of its... erotic nature, but it is, nevertheless, art.

If a photograph of Robert Mapplethorpe with a bullwhip in his anus is art, then I suppose this is art as well.
Somewhat erotic art, I guess.

Whether it is good art or bad art is another question.

To each is there own, I'm no art critic and I would certainly hesitate to call that anything but glorified pornography.

I would call this art.
The differnce between porn and art is the existence of a meaning behind it.
I believe this picture portrays a sense of longing..... let me come back to that bit, but it is attempting a statement, which is the point.

Personally, I tend to agree with Donald Judd ("it is moot and a waste of time to debate whether something is art or not; much more sense in arguing whether something is good art or not"). To me, art is defined by whether the "artist" intended a piece to be art. If they do, fine, but then they should expect their work to be judged according to my expectations towards good art. All other defining traits of art have, thank god, been utterly stomped and torn down throughout art history.

To me, the example at hand is devoid of both artistic value and eroticism, so it's either bad art or bad porn.


This.

There really is a very thin hairline of difference between art and porn so I find it hard to define whether it's art or porn..

Personally id say its porn but Modern arts so F*CKED this could be art!

That's pretty much how I feel to. +rep for that just because it totally made me go "Damn right" to myself in front of my computer. XD

To be fair, a girl pissing into a guy's mouth doesn't get you hard unless you have a piss fetish. If this isn't porn because only people with a blowjob fetish would get turned on by it, then watersports stuff isn't porn either. And that doesn't sound right.

Anyways, personally speaking, I cannot consider this art. This picture says absolutely nothing. It makes no statement whatsoever, it doesn't evoke any emotions, and there's really nothing to say about it. Girls suck dicks, whatever.

Then again, I also believe that a piece of paper with "I am happy" and nothing else isn't art, and I know some people would argue that it is. Fuck those people. Put forth some actual effort. If art was so simple, then what would be the point?