al shaikh
(K=15790) - Comment Date 11/29/2002
|
Somewhere between good and evil.
|
|
|
|
Jeff Cable
(K=3599) - Comment Date 11/29/2002
|
One person's nude is another person's pornographic image. Equally, what is strong willed to one person will mean stubborn to another. I guess the line is in one's mind Danie.
Cheers!
Jeff
|
|
|
|
Bill Akata
(K=2929) - Comment Date 11/29/2002
|
Is pornography necessarily evil?
|
|
|
|
al shaikh
(K=15790) - Comment Date 11/29/2002
|
Who said the pornography was the evil part.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 11/30/2002
|
I draw the line where the photo is deliberately created or used for sexual content.
A photo in a porn magazine might be artistic if taken out of there and placed in a book of artistic nudes.
A photo in that book would become pornographic if put in that porn magazine.
There are of course photos that have no artistic value whatsoever (except possibly the photographer's technical skills to create a well exposed shot).
What those are are in part due to personal preference and cultural influence on the beholder.
|
|
|
|
John Doe
(K=170) - Comment Date 11/30/2002
|
This is an interesting question and one that I have thought about and talked about with others numerous times. I think the answer is that there is no answer. The definitions of both are subjective to the viewer. In the end if you are pleased with your work than the subjective opinions of others don't matter. I'm not referring to the professional critiques, just the personal opinions.
|
|
|
|
David Goldfarb
(K=7611) - Comment Date 11/30/2002
|
The line is blurry, but here is my working definition:
Pornography is explicit and leaves nothing to the imagination. It demonstrates what is arousing to the photographer/writer/performer, and its success depends on the viewer/reader/spectator having the same particular erotic fascinations as the producer of the work.
Erotica leaves something to the imagination. It depends primarily on what is erotic to the viewer/reader/spectator. Its success depends on its power to suggest the sexual without closing off too many options for the viewer to complete the image in a way that is erotic for him or her.
|
|
|
|
Uncle Frank
(K=1642) - Comment Date 12/2/2002
|
"Where do you draw the line between nudes and pornography?"
At the mid point between images that glorify and those that objectify.
|
|
|
|
Emile de Leon
(K=64) - Comment Date 12/2/2002
|
Art encompases at least three levels, physical/emotional/intellectual acting in continuity. Pornography is acting at one or two levels, never a third. Art increases consciousness. Pornography increases waking unconsciousness.
|
|
|
|
Dimitri G. Varias
(K=255) - Comment Date 12/4/2002
|
I totally agree with Jeff.
The line is in each persons mind. Whether they have the power to convince or force it upon others is the deciding factor.
|
|
|
|
Vincent K. Tylor
(K=7863) - Comment Date 12/4/2002
|
I do not think either should be allowed on a PUBLIC website. That is just my own personal viewpoint and opinion. Younger people do not need to view images of naked women. It feeds their curiosity, arouses their sexuality and leads to more and more. Unlike many adults, they do not always know how to respond to these images which DO arouse their desires. The same can apply to some adults as well. Look at how many hits the nudes get...it aint always about the technical details either.
Fortunately (and Al knows how grateful I am for this) they have implemented the filters for those that do not want to bring those type of images into their homes. I actually had my step daughter and her friend on the site checking out some of the B&W images (how dare they) and how nice it was to know that there were no nudes at all. I definitely appreciate that and say a big THANKS to you all for doing this!!
|
|
|
|
Barry Tipping
(K=959) - Comment Date 12/14/2002
|
At a philosophical level, pornography is about sex and nudes are about beauty. However, as others have pointed out, it is the subjective opinion of the viewer that determines where the line is crossed. Put another way, pornography is an industry and nudes are an art form. Pornography as an industry that objectifies and exploits is offensive to me and I choose not to validate it by purchasing its wares.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 12/15/2002
|
Barry, how do you then view art showing nudes that is being sold or created on commission (be it paintings or photographs)?
Does the simple fact of money changing hands for the work change it from art into pornography?
|
|
|
|
Katty Houston
(K=42) - Comment Date 12/25/2002
|
Nude photographs are take to show beauty. The dictionary defines pornography as: Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. Nude photography is not intended to cause sexual arousal and is therefore not pornography.
|
|
|
|
Martin Fisher
(K=5393) - Comment Date 1/19/2003
|
I think the difference is in the eye of the viewer. At one moment a nude picture could envoke feelings of the awsome creations of our heavenly Father, to whom I thank for his greatest creation, Woman. At another moment, feelings of arousal, and at yet another moment, desire for deep sexual satisfaction. Where do we draw the line? Each within ourselves. I think that outright pornography is viewed only by a limited mind. I have occasionally veiwed "pornographic" material for ideas for my own photography. Lighting, and especialy mood conveyed can be learned from seeing what others have done. Not only for "fine art", but for retail sales. IE, see a copy of FM, or Maxium Mag. Excellent work, technically speaking. Occasionaly I'm impressed with more than work done, but feeling created. But usually the photo's are nothing more than soft porn.
The answer is, as always, in the eye and intent of the viewer.
|
|
|
|
Danie van Jaarsveld
(K=148) - Comment Date 1/25/2003
|
I agree that we do not all have the same distinction. For me to know where my line is I apply the following:
Will I show this to my family at the dinner table and say "Look what Pa did today " ?
If not, it is on the wrong line of our family's moral threshold.
|
|
|
|
Tom Meyer
(K=3514) - Comment Date 2/12/2003
|
Danie, your last criteria seems a little narrow. If you were a forensic photographer for the Highway Patrol, I doubt you would show those pictures at the dinner table. As it is, I'd not dream of showing my catalog work at the dinner table, everyone would instantly fall asleep, face down in the mashed potatos.Pornography is like rape, it's an issue of control and domination, it is not about sex, except when sexual domination is used as a tool of control. Pornography frequently has violence as it's bedfellow, but rarely tenderness or affection. These two conditions/attitudes (tenderness and affection) add greatly to a romantic erotic experience be it vicarious or immediate. Erotic love needs an emotional context. Romance has implied (and explicit) erotic components, implied or imbued by other attributes that enhance the erotic nature of romantic love, such as symbols of the sense of pleasurable touch and affection, facial expressions of romantic emotions, and body language and conditions reminisent of those the addressed culture associates with romantic love. These conditions of course change within different cultures. Which is one of the problems with posting erotic imagery on the www. Pornography has explicit sexual imagery that enhances the illusion of power and dominance. Love is not in the lexicon of the pornographer... t I hope I've got this right. I reserve the right to be persuaded. I'll check later to hear what you think :^)
|
|
|
|
Danie van Jaarsveld
(K=148) - Comment Date 2/19/2003
|
Fair enough T.W. Meyer. You raise valid associations and I have not considered the forensic scenario. For what it is worth, I have taken photographs of motorsport incidents that lead to fatalities, but have never published or made available for publication any of these images. Maybe I was unconsciously adhering to my dinner table rule.
|
|
|
|
David Doler
(K=467) - Comment Date 2/21/2003
|
|
|
|
|
craig auge
(K=552) - Comment Date 2/22/2003
|
its simple if the modle is over the age of 18years then its porn if the modle is under the age of 18years its art otherwise your ass is going to jail. At least thats how it works in america
|
|
|
|
Tom Meyer
(K=3514) - Comment Date 3/15/2003
|
this issue of whether the "modle" is over or under the age of consent is a legal issue, whereas the issue of nudes pornography is an aesthetic or possibly an ethical one. As we have discoved lately here in corporate america, the distiction between moral and legal is frequently more critical, relevant and important than the difference between legal and illegal. For me, if I'm wondering if what I'm about to do is legal or illegal then I know I first must back up and decide if it's moral or immoral and *that's* where I'll make my decision. Just because something is legal, doesn't make it right. You may have the *right* to do something, but that doesn't mean it's the *right* thing to do... t
p.s. it's model, not modle (which would rhyme with "noodle")
|
|
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13616) - Comment Date 7/13/2004
|
AS photographers WE should know what PORN is. But today it is hard to tell difference. Is my image attached porn?
|
|
GRACE
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 7/14/2004
|
Interesting. You've a prime example of glamour photography here which IMO isn't porn or nude (girl's fully if skimpily attired >:-)) but a separate category altogether (though there are obvious fringe areas where they overlap).
Without knowing the context in which this image is published it's hard to tell whether it is pornographic or not as a result.
As I stated over 18 months ago (old threats never die >:-)) context is often a defining factor in determining whether an image constitutes pornography or not.
Were this published on the cover of Playboy (or Hustler, Playboy might be considered glamour at least most of the issues I've seen over the years) it would be pornographic.
The same image published in the Pirelli callendar or the SI swimsuit issue is definitely not pornographic as the entire context of the publication is different.
Similarly this image could well appear in an advertisement for a line of swimwear or underwear (hard to tell, I guess the former) which would of course mean it's of non-pornographic intent as well.
Same with images published in pornographic magazines/websites. When and if they don't portray overt sexual acts many of them, when taken out of that context, may be seen as non-pornographic. It is the context (accompanying text and other imagery) which makes it pornography in such a case, not the actual image itself.
|
|
|
|
Gerry YAUM
(K=94) - Comment Date 7/19/2004
|
its all about the message you want to convey..I recently did some clothed/nudes of prostitution in Asia...I looked at a contact sheet a while back and printed up several images..the image I eventually chose included full frontal nudity as the others in the contact did..what was different was the MESSAGE the one image conveyed..In the image the woman was sad a bit frightened and a bit vulnerable...I wanted to photograph her in a way that showed how she felt about her work and how she was being exploited on a daily basis..in the photos I did not choose she looked more sexual more wanting the viewer..in some her legs were slightly open...the image I chose her knees touched and she was leaning away..
one image was much more sexual than the others...so for me on the same contact sheet there were what I would call more pornographic images and documentary images at the same time..the line is fine..
does it really matter thou? should the photographer not just communicate the message he wants to communicate?
Gerry
|
|
|
|
Lewis Walsh
(K=66) - Comment Date 7/19/2004
|
The law in the US (I'm from the UK btw) states that pornography is material that has no artistic merit and causes sexual thought.
The late Bill Hicks suggested this applied to most television commercials.
|
|
|
|
Kirk Teetzel
(K=427) - Comment Date 7/20/2004
|
The intent of the photographer (or vidographer, or whatever). When it all boils down, that is what it will come to. What was the intent of the person who created the photo (for this argument).
|
|
|
|
Adam Fillius
(K=72) - Comment Date 7/27/2004
|
I have a question... Are any of you that shoot nudes married? I have an interest in shooting nudes but my wife has a major objection to it. She sees all nude photos as sexual in nature, and just plain has a problem with me being around a nude woman. How do your wives see this question of nude vs. pornography? How do your wives feel about you shooting nudes?
|
|
|
|
Phil M
(K=11526) - Comment Date 7/29/2004
|
Hi Adam, I am probably not the best placed person to answer your question given that I have no experience of photographing nude women other than my girlfriend, but since no-one else has chipped in yet I'll give you my thoughts.
First of all you need to get your wife used to the idea that nude odes not equal sex. Try showing her some really high quality nude photography that is not at all sexual in nature, something like Edward Weston or Imogen Cunningham.. or other "classics". Then she will perhaps begin to appreciate that nude does not automatically equal sex. Of course I don't know the type of pictures you had in mind, but choose a photographer that you admire.
Hopefully your wife will realise that nudes are a valid and worthwhile subject for photography. However, there is still the issue of the feelings stirred up by you being around another naked woman. Do you have a model lined up, or it this all hypothetical at the moment? One possible solution would be to use her as a model to begin with, assuming she got used to the idea and was up for it. Then she might begin to relax more about the possibility of other female models. Say to her that she can be present at the photoshoots (unless of course you think her presence would totally distract you from the photography and make it pointless) to see that nothing untoward is going on!
So, there's a few thoughts for you, although as I said before I have no experience of shooting other women so I'm only guessing. I think though that you just need to approach this on slowly and sensitively and let your wife get used to the idea gradually. Don't push it; she'll be convinced you only want to do it to have an affair!
Regards, and good luck! :)
|
|
|
|
mick ryan
(K=160) - Comment Date 7/31/2004
|
I can't remember who said it but it was the response of an artist when asked by a female journalist about the nudity in his paiintings. He said 'Art versus pornography is a question for censors. I'm an artist.'
|
|
|
|
j h
(K=1593) - Comment Date 8/12/2004
|
For those of you who would shy away from photographing nude women because of the likelyhood of sexual stimulation, but who otherwise feel that nudes are an artistically appropriate photographic subject, what do you say about photographing nude men?
|
|
|
|
Tony Diana
(K=13396) - Comment Date 8/13/2004
|
La intencionalidad del fotografo es la que determina el tipo de fotografia
|
|
|
|
Jachariah
(K=419) - Comment Date 8/19/2004
|
It's interesting how people sometimes have a problem with sex and nudity. I never knew anyone that wasn't created from a sexual act, and I never knew anyone that wasn't born naked. It's all part of life, either choose to look at it, or don't. It is still going to be a part of life either way.
|
|
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13616) - Comment Date 8/19/2004
|
And the beat goes on. To some people a new born baby's butt is soft porn.
|
|
|
|
corey Armpriester
(K=99) - Comment Date 8/22/2004
|
|
|
|
|
ken krishnan
(K=19102) - Comment Date 8/27/2004
|
WE LIVE ONCE. WHY AGONISE OVER THIS ISSUE SO MUCH.
If it feels pornographi then its. If it feels artistic the so it is.
This issue is like the women themselves - very capricious. Damned if you do, Damned if you don't........
regards,
ken.
|
|
|
|
dal mandle
(K=1484) - Comment Date 8/29/2004
|
Nudes=naked and artistic
Pornography=naked and penetration
|
|
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13616) - Comment Date 9/3/2004
|
HI:
tHANKS FOR RESPONDING TO MY IMAGE. THIS PHOTO WAS TAKEN IN ATHENS, GA. THE HOME OF UNIVERSITY OF GA. IT WAS ON A POSTER. NO ONE STOPPED AND LOOKED EXCEPT ME. IN GA. I HAVE BEEN CRITIZED FOR THIS GLORIA SWNSON PHOTO ( LOL)
THANKS AGAIN.
|
|
gLORIA
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13616) - Comment Date 9/30/2004
|
Gloria is still beautiful in my mind... Thanks for all comments.
|
|
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13616) - Comment Date 10/11/2004
|
Sonny is dead and Cher will soon be a great 60. And the beat goes on about this issue. It will never be answered to suit everyone.
Chuck
|
|
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13616) - Comment Date 10/14/2004
|
Adam: You have a common problem.. It is not new. I have a friend in Athens,Ga. who shoots nudes occassionally (and spends quiet a bit of money on models etc. etc.) His wife is threatening to leave him after 36 yrs of marriage. I tell him that no nude is worth loosing his wife over. No, she is not a nagger-she is nice and smart, attractive. She will have no part of acompromise. Now in my case, I am almost 60 yrs old, been a photographer for a long time. NOT MARRIED... As a matter of fact I am mostly retired because of health reasons. But I still love photography and shoot some. BUT MY FAMILY AND FRIENDS ALMOST ALWAYS OBJECT TO ME PHOTOGRAPHING WOMEN WHOM ARE EVEN FULLY CLOTHED-MUCH LESS NUDES. Ask your wife if she would attend a shoot with you. You might be surprised how she would react. Let me know. Believe me ADAM it is not worth loosing a "good" wife over if that is the case. I am now learning "humble pie" since having a serious heart attack in 2002.
|
|
Some people are offended by this photo. Keep in mind I live in Rural Georgia.
|
|
Daniel Taylor
(K=3495) - Comment Date 10/21/2004
|
"Where do you draw the line between nudes and pornography?"
I don't because it's an artificial distinction and is completely the result of one's personal cultural and moral sensitivities.
I know people who would consider any nude, or even any slightly revealing image, to be pornography. I know other people who consider images of explicit sexual activity, including fetishes, to be fine art. The differences hang entirely on personal moral and religious beliefs.
A popular answer is that pornography is designed to arouse the viewer sexually, while artistic nudes are designed to stimulate the viewer's appreciation of the beauty of the human body. The problem with this is that the two are intertwined, and it's not possible for the artist to direct and control the viewer's response completely in one direction or the other. One viewer may become highly aroused by an "artistic nude" while another viewer feels no arousal viewing an explicit image. The artist can't control that.
For that matter, I'm not sure artists should try. What is beauty? Is it a pleasure derived from looking at something? Would we feel as much pleasure looking at ourselves (as a species) if we were not sexual beings designed to be pleased by our own appearance? Is beauty found in aesthetically pleasing shapes? How then do we deal with the fact that much of what makes the female body aesthetically pleasing (i.e. curvy) is related to reproduction?
Another definition is that pornography objectifies the human form. Problem with this is that the artistic nudes which are most successful at supressing sexuality seem to often be the worst offenders in terms of objectifying people. Seriously, do you feel any personal connection what-so-over to a bent-over-backwards shape with no head in black and white? Do you really see a person and make a human connection to such an image? I feel emotionally better looking at an image from Maxim. At least I can see the girl's eyes and smile.
There's the definition that pornography degrades and controls women. That gets shot out the window the first time you meet a woman who feels empowered by her, ahem, "performances". Am I supposed to tell her that what she feels is wrong? That she's really degrading herself? That she should make different choices? Am I not attempting to control her at that point?
Some may think I'm a relativist. I'm not. I believe very strongly in absolute truths. Problem is, I don't think there's an absolute truth to be found here. A person who finds sex to be beautiful will find beauty in "pornography". A person who thinks nudity is shameful will find shame in an "artistic nude". It pretty much comes down to that.
|
|
|
|
john klukas
(K=15) - Comment Date 10/26/2004
|
Just like with all other domains of photography the lines/rules are made to be broken. For instance, if the image is made to objectify then it is porn. Unless of course the objectification is used to make a point in the image, in which case its art. As for making beautiful images of naked girls, I think that is more akin to softcore porn than art. If there is no message except "this is a pretty girl/guy who is naked" then its not very artistic. I shoot nudes and portraiture and have grappled with this issue at great lengths. From Man Ray, To immogene cunningham, to Robert Mapplethorpe, to Helmut Newton, all people who shoot nudes and really care about it as an art form have given this great consideration. There is no easy answer as it lies with the artist. Personally, I try to use my nudes as a type of portraiture and capture something personal about the subject which you cannot extract from their image alone. This means that some peoples images are more graphic and direct while others are modest and laden with shadows. If you go into a shoot with a preconcieved notion about what you can and cant shoot, or doubt your motivation and drive as an artist then you are crippling yourself. Know yourself, know your reasons, love your art and everything else will come together.
|
|
|
|
Diabo
(K=2080) - Comment Date 11/27/2004
|
There is no single line between nude and porn. There are as many lines as people and these lines run parallel, cross each other, overlap, are perpendicular...
Perfect composition and lighting, creative processing, the result is art. If it display two or more people having sex, it's still art.
But your personal line might run different than mine.
|
|
|
|
Pico diGoliardi
(K=540) - Comment Date 11/28/2004
|
A cynical reply: the most rude answer is that it's about proportions - pornography is, in part, nudes which brainless couch potatoes all over the world will pay for. They certainly do not pay for Art.
|
|
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13616) - Comment Date 12/10/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Charles
(K=5248) - Comment Date 1/5/2005
|
I just posted a comment on another similar thread so some of this is the same.
A useful definition of porn should be able to distinguish it from artwork which is intentionally erotic. The more philosophical / religious question of wether erotic art is in itself bad is purely personal.
My view is that art necessarily includes as its subject all the important aspects of our lives and so erotic matter is valid even if , from a puritan standpoint, the approach may be disapproving.
So what is specific to porn? ... It s not only intended to be erotic but is also impersonal and devoid of originality, creativity and aesthetic value, ie just routine formulaic phoney eroticism.
I suppose the other related question is : does it matter? ... Even if routine and impersonal, "glamour" photos are unlikely to cause offense nowadays, except in some isolated communities, because the media have become so saturated with this kind of image that it is totally familiar. Whether that is a good thing is another, bigger, issue.
As regards "protection" of children from graphic depictions of genitalia or sexual activity, this is possible on this site by the filter system though it is a pity the filter automatically blocks all nudes whatever the erotic content (it's like covering up many public statues in major cities in case children might be affected by their nudity). My main concern is the association of sexuality and violence, often justified by the term "fetish art" and indeed any depiction of gratification by violence which is amazingly tolerated in films and TV for children. However it is interesting that countries such as Sweden and Holland with the least restrictions have low sex crime rates and I read that in the US the states with the most "conservative" and restrictive public attitudes have the highest rates of rape, teenage pregnancy and divorce.
Happy new year to all, Jonathan.
|
|
|
|
Kambiz K
(K=37420) - Comment Date 2/21/2006
|
Somewhere between sweet and sour
|
|
|
|
Paul Spencer
(K=117) - Comment Date 3/19/2006
|
You make some very interesting points Jonathon, and I feel that from a western point of view most of us would agree pretty much with your distinction between eroticism and pornography.
I am a westerner living in a predominantly moslem country. It causes me to, at times, have to really analyse my values and beliefs on these types of issue.
Longmans Dictionary defines eroticism as: "a style or quality that expresses strong feelings of sexual love and desire, especially in works of art"
Pornography as: "the treatment of sexual acts in pictures, film or writing in a way that is intended to make people feel sexually excited"
Oxford dictionary is almost identical.
The only distinction being the word "sexual love" or "sexual acts".
The actual physical result ie, the image, can for all intents and purposes be identical. Our own taste and value system being the only real distinction.
A photo of two attractive people making love with soft tones and beautiful lighting could be considered erotic by many people.
Take the same pose use ugly people and bright light and the photo becomes merely pornographic.
Now this is all from our western view point. To many Indonesians the two are equally pornographic, it is just that one looks nicer than the other. I can sort of see where they are coming from but I don't know who is right or wrong or really even if you can have a right or wrong on this topic. It is so much in the eye of the beholder.
As an aside, the new antipornography laws currently before parliment here, if approved, will ban exposure of the navel and the thighes as well as the obvious bits, weird hey?
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 3/19/2006
|
Jonathan is correct in stating that places with high tollerance towards sexuality have a lower incidence of sexually oriented crime.
But I think the conclusion he is hinting at (that high tollerance reduces crime) is incorrect.
Rather it limits that which is considered criminal.
In a society where by law a man cannot be considered to have raped his wife or fiancee, daterape and rape within marriage is nonexistent.
In a society where pregnancies of girls are not reported as such past age 15 juvenile pregnancies will be far less common.
Paul, Indonesia is getting ever more fundamentalist Muslim, ever more like Iran or Afghanistan under the Taliban.
The law you refer to is just another step in that direction, not weird at all under the shortsighted homophobic way of thinking of the religious leaders who now control a large portion of Indonesian politics and everyday life.
|
|
|
|
Paul Spencer
(K=117) - Comment Date 3/20/2006
|
You're right about the fundamentalist element in Indonesia Jeroen. They seem to be hijacking the democratisation of Indonesia.
I meant weird as viewed by the average westerner back home, who is unfamiliar with Indonesia's political and religious climate.
You are obviously fairly well in touch with what is happening here. It's good to know the outside world is seeing this and recognising it.
|
|
|
|
Chuck Freeman
(K=13616) - Comment Date 3/20/2006
|
I am going to post one more comment on this long, long thread.
We know Porn when we see it. In USA it is big profit. But, most persons are more than willing to kill, i.e. execute Child pornographers.
I ma like any other Guy, I like beautiful women. But, I'm finding out that it is beauty in personality and character that really amount to what I desire.
Another thing is : SELDOM WILL A STRICTLY "NUDE" PHOTOGRAPHER GIVE A CRITIQUE. fOR THAT REASON I SELDOM CRITIQUE THEM-DESPITE IN THE PAST I HAVE. THERE ARE A FEW THAT WILL REPLY ON THIS SITE, BUT I9 WILL NOT NAME THEM OF COURSE.
|
|
sOME HAVE BEEN OFFENDED BY THIS-WELL SHE DOES HAVE NICE FEET AS ANY 22 YEAR OLD MIGHT HAVE.
|
|
Cooki Lumsden
(K=271) - Comment Date 3/26/2007
|
AS a general (thus loose) rule, think action shots vs still life.
|
|
|
|
Jon O'Brien
(K=11321) - Comment Date 4/3/2007
|
Isn't this a long-running thread? Here's an interesting take on it. I was discussing "child porn" with a police officer friend of mine some years ago. Part of what he does is internet child porn investigations. He said: "If you cut out pictures of fully-clothed children from a catalogue and put them in an album for the purposes of sexual gratification then THEY ARE PORN and if we catch you at it we'll bust you." So from that point of view, the difference between porn and not-porn is intent (in this case of the beholder, rather than the creator).
Jon
|
|
|
|
Chris Mathers
(K=197) - Comment Date 4/10/2007
|
I think that making the viewer or or the photographer alone be responsible for the way in which the photo is viewed is useless. Both are to blame. Body-scapes are a prime example. The attached picture is a representation of the female body in a fuzzy sort of way. But that is my opinion. Could you hang this on your wall as fine art? Yes. Could you masturbate while viewing it? Also yes. That covers the audience. The photographer could have been intending to create a piece of art which simply examines both the natural curves of the female body and the interesting features of hands in one image. He/she could also just be creative in photographing breasts being groped. If the later, the picture loses no artistic merit but will obviously lose face value as the work will be presented not as art, but as pornography. Though should it be posted on an art site, the erotic nature of it can still be addressed by the public. Child porn is the same concept. Figure studies of children are possible but regardless of the artistic intent the deviant can still find them erotic and vice versa.
On the note of some other posters. The difference in shooting male and female nudes for art purposes is nothing. Only the idea being communicated changes based on the model you chose. In pornography the use of male or female models changes the image entirely. The audience changes with the sex of the model. With art however, the audience remains the art appreciative public. I am straight and have seen and can appreciate non sexually both male and female nudes. Which sex I enjoy looking at more depends entirely upon the mood I am in, whether I want to see the defined lines of a man or the flowing curves of a female.
I also wanted to comment on the post that it is "the lighting". While I have seen very well lit and fantastically shot pornography, for the most part they are very overly lit to cut out any shadows. Has anyone seen pictures of a pornography set? There are so many lights Im surprised none of the models dont get heat stroke.
|
|
|
|
Chris Mathers
(K=197) - Comment Date 4/10/2007
|
My picture didnt show up.
|
|
The reach around?
|
|
art ist
(K=5) - Comment Date 1/7/2008
|
Nude means without covering and is a physical fact. Porn is a mind set and there for an abstract.
|
|
|
|
Fabio Keiner
(K=81109) - Comment Date 1/17/2008
|
true art is pornographic (or it's not art). the real driving force behind photography (especially) is voyeurism (looking through the viewfinder) and/or exhibitionism: sexual organs visible... (s. the immense crowd of flower/macro photographers and viewrs: what do they want to see in their boring blossoms: symbols of genitals
:))
I hope that some good nude/porn pic here may arouse a little bit of sexual interest: the noblest task of true art - especially in a chronical impotent and castrate civilization like our famous western (i.e. american and we europeans modelled accordingly:))
true art is better than viagra
|
|
|
|
david turnbull
(K=94) - Comment Date 5/28/2009
|
The difference is simply 'INTENT'
|
|
|
|
Antonio Taliento
(K=361) - Comment Date 8/18/2011
|
“A distinction must be made between eroticism and pornography; the media have blurred the disparity to an unforgivable degree. For those intelligent enough to recognize the difference, erotica will continue to hold a unique fascination. Social evils should not be confused with the pursuit of true beauty.”
|
|
|
|
Antonio Taliento
(K=361) - Comment Date 8/18/2011
|
“A distinction must be made between eroticism and pornography; the media have blurred the disparity to an unforgivable degree. For those intelligent enough to recognize the difference, erotica will continue to hold a unique fascination. Social evils should not be confused with the pursuit of true beauty.”
|
|
******
|
|
Antonio Taliento
(K=361) - Comment Date 8/18/2011
|
“A distinction must be made between eroticism and pornography; the media have blurred the disparity to an unforgivable degree. For those intelligent enough to recognize the difference, erotica will continue to hold a unique fascination. Social evils should not be confused with the pursuit of true beauty.” — David Hamilton
|
|
******
|
|
Fabio Keiner
(K=81109) - Comment Date 8/28/2011
|
porn, porn, porn: it's the human form :))
|
|
|
|
Miaja Cob
(K=5) - Comment Date 5/18/2017
|
Electropolis offers a wide range of hidden espionage camera for recording or photographing.
|
|
|
|
