Is this art or porn?

[Anakin McFly]

http://mothership.sg/2016/12/m1-fringe- ... ve-nudity/

One of the complaints that went viral and was responsible: https://singaporeaffairs.wordpress.com/ ... ed-as-art/

Ironically, the only one of those four that I thought veered closest into porn territory (Foreign Bodies) wasn't one of the two removed.

My mother's friends were among those writing in to protest, and then we had a small argument about this. I'm not a fan of sex in art, but I hate how they made non-sexual nudity out to be sexual in the first place, greatly exaggerating and at some points completely misrepresenting what those performances entailed. (someone claimed that the Undressing Room was some kind of mass orgy where strangers took each other's clothes off and then made out with each other... which, no.) Plus there were all those people who compared those pieces to far more explicit and intentionally pornographic performances that just so happen to be legal.

I wish people at least read up more on the things they criticise. I was shocked at first just hearing the descriptions, but looking further... they're nowhere as scandalous or sexual as everyone seems to think, and I have a fairly low threshhold as it is when it comes to sexual content. I may also be slightly biased because I have mutual friends with one of the performers (the dude behind Undressing Room) and he comes across as a quiet, thoughtful guy who talked about how his art piece was meant to be an exploration of the fear, vulnerability and shame we associate with nudity, and who has taken various measures to ensure that participants will feel safe and know that they can stop at any time. But instead he's being portrayed as some wild horny ~homosexual~ pervert looking for an excuse to grope strangers in a tiny room.

[Gendo]

Well with a subject like that, I'm not clicking the link while at work. But I would distinguish it this way: If the average person (who is normally attracted to the gender that is in the nude) would be sexually aroused by viewing the material, then it's porn.

[phe_de]

If the average person (who is normally attracted to the gender that is in the nude) would be sexually aroused by viewing the material, then it's porn.

I don't know.
I didn't click the links either, but In my opinion (and the opinion of most feminists I know) it's porn when the nude person is not shown as a person but as an object at the disposal of others. Which is usually the case for women in straight porn.

But when the naked people are portrayed as characters with personality, and respected, then it's not porn. Just erotic, if the viewers are turned on.

On the other hand, if the viewer is turned on, then characters on screen or photograph become objects for the viewer... But this is true even when they are not naked.

[aels]

I am going to disagree with Gendo and possibly show myself a hypocrite (ME?????) because I generally take a death-of-the-author approach where the creator's intent is useful context but doesn't supplant the interpretations of the audience. But I would disagree with the argument that if your reasonable average Joe would be aroused by it then it counts as porn, as I think that a) there's no accounting for the floatage of people's boats, and b) we have a tendency as a society to conflate nudity with sex *and* to sexualise unnecessarily. I'd be more inclined to say that if the sole intention of a piece of work is to titillate* then it is pornographic. If it contains nudity or even eroticism, but is intended to have a purpose and meaning outside of making people moist in the gusset, then I don't view it as porn. I would also agree with phe_de about the distinction between porn and eroticism being that of sexual objectification. These have been the views of an uptight repressed virgin, other views may vary.

Heh. Titillate.

[Anakin McFly]

First link is work safe - it's a news article. The second is the blog of an angry concerned citizen who wants people to think of the children (that one is slightly less safe because there are pics, but the sole naked pic has things covering the relevant bits.

I go with the creator's intent, because otherwise you'll end up in situations where something (say, exposed ankles, breastfeeding) may be pornographic in one culture but not in another. I think in order for something to be porn, it has to be made with the purpose of sexually arousing people, but objectification isn't necessary. People often get aroused by all manner of mundane things (swimsuits, fast cars, someone eating a banana, idk), but that shouldn't be enough to make those things pornographic in and of themselves, unless the banana eating was done in an intentionally sexual manner meant to titillate.

I classify erotica under the category of porn, but I wouldn't consider the removed art performances to even be erotic in intent, though some people may experience it as such. After reading the in-depth description + artist interview for the Undressing Room I thought it might be something I could have participated in (max 18 participants though, previously all sold out), and it doesn't titillate me in the slightest. It's just the idea of having my body seen by another person, in silence, without risk of judgement or rejection, and maybe healing from that shame I've carried around too long. And I can imagine the other people who might have wanted to do that - those with bodies likewise deemed abnormal, or ugly, or broken, or unlovable, who never have that chance to be seen fully by another person and held without fear of being turned away. There's nowhere else they could do something like that - prostitutes are for sex, and friends generally don't want to be naked around each other.

so I thought that one sounded beautiful and emotionally painful and terrifying in its vulnerability, with a high likelihood of a lot of crying, and I found it perverse that some people immediately made it into a sexual thing and successfully demanded the banhammer.