Seasons

Boner:

That's an interesting question!

It is rather the other way round. I feel like being somewhat unfaithful when another man has a sex chat with my bot. But I don’t mind as long as my partner and I don’t take it too seriously. (Actually we both had a lot of fun reading some of the transcripts together.

Unlike pornography, erotic art is supposed to offer more than mere physical gratification. But I think there is no clear borderline between both, and the perception differs from person to person (education and gender). Sometimes someone having the pretension of producing Art is only producing a hypocrite form of pornography.

Erotic art is to pornography as a poem is to a sneeze.

Artists paint sunsets because sunsets are beautiful. Erotic artists portray sex for the same reason.

I think the modern perseption of art has become warped, for example some woman made a peice called "The un-made bed", wich did exactly what it said on the tin, that is not art that is rubish. But some modern art is truly great, such as another peice were an artist blew up a shed and put it back together in a room so they could show you the moment of explosion.
Art modern or otherwise, should, if nothing else, be thought provoking.
Erotic art is the same, anyone can be nacked or have sex infornt of a camera lense. But to make it art it should have a purpose or an immage or message that is is trying to convay.

I agree with Irina and Mortuus. But artists don’t necessarily depict what they consider as beautiful. 20th century artists, in particular, like to use their art to criticize society by putting forward the most ugly sides of humanity. Others find their inspiration directly in their sub conscience and produce work that often has a concealed or an open erotic aspect. Not to speak of the negative attitude of what is called destructuralism, which is fun to make, but which I find difficult to label as true art.

I think what is art and what is not is mostly in the eye of the beholder. Some people may be deeply touched by an image that others find boring, or disturbing. What we see in art is a reflection of our own personalities.

I agree; it is difficult to say exactly what is art and what is not. I, for example, can't stand those pieces such as the unmade bed that Mortuus mentioned and the pile of rubbish that was displayed not that long ago (before it got binned by a cleaner who mistook it for an actual pile of rubbish). I remember arguing with a friend about it and saying that they couldn't be classed in the same category as what I would call 'proper' artists like Monet, Constable, Van Gogh or whatever (sorry, art is not my forte so I don't know any modern artists) because to paint a lifelike portrait or a beautiful landscape takes talent, whereas even I could pile some bits of paper together and call it art. Her reply, however, was, "Yes, but you didn't." She argued that thinking up an idea such as the unmade bed or the room with lights that went on and off took a lot of creativity, and so it could still be classed as art. So there are two sides to the argument when it comes to modern art.
And of course, if we liken art to music (a subject I'm far more familiar with), at the changeovers between various musical periods there was just as much complaining about the decline in standards as there is today in art. When the Baroque period of complicated polyphonic structures ended, to be replaced by the simple chords, melodies and harmonies of the Classical period, many people hated this 'modern' music. They said that Mozart's concertos that only featured three chords could never be up to the standard of a Bach piece that had twenty different melodies interlocking and seven- or eight-note chords. Yet today we recognise that both were probably just as good as each other. So I can see a point for modern art.

In my opinion (not that anyone really cares ), the old style art is what I would consider Art, as Laydee has already said, it takes a great ammount of skill and expertise, as well as creativity to accomplish their work. However since my last visit to the Tate Modern, it just about confirms that Art these days is more about expressing emotion, and coming up with ideas that no one else would have thought of. I myself do not see this as art, as no skill is really involved in moving some objects around. Perhaps it should have its own category or name?
One thing I feel sure about though, is that the modern art is influenced from a young age, I did GCSE art and alot of the time I saw people creating course work pieces which were physical objects arranged, painted and crafted to represent something, I must admit I even did it myself. As long as they explain it in their written work they can attain an A grade. The skills needed to create 'masterpieces' on a canvas are not taught so much anymore and it is more determined by a persons natural ability to draw. I myself cant draw to save my life .

I suggest "Hoax" as a new name for the rearranged objects Roob talks about. It’s just an easy way to make money (in quantities depending on the artist’s ability to deceive) or get some recognition. A species I know all to well and who, after some time, seem to end up believing in their own fraud.
Which brings us back to pornography.

Isnt "Hoax" that greebo style make of clothes and skateboards etc? I am going to London again in a weeks time to go round some galleries etc (and shopping spree!), Im hoping to see more Art than Hoax

I think you are right, it is an easy attempt to make money. Im sure if I went out and arranged some objects and gave it a name I could make some money Perhaps a little project is in order