The attitude towards pornography here is immediately dismissive and negative. By far the biggest movement in porn since the internet is 'amateur'. Unrecognized here as direct reflection of human sexuality, movement away from fantasy to authenticity.
I think the point of the article is that all media is entertainment, and journalism has lost it's informant pretense. A legit point, I don't care for porn bashing though.
Agreed. The article is definitely an oversimplification. Sure, anything with informational or entertainment value can be optimised, so to speak. Fast food optimises for taste at the expense of balanced nutrition, and so on. But just because a thing can be optimised does not mean it’s not also subtle and nuanced. Besides, pornography does not work well in the analogy: the variety in human sexual tastes reduces its vulnerability to optimisation.
The fact that there is a significant movement toward legitimacy and depth in pornography is a testament to that fact. And I have considerable respect for sites that encourage amateur content, in the (perhaps naive) hope that it will encourage more realistic expectations among the sexually inexperienced.
I see this attitude so often on the Internet: where porn is practically sacrosanct. It's way more complicated than that, and it seems intellectually dishonest to oversimplify matters.
However, the real point I'd like to make is this: you are right when you mention that the author was actually discussing the perils of everything being entertaining. He'd do well to read Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves To Death. It is downright chilling to read when you realize it was written in the eighties as the cultural impact of pervasive television was beginning to become apparent.
By far the biggest movement in porn since the internet is 'amateur'.
That's because the internet has stripped profits away. It's like reality shows being the trend in television because expensive productions don't have as much profit margin as they used to.
The only thing I'd add is that as we become more saturated in stimulation, it takes more extremes to get the dopamine hit. This goes for porn or anything else he mentions in his article.
I wouldn't say it's dismissive and negative to point out that porn is inherently reductionist. The main difference is that things like nutrition, music, and intellectual enrichment need a degree of sophistication. Porn is just a method for physiological release, not a proper art form.
I think we can all agree that erotica is a proper art form. It's nudes in tasteful poses, usually with artistic intent. Hell, one could argue that most art produced in the renaissance was erotica. Or the Statue of David for instance.
Ok so that's art.
Similarly, we all consider most types of drawings to be art. People drawing on canvas to produce emotionally and visually stimulating stuff has always been art.
Then take Pollock for instance. He is the complete bastardization of visual art. Pure colour and emotion with wanton disregard for any "form".
That is still considered art.
However, when you do the same to erotica and come up with porn ... it suddenly isn't art anymore?
I think it's mostly a matter of context. Porn is something you watch while you jerk off, and afterwards you throw it away. That's what it's designed for, and there's not much more to be seen if you watch it in any other context.
In fact, the OP is slightly off about the question of actual porn--porn is more or less the distilled version of erotica, not film, that takes away the art.
Now if you try to make porn, or make something that has the superficial appearance of porn, and then by accident or design end up creating something that's capable of greater intellectual or emotional depth, maybe that could be art. For instance, if the girl was holding the camera, it would be a subversive commentary on the male gaze. Creating art like that in the nominal form of pornography would in fact be deeply ironic simply because porn isn't art. (It wouldn't necessarily be erotica, because you've distilled the art away from the erotica to make the porn, and then added a different, ironic aspect of art on top of it.)
Art is whatever the janitor decides not to to throw in the trashcan. In other words, it have to be beautiful. It have to be something that an everyman want to buy. It does not matter what kind of meaning an artist put into a painting.
Erotica is art because it's beautiful. Sex stories, however explicit, is beautiful. Hentai are often beautiful because they are drawn by artists who care about beauty.
Porn are usually not beautiful. They have ugly characters and they are often completely forgettable.
Say what you want about modern art, as long it can make people show interest in a trash bag, it's powerful. Porn just exploits (and fools) your basic circuits, like drugs of addiction.
I assure you if I would paint something, it wouldn't be very beautiful either. Does that show that paintings are not art?
I didn't say painting aren't art. I say that beautiful things are not art. That being said, beautiful is a spectrum. So in my view, something could be art if it is slightly beautiful or done with some slight skills.
However, the ultimate test is whether or not it would be mistaken as trash.
Art absolutely, positively does not have to be 'something that an everyman wants to buy'. Art can quite happily exist with an audience of one. It also most certainly does not have to be beautiful - 'confrontational' art frequently violates this idea.
I don't think that holds true for everyone. My observation is that some people are primarily seeking emotional release, which may or may not lead to or involve "physiological release". It seems to me that emotional appeal is a large factor in much of what we call art.
Most actors/actress are ugly. I don't really care for amateur because they are often ugly too. It'll get the job done, but it's like watching a really badly done horror movie. Not scary or sexy at all.
The manga world is often in stark contrast to the reality tubes. Some of them will make you angry and some will make you fell in love with the characters. They are also often beautiful.
Even though they are high quality, they might as well be mass produced. The reality tubes is mass produced but is of bad quality.
Well, what's the benefit of porn? To be a glass where you can look but cannot touch? To compensate for some oversexuality that is not freely expressed? To turn everyone into proud voyeurs? Most animals see amateur porn among their conspecifics every day and frankly don't give a damn. I bet only masturbating animals would ever buy porn. I know the internet is generally proud of its porn, but general opinion equates porn with masturbation and thus all the negative attitude. What's so positive about porn otherwise?
Strictly evolutionarily, animals survive and evolve without porn. Porn is a reaction to our cultural practices from the past. If it weren't for porn, maybe our societies would be more open sex-wise.
Porn is a reaction to our cultural practices from the past. If it weren't for porn, maybe our societies would be more open sex-wise.
Can I ask on what do you base this? Because I see sexually liberated subcultures making and sharing their own (non-commercial) porn. http://www.freedomporn.org/ is a good example.
I remember reading about a study that showed looking at boobs raised men's self esteem. There is also a study that showed that apes (or monkeys or some animal like that) likes to pay for porn (ape/monkey porn of course).
Also the sex drive is quite important for the human species. It's a huge motivator.
Yes but out in the wild, even with monkeys watching other monkeys, sex is a social activity; watching porn alone makes it a very non-social activity.
This discussion reminds me a bit of the "sugar/fructose" discussion the other day. Humans are built to crave sugary, high-calorie food. Modern society allows for an endless supply of sugar. Cue rampant obesity.
I think it's beneficial to question everything; to completely detach oneself from the hivemind. Just because everyone watches porn (or it provides short-term positive benefits) does not mean it's innately good, or could/should be consumed in endless quantities, or has no negative implications.
For women, porn can be beneficial because it provides information.
(from "A Feminist Defense of Pornography"; can be found by Googling it; originally included the link but post became dead immediately after submitting and I think that's why.)
"
* It gives a panoramic view of the world's sexual possibilities. This is true even of basic sexual information such as masturbation. It is not uncommon for women to reach adulthood without knowing how to give themselves pleasure.
* It allows women to "safely" experience sexual alternatives and satisfy a healthy sexual curiosity. The world is a dangerous place. By contrast, pornography can be a source of solitary enlightenment.
* It offers the emotional information that comes only from experiencing something either directly or vicariously. It provides us with a sense how it would "feel" to do something. "
I cannot vote you down in my head hard enough simply because you have completely discounted the entire sexual experience of many women by relegating female sexuality to the emotive realm.
Women use and enjoy porn the same as men do - visual to physiological and to release. Period.
Porn is beneficial to women in many ways as consumers. Until people wake up to this, revenue streams and culture (of consent and equality, experience and discourse) alike will be hobbled.
Your heart is in the right place. But you're missing the rest of reality, as is this entire HN discussion.
I didn't relegate female sexuality to the emotive realm; I just listed some additional benefits of porn that I found posted in an essay targeted toward the woman's perspective. (And I then indicated that I feel the same benefits can be had by men as well.)
The post I replied to asked "Well, what's the benefit of porn?" and I felt the physiological aspects were already covered. There was no need for me to correct it to say "women like the physiological aspects, too" since I already know that to be true and didn't see anybody stating otherwise who needed to be corrected.
What I find very humorous (read: ironic) is that this comment thread (edit: ENTIRE comment thread) has been sidelined by discussion of porn, when the article actually referenced porn very little.
probably a good indication that the article is pretty spot on.
I think the point of the article is that all media is entertainment, and journalism has lost it's informant pretense. A legit point, I don't care for porn bashing though.