quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
quote:
Originally posted by Batwoman:
I disagree. Pron and tasteless sensationalism isn't art, it's just that, porn and sensationalsim. No, Urg put it well, if it gives you a boner, it's not art.
It can be. Much of Renaissance art was effective porn. Well-reknown artists would try for verisimilitude in painting portraits of their master's mistresses. I'm thinking of one in particular... a reclining woman, by someone like Titian. Back then it was wank material. Now its in a museum and critiqued for the artist's skill.

Many of Rodin's sculptures were of nude women, in submissive positions. They are all highly regarded artistically.

Mapplethorpe's photographs are offensive, but there is no denying they are art.

They fact that nudes are distasteful to you, or make you horny, or both, does not mean they are not art.
Nudes are one thing, I know those are art. In fact, anyone that's taken a figure drawing class has had to sketch a nude model. But the pic of the woman showing off her reproductive organs isn't art, that's porn. That pose is not meant for anything other than to provide a sexual stimulant to others.