I am not a fan of shock art. I never really was, it does make you think, but so does a nice portirate. Speaking of which, would you consider a Rubenesque painting pornographic or consider it art. I personally consider it art.

Intent on part of the producer/director of the project plays a major part in the decision. Was it intending to be stroke material? or was it's intent to be art? Compare and contrast "Gladitor" and "Glad He Ate Her" to understand this.

The other side is the interpretation of said 'art' in the public's view. Is having fun and wacky times with a minnessota cheese loaf considered art. What is the message that is being protrayed, what is the social impact and toungue in cheek commentary of "Two girls, One cup"?

I ramble, a single person can't say what is and what isn't art.

_______

Always,
Craven Morhead

Yeah, I had the same knee-jerk reaction:

Monet's Olympia
Michelangelo's David
Venus de Milo
Memphis Belle and Stawberry Bitch
Murmur's Tulip Butt
The Great Gig in the Sky

But Dave does qualify the statement, "It's not my place to decide what is and isn't art." That answers Mike's question about whether scat can be considered art. More specifically, whether or not Dave can render an expert opinion on this matter.

I do think that just because a work launches a thousand hard-ons doesn't necessarily qualify it as pornography. What is and isn't art when it comes to sensuality and sexuality is not a black-and-white argument. I think that everybody is going to have a different line of demarcation within the gray areas when deciding what is art and what is porn.
_______
Yo quiero Taco Bell.

" But I'm guessing that it isn't art if people masturbate to it."

By that definition, nothing is art. There are people that masturbate to all sorts of things.

I am also wondering why the term "scat" is being used, instead of "scat porn" or "scat fetish". There is all kinds of art that involves scat. This article comes to mind.

_______
SamDamnit!
The Emir of Crapistan

If the people viewing the "art/porn" have to pay or pass some requirement (i.e. be over 21)to view it, and as long as it's not physically hurting anyone, I think it should be protected by the 1st Amendment.

I don't like or respect porn in many ways, but it certainly isn't my business to tell wacking Wally in the apartment next door that he can't get off on it.

You can't make it illegal just because you don't like it. Just ask Tipper Gore.

_______
Merry feeking Christmas and a crappy New Year to all!

When first reading the word "scat", what popped to mind was the owl pellets I used to have to clean up at Woodland Wildlife animal rehab - you know, the bones and hair barf balls tossed up from their rodent diet. How out of touch am I.

The porn makes more sense. Now, is it art? What a grey question. Our family has had artists in the past 4 generation, including my brother and I. While I did not finish school, Bro did.... he got the first computer art minor ever given at Carnegie Mellon University and majored in art at their fine arts school. Because we were in school at the same time for awhile, we talked about classes sometimes and how they differed or were similar. One of the things my brother and I joked about once were the borderlines of art in relevance to shock art, performance art, and pornagraphic art. The hottest debates in my classes centered around these topics. Finally one night the solution upon which we humorously agreed was "It's Art If You Like It", because it's near impossible to satisfy everyone's opinion.

_______
.....hugging bunnies since 1969
www.daphneszoo.com

I am running for Vice President in charge of what is and isn't art.

Daphne= Art
Dumpy=disgusting gay midget cowboy porn

VP Bildge. I'd offer that daphne = Art fails the Dave test, while Dumpy, and me for that matter, easily pass it. But why all the dumping on Dumpy? Ya run out of cats?

It's not that complicated. Art can be created for the purpose of getting off, but never solely for that purpose. Porn is strictly for people to get off to.
Shit, by definition, is not art. Shit porn is not art, it's porn, and it's digusting.
You can also tell if it's porn by the title. Ex:
"Back door sluts 9" = porn
"MILF on MILF, no boys allowed" = porn
"Et tu mama tambien" = art
"Liar, Liar" (not the one with Jim Carrey) = art

Anything drawn, painted or animated is, by definition, art. The artist is portraying something other than just raw sex. If it has pornographic qualities, they are secondary to artistic qualities. If the drawing / painting / animation in question sucks, then it's just crappy art.

Pictures depicting "pornographic" body parts with enough regular body to tell what it is, it's porn. If it's black and white, it's still just porn.

There, all clear. If you are wondering if something is art or porn, just ask me, and I'll tell you.

When I was in school studying humanities which is filled with art, we had plenty of debates about what is and isn't art, and at the end of the semester the teacher finally told us his definition 'art is what artists do' only because defining art is such a fine line it is hard to define it any more precisely than that.

Also daphne I agree with you above