When does art become porn and vice versa?

BASED

THE COCKSLAP IS IN FACT ARTFUL

So where can I get greek/roman inspired marble sculptures featuring tiddy monsters like this?
Unironically will pay good money for it too.

Attached: BB61BB5B-A74C-42B8-9247-49B48D1F6484.jpg (768x1176, 98K)

Same shit, different century.

Attached: Super-Sonico-acc3-807599b9529d.jpg (720x540, 58K)

Art, real art, represents an ideal of something which conveys platonic beauty, sometimes in the physical sense (architecture) and the non-physical (heroic acts).

Obviously, to approach living an ideal requires suppression of carnal desires and urges in favor of the will. If a depiction is purely sexual to feed into urges and doesn't represent an ideal which can be approached if you suppress urge in favor of will, it isn't art.

Attached: 1552077875455.jpg (1280x1892, 194K)

>krug... listen me good idea, what if woman from tribe across river who all have large unga also have ear and tail like jungle cat?

The moment nudity is shown on purpose for the intent of causing sexual arousal.

Rule of thumb: If you think “Is this porn?” it is.

wrong

see

>it’s been theorized that she was carved by a pregnant woman – a woman who could see and feel her own rounded curves, but not even get a glimpse of her own feet
Typical fat roastie

Is it up to the artist or the observer of the art to determine that?

and just how do you intend to quantify intent, counselor?

Pornfactor = Penetration^2 + Genitals / Filmmaking Skill

THIS IS THE ETERNAL GRAY AREA

AS THE CREATOR IS RARELY FORTHCOMING WITH THEIR INTENTIONS

Attached: no.jpg (699x435, 26K)

Please, get on with the times. Your neoplatonic argument is outdated, read moar.

What about in the intermediate stage before ejaculation and after masturbation has begun. Is it only porn if you are able to finish. Or is the porn threshold reached once you've become hard.

>get on with the times

oh you mean the one where most everyone is depressed and hooked on medication for some reason?

Ah yes, what a great era!

One stance calls for the absolute subjectivity of the piece above all else (postmodernism), but quite frankly, art is more objectively appreciated by the lectured spectator.

Is that a statue of Chelsea Charms?

Man, I love huge fake tits.

Attached: 08478d57-e800-413e-b8ff-cd49dc26f8b9.gif (360x480, 1.34M)

>When does art become porn

When you jerk off to it.

But the artist's intent is irrelevant to appreciation of said art. George Lucas intended relive his Buck Rogers serials from his childhood, and accidentally changed (ruined?) cinema. Rian intended to subvert your expectations, and ended up dousing the dumpster fire with gallons and gallons of gasoline.
Artists cannot be trusted to know what they are making.

>quantify
???
Qualify.

Being entertained is a reaction. You are a retard.

Intent is irrelevant.
Does anyone give a fuck about "intent" when some poor faggot gets sent to prison for statutory rape? "She said she was 18!" holds no fucking weight in a court of law.

Why the fuck should kike pornographers get to escape justice due to "intent"?

>came in dick in hand expecting the usual blue board high quality porn thread
>get honest discussion on art
What the fuck is wrong with you people

Brainlet tier interpretation of platonic views on representation and art

Hello and welcome to the 21st century. You will find that many things have changed significantly since the European Renaissance.

no, quantify, as in make concrete and measurable, to be able to tell the quantity of intent to arouse.

>intent
This word is meaningless when it comes to art.

I don't think it's irrelevant but the whole point of my post was that intent alone isn't sufficient to determine what is art and what is porn, and frankly I think the distinction between the two is only something that exists to allow authoritative bodies to arbitrarily restrict what kind of content people can consume.

Im not talking about the contemporary tastes for nihilism or the aestheticized-pahetic trend of the zapping postindustrial culture. Im just telling you that there is more relevant texts about taste, education and aesthetics. That can put the spotlight on the objectual properties in the craftsmanship, rather than mere pseudo critic speculation.

Attached: 1559445687378.gif (500x433, 901K)

Big Tiddies are always art.

COOMERS RISE UP

>Is that a statue of Chelsea Charms?
yes

Attached: marc-quinn-4-638.jpg (850x638, 88K)

Nymphomaniac part 1 is art
Part 2 is degenerate porn tier dogshit

>the observer
It is always up to the observer to interpret what is being experienced
Example:
>Director: I have created a Kino, admire my pretentious garbage!
>Viewer: No it's shit
>Movie is actually shit.

>Director: I made this movie about time traveling robots trying to kill a woman before she gets pregnant because I'm autistic and Canadian
>Viewer: Holy fuck this is spectacular
>Movie becomes kino
Very big difference between the two.

The observer, obviously if the person is an idiot it doesn’t count, at least 3 people have to agree on it

by wisdom

I think the question is: what's wrong with you?

Attached: 1564801315259.jpg (952x717, 88K)

wrong, you can tell what an artist is trying to accomplish with a work if you are smart

>When does art become porn?
When you can jerk off to it

>When does porn become art?
When you bust a nut but continue watching

Attached: 1538864261235.png (800x600, 574K)

Theyre both the same idea, you just identified more with the losers she fucked in the first one

WAT

AND JUST HOW DO YOU INTEND TO QUANTIFY WISDOM, COUNSELOR?

How and how do you quantify intent?
>Explain.

>The observer, obviously if the person is an idiot it doesn’t count

EVERYONE IS AN IDIOT EXCEPT ME AND DAVID LUNCH

IDENTIFY WITH THE CREATOR NOT THE AUDIENCE

As soon as the only idea you put in it is "dude, look at those hot babes fucking". If it is something deeper then that - there is a chance for it to be sort of art.
Basicaly, Markel movies are not art too - it's a rollercoaster with uberpeople.

How do you go to the bathroom? Or turn on a light switch? If I tried to explain to you every thing it would nightmare.

Here is wisdom, If you think it’s porn it probably is, if you are on the fence, ask yourself, why do I think this is porn? If it is something that you think the creator made for the purpose of sexual arousal, it’s probably porn. If you don’t think that was the creators intent it’s probably not porn.

The beauty of life is grey, but the closer you look it all becomes black and white

It's been centuries since artists have stopped focusing on if what they produce is art or not, also believing only the observer defines what is art is naive as fuck. The truth is that it's the art system and it's various institutions who defines or actively tries to define what's art

who are you kidding? you're pretentiously shitposting about art on an anonymous internet board past midnight
we all know you fap just like the rest of us mortals, probably a lot more
still got it in my hand btw

Also this.

Porn is art though.

To follow this thought, if pornography images or live performances are being displayed in an artistic institution like a museum, most observers will understand it am artistic production, so in that case the consensus would be that porn can be art

I don't know about porn but I know this dude is gay

The creator is not the one to be asked to judge his own work for his judgment is biased because of his closeness to it. Three separate opinions that agree on the nature of a work are enough to provide sufficient insight. Your judgment is also good enough for yourself, if it’s not work on it.

Also David Lynch tries too hard, good filmmakers have nothing to prove

what if it's anal?

Wisdom is too high for a fool. Try becoming more intelligent it makes life a lot easier.

WHY 3 THIS IS A LOW STANDARD FOR CONSENSUS I DEMAND AT LEAST 5 IDIOTS TO AGREE

CREATOR > OBSERVER

In this equation, does the level of Filmmaking Skill have and inverse correlation to something being classified as porn?

Intent.

Not if the artist is shitty, though. And there are plenty of shitty artists.
>Checkmate, critics.

Attached: fag.jpg (263x191, 10K)

shitty art is not art to make art you have to be an artist

Is life hard being a loser? I imagine it is, I hope things improve for you for your sake, right now it’s not looking good for you and I don’t even know you. You should watch your mouth, it will get you into trouble you can’t possibly comprehend.

Are you talking about how many hard-ons a piece of art/porn can inspire?
I have some the are 100+ pieces of art/porn, while others barely arouse a single hardon. I will be submitting my porn quantification system to the appropriate governing agencies.

THIS ISN'T RELATED TO TV OR MOVIES WTFFFF

JANNIES COME FUCKIN CLEAN IT UP I'M PANICKING FUUUUUCK

So this is our sons room. As you can see, he's quite the art aficionado...

Attached: opening-door-picture-id181148101.jpg (612x408, 24K)

make sure to factor in your impotence

best post ITT

>made for the purpose of sexual arousal
By this reasoning, any film starring a fuckable woman is porn.
>What if I'm gay?
>Does that make Top Gun porn?

I love my figures. I'm too scared to record myself hotgluing them.
Cartoon whores are better than the real thing! FACT!!!! I LOVE MY FUTAS!!!!!!!

Explain Jeff Koons, then.

Good point. If I take viagra everything become porn, because I can jack off to it.

viagra doesn't work on virgins

SOTHEBYS AND CHRISTIES ARE THE TWO BIGGEST MONEY LAUNDERING OPERATIONS IN THE WORLD

>shitty porn is not porn to make porn you have to be an pornographer
Fascinating

Completely true.

art doesn't real

Do you idiots not realize that is his point? How do you quantify intent? If intent is how you determine the difference between art and porn, then how do you measure it? In the end, it is obvious that what constitutes porn is obvious, and yet we cannot describe what differentiates it from art. That is called a "qualia." Something intrinsic to an idea or object that cannot be explained. Porn has a certain qualia of arousal that cannot be measured.

milkers

Porn is an art form. Why the hell wouldn't it be? This isn't a commentary on its merit one way or another, almost everything can be art. A hammer isn't art when you use it to hammer a nail into a board but it sure as hell is when you hang it up in a museum.

>found in africa
historian cope

>qualia of arousal
This is the name of pornographic art exhibit. Shit is going too be so cash.

Now imagine if you were free of the museum meme, and could see every hammer as art. That is the final level.

...

I concede that qualify makes more etymological sense, but quantify is the english word.

Porn can't be an art
Erotic kino ("Erotica") is art

Attached: 15660936205386.jpg (424x554, 66K)

You are qualified to suck one quantity of dick.

Qualify means "to meet the requirements."

Quantify means "to make measurable."

You got a sauce on that gif?

Explained Blacked.com, then.