At what point does the line blur for sex to be an art form? In India, there are many temples decorated with sexual acts that are considered sacred. In our society it's considered vulgar. The nude is very much an accepted subject matter in our art, and seeing them interacting in romantic ways (think of all the sculptures portraying seductions from Greek myths) is common. But sex itself is taboo to depict.
If sexual acts are engaged in for the sake of an art film, does that make it art or porn? Does sex have to be faked to be artistic? This brings to mind countless movies with mimicry of sex. If it had been real sex, between two consenting adult actors, would that make it pornography? Can they ever be the same thing? Are pornography and tastefulness mutually exclusive?
The supreme court has ruled that porn is the depiction of sexual behavior that is intended to arouse sexual excitement in its audience. Arousal is subjective. In addition, if art is meant to evoke emotions or ideas, how does arousal not have a legitimate conveyance through art?
If sexual acts are engaged in for the sake of an art film, does that make it art or porn? Does sex have to be faked to be artistic? This brings to mind countless movies with mimicry of sex. If it had been real sex, between two consenting adult actors, would that make it pornography? Can they ever be the same thing? Are pornography and tastefulness mutually exclusive?
The supreme court has ruled that porn is the depiction of sexual behavior that is intended to arouse sexual excitement in its audience. Arousal is subjective. In addition, if art is meant to evoke emotions or ideas, how does arousal not have a legitimate conveyance through art?
No comments:
Post a Comment