Pornographic Art - A Case from Definitions

British Journal of Aesthetics 52 (3):287-300 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX


On the whole, neither those who hold that pornography can never be art nor their opponents specify what they actually mean by ‘art’, even though it seems natural that their conclusions should vary depending on how the concept is understood. This paper offers a ‘definitional crossword’ and confronts some definitions of pornography with the currently most well-established definitions of art. My discussion shows that following any of the modern definitions entails that at least some pornography not only can be, but actually is, art

Author's Profile

Simon Fokt
HTW Berlin


Added to PP

913 (#14,031)

6 months
173 (#15,648)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?