[NSFW?] Art vs Porn?

I am confused, my standards tell me that if an image has a lustful message then its porn.
 
But I hear many people saying that “as soon as there is a representation of private parts then its automatically porn”.
 
I drew these:
 
 
 

 
What do you consider?

I’ve often considered that images that are meant to cause arousal in the audience is porn. But study of anatomy and emotion aren’t.
 
then again, what do I know… I just have creator’s bias.

@Pikapetey  
That’s kinda my point of view as well
 
But the problem is that then you end up with two parties: One that accepts it as art and other _{(more sensitive?)} that denies as porn
 
At the end of the day I just want to please everyone, but at the same time be true to my ideals.
 
_{(I’ll probably just keep doing what I do lol, but I’m interested in outside opinions)}

@Alumxie
 
or you could do what i do and tell everyone to piss off. I’ll make what i fucking want.
 
If people want me to make something else they can pay for it.

nudity isn’t porn. Even erotic art is not necessarily porn. And even if a piece of artwork is intended to induce arousal, it’s still art in my eyes. To be art is to make you feel something, it doesn’t matter what it is.
 
There will of course be people who will argue against that to the death, but eh i wont try to convince them otherwise.

Porn is art too. Just a different kind.

@Badumsquish
 
My view is similar, though because of my aestheticist views regarding the arts, I consider the “art vs. porn” dichotomy to be fundamentally misleading since it carries the implication that one cannot include aspects associated with the other, and vice versa. As such, IMO art can be porn, and porn is art, insofar as it can be viewed for aesthetic pleasure and not just for crass indulgence of one’s desires

Porn is intended specifically to be clop fodder, and has no other use. If it has basically any other purpose except to clop to it (or trade it with someone else who’ll clop to it), it’s art. If it tells a story, illustrates a point of anatomy, illustrates an artistic technique, illustrates a concept, makes a point about an issue or argument, etc., then by definition it can’t be porn. That’s not to say you can necessarily show it to the students in the kindergarten class you teach, but it’s not porn.
 
As one Supreme Court argument put it, pornographic literature is an oxymoron. If it’s literature, that means it has literary value, however much or little. If it has literary value, it can’t be porn.

@Ferrotter
 
Bourdieu would beg to differ…

@Ebalosus
 
I would agree with this. Art is art is art. When you get down to it, all art is just shape and form and colour and texture in a medium. Pigments, lines, ink, wood, paper. It has no meaning except what we bring to it.
 
Unfortunately a lot of people bring their hangups and social conditioning to the party and see porn and other nasty things everywhere they look, but that’s because they’re imbuing objects with subjective qualities.

To me, whether or not it’s explicit (or even meant to be nothing but clop material) is irrelevant. What matters to me is that it’s an expression of the artist. Even something that’s nothing but a straight-forward piece of clop is still a representation of the artist’s interests or sometimes even mood.
 
The big reason I tend to do really strange pairings and weird fetishy stuff is just so I can get really creative with the way their bodies twine together or even to see what I can get away with. I’m very fully gay in real life, yet I do plenty of straight and lesbian stuff purely so I can show expressions or the bodies working together (or sometimes just to be funny).

GRIMDERP OR ART?  

 
 
PORN OR ART?  

 
 
It comes down to what the viewer wants to see. And very often, down to the name attached to it.
 
(also I consider those three images “art”)

@The Smiling Pony  
“Three images?”  

@Badumsquish  
The OP’s three images.
 
I’d probably have some pedantic twat come at me out of nowhere for implying that anything Goya sneezed out isn’t art.
 
Also, La maja desnuda’s naked version was specifically meant to be “porn”, with the idea being that you’d first see the clothed version, then a panel moves and you see the skin version.

@The Smiling Pony  
Oh, my bad :D
 
I’m reminded of that guy/girl that was having a tantrum because that Creation of Adam picture was tagged “explicit” because it showed off his willy-nilly? That ever get settled, btw?

@Badumsquish  
Yes, it was. Wing wang’s loose, it’s explicit, don’t matter who drew it or famous it is.

@The Smiling Pony  
People were still fighting over it and I just wanted to make sure before I was actually fixing it rather than fucking it up before changing it from Questionable to Explicit.

Ugh.

Humm…art
 
1175-1225; Middle English < Old French, accusative of ars < Latin ars (nominative), artem (accusative) ‘skill, craft, craftsmanship’ _{(copypasta from internet)}
 
So basically, anything that was skilfully made is art, it’s the root meaning of that word
 
Now skill, is relative, It always needs a point of reference for comparison. And everyone has different points of reference.
 
@The Smiling Pony  
And yea! I agree with you, on that matter its all up to viewer

So if illustrated dick and vaginas equate to porn that makes all medical professionals gross loser pervs with thier disgusting “medical journals.”
 
Yeah, right, im on to you Doctor you just want to stick your hand up my ass cause your some kind of sick freak!  
Ill have you know my ass is IMPENETRABLE!  
clenches sphinter hard  
UUURRRGGGHHAA!

@Pikapetey
 
This is all that came to mind…
 
(yes that is nsfw before anyone asks)

@Archonix  
ah yes titmouse. The same studio that brought you the glorious NSFW animation BOOBIES made by 52 animators on their spare time.
 
Look lets be honest here, Most of the “anatomy for the artist” books that we use to STUDY OUR CRAFT would be considered porn. Especially if you’re surrounded by a very conservative community.
 
If someone judges you for drawing smut, they are just uptight, narrow minded ass-hats that wants everyone to live and think like them.
 
|| that being said i don’t draw serious smut for personal reason. But if you like doing it, ROCK ON BRO! ||

Porn? Nah.
 
As for what constitutes it, it has NEVER been pinpoint identified to my knowledge and probably never will. Decades back US supreme court Justice Potter Stewart gave the super subjective “I know it when I see it” statement in regard to what is porn. We went over that when I took a fun undergrad course dealing with First Amendment issues hehe.
 
What you see in these parts tends though to be drawings of fictional characters. I don’t see the big concern beyond keeping minors from seeing them. Not like real people are being exploited.

So you think there’s anything any of us can say about the topic that hasn’t been said 1000 times before?