Milovana.com

Dannywanker started the discussion in an unrelated thread, so this is my attempt to move it over here, rather than flood "Watch Me, Watch You" with posts that are completed unrelated to feedback towards the tease.

The question here is: is classical art viable use as pornography? Is it a good or bad thing? Right or wrong? Hot or not? Does it rawk out in guitar hero 3? So we can get the technical side of things taken over with, I present you with this:

por·nog·ra·phy (pôr-nŏg'rə-fē) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
2. The presentation or production of this material.
3. Lurid or sensational material: "Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the ... pornography of the era" (Morris Dickstein).

Now then, by presenting these images of classical art into a tease setting alongside stroking instructions, the purpose of the art is guided towards sexual arousal. It becomes pornography.

Argument for the use of classical art:
Back when this art was initially released to the viewing public, I'd imagine the art was controversial. I've always view good art as ideas meant to challenge the social boundaries. So, let's say a painter, back in the 1500's, paints a vivid picture of a woman in lust and presents it as fine art. I'd imagine quite a few monocles fell from shocked nobles eyes.

So, my argument for the use of classical art as tease material is that it promotes the ideas that the classical art stood for in the first place: to challenge what people think as the standard norm, the social boundaries of our little community.

Argument against the use of classical art:
Perhaps it could be said that by bringing classical art to the area of pornography, it diminishes the art that it once was. Why's that? Because most porno is bad. Just one look at things like Mike's Bang Bus can tell you that most porno tends to be:

1.Very cheap
2.Just like every other; new girl, same positions

There are some porn sites that are trying to be artistic though, and that's cool. M.E.T. being one of them, although it seems all the girls they find seem to hate eating as much as they enjoy posing in the nude.

Anyway, it could be said by treating classical art as porn this makes classical art equal to Mike's Bang Bus.
_________________________________________

Anyway, I've talked too much! Discuss!

So because porn usually is cheap and often not creative by incorporating something into it that's art and thereby possibly augmenting the level you're doing something wrong? I don't quite follow that logic.

For me personally it doesn't work to use pictures like that, I can't appreciate them as art (sadly enough), it doesn't work as porn for me either. But that doesn't mean that this has to be the case for everyone, and something I do appreciate is people trying new things (another example of this is Princess Raquel using videos to go along with the tease in that way, which I thought was awesome, doesn't really belong in this thread, but, hey, I figure if her thread gets turned into a discussion on something else why not bring her original topic up here ;)), linking things that don't really belong together, just trying whatever they think might be worth a shot. To me it isn't disrespectful or anything like that towards the art, doesn't show a lack of ability to understand and appreciate it as art either, because there's different ways and different aspects to how you can like individual things. So, yeah, I don't really see the problem with it.

I think this is an interesting question. I agree that the classier, more artistic, porn gets, the less I'm likely to find it arousing. Part of the appeal of porn is that it's trashy and dirty. I think some of the photographs from the black and white tease were beautiful, but that's not the same thing as hott.

I enjoyed reading through the art tease, but mostly because it was neat to see someone trying something so different. I appreciate the tension the author was going for, it was definitely thoughtful. Having said that, it didn't really work for me as a tease. That's not necessarily bad though. I'd say it's the mirror image of the teases that are so ridiculously hard core (self physical abuse, stupid number of strokes). They're fun to read, and have a place on this site, but don't really hit the spot.

More controversial - I'm actively turned off by the "chocolate" teases (same author) that use race as an element. I'm happy with diverse models, but fine the use of the skin color of the models as a theme in the text to be unfortunate.

vergo wrote:So because porn usually is cheap and often not creative by incorporating something into it that's art and thereby possibly augmenting the level you're doing something wrong? I don't quite follow that logic.

It's not that you're doing something wrong, it's the idea that by turning art into porn, it's being brought down to the same level as porn. It loses its status of high art. It's kind of like saying that treating high art as porn devalues it. I don't necessarily agree with the position, but I think it's necessary to be able to present both sides of a single argument.

Makarov wrote:

vergo wrote:So because porn usually is cheap and often not creative by incorporating something into it that's art and thereby possibly augmenting the level you're doing something wrong? I don't quite follow that logic.

It's not that you're doing something wrong, it's the idea that by turning art into porn, it's being brought down to the same level as porn. It loses its status of high art. It's kind of like saying that treating high art as porn devalues it. I don't necessarily agree with the position, but I think it's necessary to be able to present both sides of a single argument.

Yeah, well, it's probably an accurate description of the reasoning behind someone feeling that way, but it doesn't make sense to me, it doesn't destroy something if someone else sees something else in it, and it seems really narrow-minded to me if you can't or don't want to cope with that.

If Classical nudes are not porn
What makes porn, be porn?
How is it porn and Not art?

That is the tension
You may remember the Hustler case against the USA
where that exact question is posed
What is the difference between A Nude drawn by Michelangelo?
and one found on Bang Busters?


The other side of it is
can you be aroused by something that's NOT erotic?
If you have gone without sex or an orgasm for a while it is quite possible

I wanted to challenge everyone
including myself with just these kind of Mind questioning thoughts

The feedback was slow in appearing
but I am glad it's out there

What about the Black and White photo tease?
is that artistic
or is it porn?

The Color Me tease
same question
tattoos can be seen as art
or can be a favorite kink

I hope everyone can come to there own understanding
Part of is can you masturbate to something that does not excite you?
That is part of the twist of the challenge in these teases

I challenge anyone who doesn’t like the ease to try them again with that in mind

Why would you want to masturbate to something that doesn't excite you?