Why can't pornography be considered fine art?

The "line" you refer to is in the mind and eye of the artist and the collectors. I once went to a gallery in Soho (New York) where an artist had created huge oil paintings of a man and women in coitus (looking for delicate terms here... this is a public forum) pretty much in the style and tone of cheap porn.

It was not my thing, meaning I did not care for the work, but it was not because it was pornographic... though some might have considered it pornographic, I didn't.

The objective of pornography is very different, and it's obvious to anyone who produces or consumes pornography what that objective is. "Erotic Art" does NOT have that same objective, while it certainly may evoke a response, it's not purely and immediately sexual... more specifically, it's not generally a very literal fantasy or portrayal of illicit sex.

All that said, the line is very blurry, and this is deliberate. We label things pornography or erotic art, or just fine art, out of courtesy for the audience. The difference between a tasteful nude and one in the throws of ecstasy, or one engaged in a sexual act is that not every viewer is (or needs to be) prepared for that image.

I am a parent and an advocate of parents taking kids to museums. It's just not appropriate to show a young child sexually explicit images -- they're not ready, emotionally, to process the activities portrayed or understand their meaning. This is, of course, a values statement that some people will disagree with. In the privacy of a home or a private gallery, one ought to enjoy the liberty of free expression and display whatever they choose to call "art".

Take that outside, for public consumption, and it's just rude to impose that perspective and value on an unsuspecting, or potentially unwilling audience.

What is "art" -- it's what speaks to you. That's simplistic, but think about how many things you say to yourself, but you would never (or should never) say to another person. Or things you say in private conversation you would not say publicly.

Cultural mores often shift. What was shocking a few years ago hardly raises an eyebrow today. There are plenty of artists who strive for shock value. My guess is that is precisely what the painter of those paintings I saw was going after. I didn't find them especially shocking, or I did not find myself moved by the shock value of them.

I don't know where those paintings are now. Probably in homes and being enjoyed by collectors, I don't know. I do recall that Keith Herring showed in the gallery directly across the street from that gallery. I was at a very high-end art fair in Miami a month ago, and I saw some of his work on display and selling for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

There is that final consideration: the world is awash in pornography. The law of supply and demand still applies, whether you call it art or pornography, it's a lot easier and cheaper to find an image of a woman pleasuring herself than it is to find a truly masterful painting of a nude. And it's possible fewer people have the perspective that the image of the woman in a sexual act is appropriate for their home, gallery or museum.

I know many artists will dismiss that last statement as "commercial" and deny being that sort of sell-out... but I promise that gallery owners are very keen on that sort of thing.

The difference between a tasteful nude and one in the throws of ecstasy, or one engaged in a sexual act is that not every viewer is (or needs to be) prepared for that image.

Art and painting are learning something for us. If one want to art pornography it will be antisocial and harmful. Art is such kind of thing that can pleasure us. One the other hand we will be effected badly and emotional for pornography. So that I think pornography can not be considered fine art.

I think things are slowly moving in that direction. The internet has been opening up more possibilities. I think in the future you will see more sexual images in fine art. Sex is natural. It should be a major theme in art.

Fine Art Pornography

Good, one is only a portray that takes ability and concepts and a picture might simply be a snapshot. Some graphics are artwork, but pornography is pornography and any picture containing a naked character as "artwork" is just going too a long way. You need to appear at pornography? Then just be sincere. And well, take a look at who decided what "first-class art" used to be and produced it. You may see a sample of older guys. *shudders*

It's art if people support it as art, otherwise not, regardless of the content.

What's to understand. Do you think this is stuff is graven in stone somewhere.

Most people are just prudes, I think it's as simple as that. Why would an artist make something that people won't buy?

It can its called Erotic Art.