[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by tooblue

The Chit Chat thread about art set my wheels turning. For some time I have wrestled with the issue of arguments concerning art and pornography. Is there art that is pornographic and or may pornography be considered art?

Pornography most definately is NOT art. It never may be considered art for the inherant intent is to exploit.

However what of art? In particular I am fascinated by the situation where an exhibit of Auguste Rodin’s art at BYU and the exclusion of his sculpture ‘The Embrace’, in addition to other supposedly sexually provocative pieces.

I have to ask myself: what is Rodin’s intent … to exploit? Or are his sculptures a deft study and appreciation of the human figure? Based upon the common themes of Rodin’s overall body of work he most definitely was not compelled to sculpt intertwined male and female figures with the intent to exploit or even titillate.

His work ‘The Embrace’ is an earnest expression of the appreciation for the beauty of human form. There is nothing inherently impure or exploitative in the pose. To suggest otherwise is to fabricate false notions of purism in artistic expression.

That leads me to an interesting conclusion. While I have stated elsewhere that some art may be considered pornography, Rodins’ ‘The Embrace’ most emphatically is not pornographic, exploitative or sexually provocative objectification.

Ergo those who suggest that the work in question is pornography are in fact the purveyors of pornography. In other words they, the purveyors, have created pornography, not the artist.

You are a heretic for going against the lord's annointed