Mature Content - Art or Not Art [18+]

WARNING: May contain mature contents and mature wisdom, or something, I dunno. (You are warned >-D )

Dear All,

I've always seen "artists" whining about the unfairness and bias or close-minded of things when their explicit/suggestive pictures get taken down from a site. And, not too surprisingly, MANY people are willing to stick up for the "artists".

But really, let's face it, despite all the arguments about "beauty in yaoi/yuri/explicit postures" made by people, it is really not so much beauty as opposed to just the uh... "@#)$ $%" they get out of drawing/viewing those pictures. Although we MAY find some tasteful explicitness somewhere, I am quite willing to say that a lot of "mature contents" arts are rather tasteless, and drawn not for art's sake, but for the sake of hormones. And when we have something like that, we CANNOT call it art, can we? (We call it p_rn).

What do you guys think (pls look pass the common "it's beauty" argument and look with honesty)?

To be perfectly honest, I've never had a problem with Mature Content artwork.

Do I call it art?  You bet I do.

The way I look at it, is this:  To me, art is all about emotional connection.  When the artist, or author creates something, they are out to establish a connection with their audiences.  Regardless of just exactly what that connections is (be it happiness, sorrow, anger, love or lust), it is present, and that's what validates Mature Artwork for me. 

Despite my feelings towards censorship, I draw a very thick line between Mature Artwork and p_rn.  Artwork is exactly what it is: drawn or created images or ideas sourced from a mind to establish an emotional connection with an audience.  P_rn is real-live actors in front of a camera lens.

While I can see how easily the two concepts can be blurred together, I maintain they are two seperate entities.  I believe artists and authors who have the guts to depict Mature Content shouldn't be shunned (as most feel they are), but rather treated the same as everyone else.  Quite frankly, I believe blanket statements such as "it isn't art" is demeaning and unfair to all those artists and authors who create Mature works. 

A landscape can convey thoughts of freedom and happiness - a depiction of two of your favourite character's engaging in intercourse can convey thoughts of freedom and happiness as well.  Both pictures also capable of conveying as however more an individual wishes to interpret - what those emotions or feelings are, are entirely up to the individual.

Mature Art is Mature Art: I believe the necessary legally required age restrictions do enough in seperating it from the rest of the crowd.  But, to me, to not call or consider it 'art' is deeply unfair to those artists.  I'm a huge proponent of creating the restricted sections, and letting artists do their own thing.

On Feb 6, 2008 5:37 am, puayen said:

Speaking for my self I DO think sex is beautiful. (Check out Cirque De Soliel's Zumanity - sex and sexuality is art, great show!) And naturally I get a thrill from drawing it.  I do not think depicting sexual situations weither it be yaoi, yuri and so on makes it less beautiful and or less artistic.  It's all in the eyes of the beholder.  You certainly can't tell someone how to feel when they see sexually explicit content - people try - but it usually doesn't work. 

I am very honest with myself when I draw my sexual art.  I like the images of passion, lust and raw carnal urges.  I like the physical depiction; the sweaty messy primal part of sex!  And I challenge myself every time I make up my mind to draw sex to make it as artistic as possible - hoping somewhere down the line I connect with someone else who enjoys the same aspects.  And that is the beauty of it!

To be honest, anything within the taste of this website, and that is dicated by Susie. If she doesn't like it, its gone. As part of my job as moderator, I reckonise what these taste levels are, and report to Susie on any which are boarderline. She then makes the call if its acceptable.

To be frank, I don't want to see sex for the sake of it, but you know, sex can be done REALLY well, or just be two people mindlessly bonking away. It's like real life. IF there's no feeling, then its crap. Then I think about it more, and the non mature art I don't like, I don't like it for the same reason. This leads me to ask- IS mature art ok with me? Well, yes it is. If its done well. Paper Demon have standards on presentation, which for me, cuts out most of what REALLY bugs me in art on Y!g and DA. People that scribble cause they have a pencil in their hand. Not cause they want to tell a story.

Anythign that conveys a story or emotion is art. If that emotion is sexual, it needs to be labelled sexually explicit. If the feel is kinky, it needs to be labelled Erotic art. If the feeling is something colder, like rape, you should have a choice not to look at it. But really, its all art. IT's all beautiful. Whether the person is in pain, or happyness, you know they're not real, it's if you're comfortable with it seeing it. That's why the filters are SO important to label correctly for comfortability.

I personally don't find sex offensive at all.  Sex can be an expression of love and commitment, a need to feel a connection to someone that crosses the line from emotional to the physical, or just a hormonal response to the call of reproduction.  I feel most artists create from a place from within; things that they percieve as important in their lives or something they want to share.  Sex is a very important factor in most peoples lives, a driving urge, so why would an artist not want to share that aspect of his or her creativity with others.  Sex is art in my opinion, as it is often the ultimate collaboration between a man and a woman to produce a masterpiece.  Sex when not used as a reproductive means, is still a merging of bodies that is beautiful in its own rights.  There are some pieces that I have issues with, but most times they are of torture and violence.  They can still be considered art, if the piece is thought provoking and makes a point, but I am still disturbed by the subject matter.

Art is in the eye of the beholder, one man's porn is anothers new art piece for the family room.

Hey people pay for p_rn, and I've had alot more requests for risque pictures than actual art. It may be unfair, but its supply and demand at work. If p_rn makes the economy go round, then so be it.

My definition of art is extremely liberal and rather scientific. I think art is anything whose primary purpose is  emotional, sensory, and/or aesthetic appeal.

This definition quite neatly avoids any subjective statements on artistic 'merit', based on someone's cultural or moral ideas of what 'should' be the subject of art and what quality art 'should' have. Art is possibly the most fundamental way that human beings have to express themselves, other than pure language. I can't imagine anything more haughty and laden with self-superiority than telling someone that the subject of their creation isn't worth making art about.

Understand that when a site like the Red Curtain says it's only open to 'artistic' erotica, that that is a subjective statement, based on the judgement of the site's editors and moderators. Quite frankly, I was a bit put off by the statement when I first saw it, but I've been pleased to see that lots of different art styles and levels of sexual content are allowed. Nobody is using 'artistic' as a euphemism for certain art styles, or to imply any kind of restraint in the explicitness of the works. BogusRed has admitted that certain art styles push her personal squick buttons, but she's also been open-minded enough to query the community at large about the problem, whereas moderators of other sites have been known to just banhammer anything that 'looks like anime' (or any other style that isn't their cup of tea).

I don't use the 'beauty' euphemism myself when talking about erotica or p_rn. (Is there a reason we're censoring that word, or are we just all doing it because one person did?) If I say something is beautiful, I mean I think it's beautiful. I may also say that it's hot. I can think of several pieces that I don't find particularly hot, but that I think are beautiful in other ways. I am a sexual human being, and that is a part of my brain that is perfectly open to artistic appeal. I see no reason to pretend otherwise by hiding behind prettier words.

Beauty and sexiness and all these other things we can see in art are subjective quantities; any given person might see some of them and not see others. And if an artist consistently makes art that I find beautiful, why should I suddenly pretend the beauty isn't there just because one piece has sexual content? Is all of its appeal really due to the sex at that point?

Hmm... maybe "a lot of "mature contents" arts are rather tasteless" is too hyperbolic a statement.

The whole wishy-washy definition of art DOES create a lot of problem due to subjectivity. You could have a high-and-mighty professor saying "art is the creation of the higher mind", or a teenager going "NO censorship in art!" Which one is truly right? We don't know.

It's an irony, or a paradox, really: on one hand, we have people that go "you immature teenagers should admit that those are p_rn and see past your hormones", while we also have people who say "you immature babies should just grow up and don't go YEEK at these arts". (BTW, I think these are the two most common factions when an argument on this topic arise).

I understand how explicitness can be seen as art and beauty- especially when it is connects with the audience subliminally, creates the masterpiece of life, etc. However, I guess I can never stop being worried about how "Mature Content" or "Red Curtain" is being exploited by some to mean p_rn (gee, I'm not event comfortable writing the word without censor...). Done carefully and with a purpose, they are art, but when we have something like uh... Naruto or DN alternate pairing (homo or hetero) doing all those sort of stuffs for the intent of making fangirls go WOOT, are those arts? Or a false/crude satisfaction of the hormones/desire?

You can turn on a filter to not see homosexual art.

As a parrallel thing though- I saw antiques road show today, and they had a bronze statue of a girl on a horse. It had little hinges on it. It was a VERY cheeky statue though, cause the hinges cause swing the clothes off her body ans show she was only whearing fishnets, boots and gloves. VERY artistic, and fun, and very popular. Art? Very much so. Had fine details and ALOT of thought. Tastefull? Boarderline. She's riding a horse with no pantys- it's vERY cheeky. If you think that's ok though, I can't see any issue rather than quality, or unease with seeing it at all

It's not so much the filter, it's the general thing as a whole.

For some reason, I find that more okay, perhaps because a statue is something the scuptor scult with a lot of time and effort, and not something a fanatic draws out in five minutes. But as for certain explicit Greek-like statues, I would probly have some problem with them too.

It could be quite subjective, but the thing is: when it's a real photo it is p_rn, so when it is a drawing of the same kind it's not? Are we just cheating ourselves under the excuse that "when it's drawings it's OK", while the same purpose is not different from p_rn?

It's a wishy-washy thing. But I'd thought: hmm... most of the explicit-celebrators are teenagers and young adults age 15-25 when they are in their prime (with lots of hormones cooking), IF they had been older people (60-70) when their minds are more settled down, would they have thought differently?

It's kinda like economy: some say let the market free, some say we should try to control it- there's little middle ground.

On Feb 7, 2008 4:50 am, puayen said:

I had a problem recently with a sumission in the RC, but as a Jr.Mod, I had to look past my own sensitivity and treat it the same as any other submission. People like different things, and if the RC hinders some of those things,  we take away some of the freedom of the internet. That's the beauty of the internet isn't it, the ability to go look at whatever you want and still remain anonamous. One can explore anything in the comfort of their own home, without having anyone ever know. As for the economy bit, if the economy gets stifled becouse of inhibitions, it suffers and consequently, so do the people relying on it (everyone). Laissez-Faire is a great philosophy when looking at the internet actually. Like I said before, if p_rn makes the world go round, so be it. We have enough regulations on morality already. I don't care what views anyone has, as long as they don't enforce those views on me, or punish me for not having the same beliefs. My big brother always told me: if its not hurting anyone, let it be.

On Feb 6, 2008 5:37 am, puayen said:

That is a far too generalized statement. Bordering on more offensive than some of the art you don't care for.

I can categorically state, that if I paint a picture with sexual content I do not "get off" on it personally. I'm not gratifying my hormones or some sexual repression. I am not a teenager, I'm 37, in a healthy relationship that is perfectly sexually satisfied. I don't need pictures.

Both John and I like tasteful erotica and don't get "titilated" by it in the slightest. The human body is a beautiful thing and people have drawn it since they picked up graphite stones and began drawing on cave walls.

The problem isn't the "art" it's your own personal reactions you are having a hard time digesting. Art is art, be it a five minute scribble from someone or a painting that takes weeks to create.

Period. Art is in the creation not the perception. Because Art is always in the eye of the beholder and no one has a right to gainsay another just because of repressed sexual insecurities or any other neurosy that affects the eye of the beholder.

I personally cannot stand tentacle hentai or shota, but you know what? It's still art, I just don't like to look at the subject matter. It's as simple as that. Issues with content not the art itself.

On Feb 7, 2008 8:20 am, fablespinner said:

Absolutely!!!  I couldn't agree more!

I take in a much broader view when it comes to what is considered art. I feel anything you see can be perceived as art, from the chair you sit in as you enjoy your morning cereal, to the car you drive to work, to the computer sitting on your desk, and so on. All of these things had to be designed and someone put a lot of work into making them. To me, EVERYTHING is art in one way or another, whether it be created by another human, or by nature itself. Why then, if not, do we enjoy painting/drawing/sculpting recreations of such things? So then, why couldn't sexually explicit content be considered art? I feel that sex, whether for the purpose of reproduction, or simply for pleasure as an expression of love between two people, is a very beautiful thing, and so should be the depictions of such acts in any form. That being said, there are some acts of a sexual nature that aren't quite straight in my book, but none of those are generally depicted in erotic art. Is it art to me? Yes, it is, very much so. May it be to others? No, perhaps not. Do I like all of the content? No, but do I respect each creation for what it is? Yes I do. To me it's a trivial argument, as there will always be people on either side, or even on top of, the metaphorical fence on this subject. As will there always be people creating art containing sexually explicit content. I'm not one to tell anyone that anything they create is not art, and as such, I feel people shouldn't tell me that what I create is or isn't art. To me, I create things as an expression of an emotion or occurrance that happened to me, and everything I create, or at least that I put effort into, is very special to me, so to have someone say that "This isn't art..." or "This isn't right morally..." etc. is highly offensive to me, as well as ignorant on the part of the person passing said judgement.

On Feb 7, 2008 4:50 am, puayen said:

I don't know about anyone else... a lot of people say they don't like five-minute art, but if it's attractive I don't care if it took five minutes. I can spend an hour and turn out something really sloppy and awful.

Be careful there -- to a certain extent, older people's hormones settle down, but there's also a huge gap in just how discreet these two generations are about such things. I would not be surprised at all to find out that a seventy-year-old with an artistic streak was doodling sexy things for her own amusement, but never letting anyone know about it. Younger generations (and I'm thirty and just getting into my yaoi fangirl phase, so watch it with thinking that anyone over twenty-five is old!) feel far more comfortable talking about this stuff, and are less embarrassed to admit that yes, they have sex drives, and yes, they read/watch erotica.

Perhaps... that's certainly something to consider...

"Art is in the creation not the perception"

Quite true, though as an extension- I also believe art is in the intention of the artist (e.g. if a very childish picture is created to outline the innocence of childishness, then its values are better than a childish pic that is drawn because of incapability, even though they look the same). There surely is a lot of "beauty of the human body" going on (like the paperdemon at the bottom of the page, perhaps?), but there are also undeniably quite a bit explicitness drawn for that effect. Often they look the same, but differ in intentions- the problem is to separate them. Might we say "let the beholder judge its intention"? Perhaps. Though if an artist's true intention behind his work is disregarded and the viewer is allowed to place his own perceived views, a lot of world famous things just may be eliminated.

"That is a far too generalized statement. Bordering on more offensive than some of the art you don't care for."

Yes, perhaps that is far too generalized a statement (and the number put to it is certainly a hyperbolic assumption, as I addressed later on). Please, do make peace and don't take much offense from it, Fablespinner.

"All of these things had to be designed and someone put a lot of work into making them. To me, EVERYTHING is art in one way or another, whether it be created by another human, or by nature itself. Why then, if not, do we enjoy painting/drawing/sculpting recreations of such things? So then, why couldn't sexually explicit content be considered art? "

That is so true, and a very strong argument too. If trees and cars are art, then why not explicitness? In a very Picasso or Michaelangelo way, I can see and to extents accept the explicitness in the works (pls don't use this as a counter-pt against me); however, when, say, I visit an anime convention and see all these fan girls/boys crazed on anime, dressing up as characters, Whooting at "hawt guys/gals", and drawing all these explicit things about them etc there seems to be something rather crude of the whole affair (no offense to anime fans). In Yin-&Yang terms, it seems the modern trend has led many people to open up all their Yin (dark) side and its desires unchecked by Yang (bright). It's perhaps the thing about over-liberalization of the soul: e.g. we are [almost] all humans who like to slack off and go into disorganization if given the chance. Compared to older times, esp with the invention of www, a lot of freedom is given, and we certainly see a LOT more "free" people now, and a lot too that let their crude behaviors go free (***referring to the web as a whole, not PD)... OK, this is going off on a tangent...

Back to terms, I see that this is a very sensitive spot which has been hit upon, and I think people are either on one side or the other (on on the fence) to start with, and it's very hard to convince someone one way or the other. But DO note that I am not pointing any accusation at the entire Red Curtain or similar category of art (as most people seem to think I am doing), I am merely pointing to certain hypothetical bits and wondering whether they have crossed the line.

PS. This post was started actually in reaction to a DA/PD artist's defiant/angsty reactions to her work(s) being taken down on DA.

however, when, say, I visit an anime convention and see all these fan girls/boys crazed on anime, dressing up as characters, Whooting at "hawt guys/gals", and drawing all these explicit things about them etc there seems to be something rather crude of the whole affair (no offense to anime fans).

And in the end that's your perception of a bunch of allegedly crudepeople that you also perceive to only get their kicks from pornography in the form of manga/anime.  That does not automatically imply every artist who embraces erotic anime/manga is inline with them or agree with their ideals. 

You mentioned that you meant no harm - non taken. [And you've been a true trooper under fire for prompting this discussion ]- and that you were not focusing on any particular group..however you have clearly stated your distain for one; Fanjerks.  We ALL have had a run in with - fanjerks who sour the convention/anime and manga fandom experience.  And they come at all ages... 

 I became rather disgusted myself a few years ago. I was surrounded by these people - I was a part of a local anime fan club that thrived off of the behavior you described.  I took a time off from the 'throng' and I found my own pace. My own way, so to speak. I didn't want to be influenced by the people who concocted their twisted standards of anime fandom. I didn't believe that I had to enjoy my anime/manga a certain way.  I sought kindred spirits...and I went to the source: Japan.   That's how I found my anime nirvana.

Fablespinner put it simply...you bring your own insecurities to the table.  

"And in the end that's your perception of a bunch of allegedly crudepeople that you also perceive to only get their kicks from pornography in the form of manga/anime. "

Er... actually, the anime fandom thing is just a tangent on the topic and is used as an example to imply freedom gone wild, not necessarily porn (though some directly does, and many embraces anime mostly or partly or littlely due to the genre's "attractive" style.

"That does not automatically imply every artist who embraces erotic anime/manga is inline with them or agree with their ideals. "

That's what I have been saying too (Though most people seem to perceive that I'm completely against erotic art).

"You mentioned that you meant no harm - non taken. [And you've been a true trooper under fire for prompting this discussion ]- and that you were not focusing on any particular group..however you have clearly stated your distain for one; Fanjerks."

Yes, ha, I feel like I am public enemy #1 now.

"Fablespinner put it simply...you bring your own insecurities to the table."

I sense that Fablespinner is deeply for the liberation of art and is quite offended by censorship/generalization/segregation in art.

Puayen, I think this is quite an interesting topic you've started.

This is a tricky line here. The Red Curtain used to be a lot more strict with what sort of mature content was allowed. It used to be we would only allow erotic art but would not permit the really explicit stuff. Our rule was that if the only emotion the work envoked was getting the hormones going, then it wasn't permitted in the Red Curtain. Now our rules have expanded quite a bit to include more hentai like art.

There is a stigma when it comes to art like that. There are a lot of people out there (perhaps mostly non-artists) who see that type of explicit artwork and consider it to be pr_n instead of art. And that's a bad thing because I don't want the Red Curtain to get the reputation that it is a pr_n site. Regardless of what the true definition of what art or pr_n is, a lot of people would consider it pr_n and label sites like The Red Curtain a pr_n site.

But I don't think just because something is an explicit photo doesn't mean it isn't artwork. Like puayen said earlier, if you take a playboy photo most people would call that p_rn. But if someone created a drawing from that exact playboy photo does that magically make it art and not pr_n? I think pr_n and art overlap. I don't think its just one or the other.

Someone mentioned the opening text on the portal page to the Red Curtain. I think that text is really outdated. I should update it now.

PS: I changed the topic title slightly to include [18+] along with a couple other edits.

"Puayen, I think this is quite an interesting topic you've started."

Finally, someone less aggresive (phew!). I is an interesting and philosophical topic, but also like a can of worms (it felt like I was on the firing range with people just peppering away with "you are so biased!" or something similar).

" It used to be we would only allow erotic art but would not permit the really explicit stuff. Our rule was that if the only emotion the work envoked was getting the hormones going, then it wasn't permitted in the Red Curtain."

I believe that's what I was driving at, but the wishy-washiness of "what emotion is there" and the term "art" is a major killer.

"Now our rules have expanded quite a bit to include more hentai like art. "

Hentai = pervert, right? So, "now we are allowing pervert arts to join". I uh... I just find myself sort of speechless at this sentence. Ahem... uh, why exactly are we expanding the rules that way (confused)?