Erotica or not??????

[Tenpin Snapper]

:rolleyes: Hi there all,

I have been perusing the site and have seen some beautiful images. I am from relatively conservative country and was wondering what others thought was the difference between erotica (PORN) and art especially with images and nudes (implied or otherwise)?????:o What makes you think porn rather than art...where is the line...and is that line different if the image and veiwer are male or females?

Would love to hear your comments. Thanks:)

[Jaymz]

Pornography is easily recognized by most people but is often difficult to define concisely.

[rhys]

Porn has a sexual element designed not to shock but to tittilate. Generally women get offended at seeing nipples or the pubic area. Having said that a lot depends on culture. Most Arab nations detest viewing photos of women, seeing them as offensive. Some Moslem cultures are completely against photographic and painted representations of people too. Some cultures embrace pornography as part of their lifestyle.

[deadpass]

:rolleyes: Hi there all,

I have been perusing the site and have seen some beautiful images. I am from relatively conservative country and was wondering what others thought was the difference between erotica (PORN) and art especially with images and nudes (implied or otherwise)?????:o What makes you think porn rather than art...where is the line...and is that line different if the image and veiwer are male or females?

Would love to hear your comments. Thanks:)


see to me erotica and porn are completely different. If there was a continuum of decency with photos, for me it would go like this;
Implied nudes>artistic nudes>erotica>porn

For me the line varies greatly all depending on the picture.

[chris clements]

We're already falling out over definitions; erotica and porn are worlds apart, before you factor in 'art' :)

[Mathiau]

Porn is meant for the purpose of personal pleasure, sexually

to me a picture of 2 neked people being close is not porn,
2 people having intercourse - porn
one person touching another in those special place - porn

one kissing someone's body, in places other then those special places - not porn.

for me is easy to define.

And just because a picture is say black and white, or post processed to all heck, if it is the above, is the same to me.

[Mark_Cohran]

You've asked for a definition for something that's very subjective. I think you have to define it for yourself, and even then you may find that definition changing as you gain experience and your understanding and perspective changes. Those who believe in moral absolutes will have one definition and those who believe there are no absolutes and situations/relevanlies matter will most likely have another.

Mark

[Curtis N]

wondering what others thought was the difference between erotica (PORN) and artArt can be erotic, and pornography can be artistic. And the definitions of both are entirely personal.

[rhys]

2 people having intercourse - porn

And two people having intercourse in a book on human reproduction?

[CyberDyneSystems]

We're already falling out over definitions; erotica and porn are worlds apart,

This was my first reaction as well.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Pornography is easily recognized by most people but is often difficult to define concisely.


And after this post, there's nothing else to say IMHO,.
The worlds tried to define it for decades, the US Congress can't do it, dictionaries can't..

But I predict this will still go on for several pages as we attempt to nail it down.. :)

[Stavhp]

Cant remember who i read it from but he said the only difference between porn and art in a very carefully applied shadow

[rhys]

I predict an entertaining debate during which tempers will get frayed and eventually the thread will be locked.

Let's look at some of the issues:
What's good in one culture is not good in another.
What might be interpreted one way by one group might be interpreted in another by another.

Examples:
Britain bans brothels. Holland and Belgium licence brothels.
Britain bans carrying and (almost) owning guns. The US has the freedom to bear arms as part of its constitution.
France bans private encryption of data. The rest of the world does not.

The point is each and every viewpoint whether it be on the distinction between porn and art is based entirely upon a subjective personal viewpoint, based on the background of the individual.

I don't like many of the fashions aimed at young girls. I feel they're seedy and give the wrong impression. Others (mostly the manufacturers, fashion gurus etc) will disagree. People can argue until the cows come home what distinguishes porn from art and whether freedom of speech includes driving through Harlem denouncing its inhabitants with racial slurs over a megaphone.

I think the only thing to come out of this will be a heated debate that gets nobody anywhere before it eventually heads off into a flame war and gets locked.

[Mathiau]

And two people having intercourse in a book on human reproduction?

Good point, so i guess the method to which it is delivered can play a factor, for me, yes that would be education, but you dont see playboy being used in school either.

[sjafari]

I had to write a nice long paper about this exact subject a few years back. The whole paper kind of boiled down to my theory that Playboy effectively destroyed the artistic nude by mimicking the poses, gazes and props of classical nude paintings. Playboy was quickly associated with pornography, which then took those same classical poses from the art category to the porn category. once it made that jump to porn in general discourse, it could never be reclaimed by the art community. Thats just my humble opinion though.. and i sure got a lot of arguments from the classmates about my ideas.
Is anyone familiar with the work of Rober Mapplethorpe? I feel that his work has pushed and blurred the line more than any other artist in recent history. Rightfully so, it is very hard for many in the community to see a beautifully exposed and composed image of one man inserting two fists into another man as "art".
Oh, and theres about a billion other ways to divide porn and art. We're never going to solve this one.. :)

[JaertX]

My world is pretty simple:

Erotic art and porn are the same thing.

Artistic nudes are something else.

If you play with yourself to it, it fits in the first two. If not, it goes in the other. There's a person on here who takes very tacky nude pictures (or used to maybe...haven't seen them in a long time) and calls it art. I think it's porn, but it's gross so I couldn't ever whack to it. I guess being married or getting older changes the need to do that. I guess some people are offended by their "art" being called porn, but I still can't figure out why since they usually are the ones that go on about people being closed minded who don't like their art. Who cares if it's called porn?

When I was a kid, JC Penny's catalogs were porn. So maybe the word isn't so simple to define. Will this debate ever end? Beats me.

[Morgandy]

Interesting how people have given their own definition of porn as they perceive it.

I'm going to give you the U.S. Supreme Court's current definition of porn, as they see it, and as it has shaped decisions regarding porn over the past few decades.

Porn is something that is offensive according to community standards. This definition allows for different subjects, different genres, different community locations, and evolving subject matter. This is a truly wise, open, and wide-ranging definition that should serve its purpose for a long time to come. Obviously the judges figured out that using a strict definition of porn wouldn't work.

I got this information from a college course I took while in journalism school (many years ago). I don't believe the standards have changed since then.

[Tenpin Snapper]

[quote=Mathiau]Porn is meant for the purpose of personal pleasure, sexually

to me a picture of 2 neked people being close is not porn,
2 people having intercourse - porn

I agree....but is the line that simple??????????? what about two men in non sexual scene that mayeb are aroused...(no contact)......is that porn................and would it be diferently defined / classified if the veiwer was a female???

:o

[cdifoto]

Cant remember who i read it from but he said the only difference between porn and art in a very carefully applied shadow

It's in my signature, and I'm the one that said it! :D

[Tenpin Snapper]

Thanks for all the comments.

Am I correct in thinking that respondents to this thread were all male???

Everyone however seem to agree that there is universal no line that can be used to define an image. You all also agree that the test is individual perceptions and the "Purpose" or use of the image..........education or art appreciation......masterbation...........????

Using that idea for some a shoe catalogue could be erotic in nature!!!!!

How do the moderators determine what is acceptable image to be posted on this website??????

[tommykjensen]

How do the moderators determine what is acceptable image to be posted on this website??????

That is defined in the rules for Glamour & nudes forum

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=91084

[Claire]

Pornography is easily recognized by most people but is often difficult to define concisely.

Sooo true.

Implied nudes>artistic nudes>erotica>porn
For me the line varies greatly all depending on the picture.

Same for me I think.

We're already falling out over definitions; erotica and porn are worlds apart, before you factor in 'art' :)

Also very true.


Porn is meant for the purpose of personal pleasure, sexually

to me a picture of 2 neked people being close is not porn,
2 people having intercourse - porn
one person touching another in those special place - porn

one kissing someone's body, in places other then those special places - not porn.


Yes, to me porn is with the purpose to arouse sexually, but there is an incredbly fine line for me with betwen erotica and porn at times.

Two naked peoplebeing close to me isn't porn. Depending on the photo it can be anything from a daily snapshot, to fine art nudes, glamour, educational, romance or erotica.
Intercourse would be porn for me, but also erotica. Depends on the image.
People touching each other, well, that could once again me porn, erotica or photojournalistic even... Most likely porn though for me, with some images towards erotica.
Actually I was with a friend at a gallery exhibit in central Stockholm last spring. Very varied photos from many different photographers. Some were photojournalistic images, some very abstract artsy stuff etc. There were two series I remember. One with cows (cos it was really nice work), the other 2-3 very in-your-face shots of a man and woman (naked) with the woman obviously giving the guy a HJ. The light was crude and looked more like a "home movie still". But, it was blown up really big in a known gallery...
I also know of various known galleries in Sweden where some artists have made casts of genitals and exhibited those as well as paintings of genitals.

Art can be erotic, and pornography can be artistic. And the definitions of both are entirely personal.

I'm with Curtis on this one as wel.


Then we of course have the whole aspect of "what is considered sexually arousing"? I'm sure there are men on POTN who view the G&N as wanking material. I'm sure many do get aroused when looking at some of the women there. And then there are many who don't. Two men might look at the same two images, and get turned on by one of the, but not the other (maybe not even the same image).

As someone else mentioned he found JC Penney catalogues arousing when he was 12. I'm sure someone might find various lingerie catalogues arousing (even if the purpose isn't to arouse). Heck, I'm sure you'll find girls/guys on the beach arousing. Is that live porn?

Hm, and yes, then someone mentioned shoe catalogues. That's an entire chapter in itself! LOL

So, it's quite individual isn't it what arouses you as well...

[DocFrankenstein]

My lit professor says there's a power differential that's always present in porn. Erotica would have none.

[rhys]

I would find a photo of two men sticking their tongues down each others throats to be offensive. I would find a photo of two women doing the same to be amusing. Are either pornographic?

[Claire]

I would find a photo of two men sticking their tongues down each others throats to be offensive. I would find a photo of two women doing the same to be amusing. Are either pornographic?

Depends what the image looks like. Snapshot? Romantic? Obviously done with the aim to arouse? And of course it's once again individual if you'd get aroused by either, both or neither.

[symes]

And after this post, there's nothing else to say IMHO,.
The worlds tried to define it for decades, the US Congress can't do it, dictionaries can't..

But I predict this will still go on for several pages as we attempt to nail it down.. :)

You're prediction is proving correct...:)

we aren't going to nail down a definition here...it is far too subjective...

Some people have mentionned that if one is aroused or uses it for pleasuring oneself than it is porn...takes us right back to the subjectivity of the topic...some are aroused by violent scenes...and yet they are certainly not pornography...

there is a good reason why some of the top minds in the world (and I am certainly not referring to only the US judges) have left the definition so ambiguous...

While it is certainly fruitful to voice opinions, debate terms and further prove that we are very much a society of double standards when it comes to gender, I can't imagine the point of hammering out a definition in this forum...Some are going to find certain images porn while others will maintain they are works of art and neither side is going to give ground...They haven't since the beginning of mankind...

Cheers,

[cyberphonics]

I asked a similar question once on ModelMayhem and got yelled at LOL It's part of the reason why I don't like forums so much. There's always someone who wants to jump down your throat, give you an attitude or some snide remark, offer some negative opinion of you and your thoughts when you didn't ask for one, make assumptions about you and what you must be like or think - *shaking my head*

Since you asked it here instead of me, though, I can give my two cents on the matter without all the drama I got there when trying to do it LOL

Obviously, everyone has a different opinion, so no one answer is correct. For me, I like to keep definitions simple. If you wouldn't feel comfortable letting small children see it, I think you can hardly say you regard it merely as art and that there's nothing erotic, pornographic, or otherwise adult about it to you.

I think if something is art and only art, then it should be appropriate for any age because in my mind, pure art has no age limit. Once art becomes something that might be age specific, it has a higher chance of being part art, part erotica or not art at all.

I don't think you can really base it on whether or not the point is for someone to be aroused by it, because someone with a foot fetish can take a picture of a foot and get off on it every night along with their fellow foot fetish friends while someone without that fetish may just see a really nice picture of a foot. Hell, to a pedophile, the Toys 'R Us catalog is erotica.

In the same token, someone can take a nude black and white photo of a woman with her vagina showing in a very beautiful talented way and consider it to be art and nothing more while everyone else is thinking, "Dude, that chick's so hot, perfect little snatch on her, I'd totally bang that!"

Basically, I don't believe there really is a difference at all that exists outside of opinion, so the majority opinion ends up being what has to define it and at the end of the day, the safest bet to keep an image out of the realm of being erotica, pornography, or adult material to the majority is not to show anything directly related to sex or even directly hinting at sex at all and that would mean no "private parts", no suggestive poses or gestures, and the like.

Why? Because no matter how "artsy" it's supposed to be, it's still going to draw attention for the same reason that porn does - because someone is naked or doing something that looks or hints at something sexual.

Check out some of these huge portfolio sites where you can see the number of views on each image. Every time I come across an incredible photographer with incredible work, no matter how amazing all of their work is, any images they have that show a tit or an ass or a vagina or a penis, two women embracing each other like they're humping, a male with his head between a woman's legs - whatever they may be - those images always have exponentially more views than the rest of their images that are just artistically amazing yet don't contain any of that kind of stuff, even when the other images are subpar in comparison.

Even if you take two black and whites of a nude woman shot with the same incredible contrast in light and shadow with incredibly expressive lines in both shots, but in one shot, her hand is covering her breasts and in the other shot, her hand is elsewhere so her breasts are exposed, the shot showing her breasts will get more attention from the general public every time because no matter what creative way you want to describe them as an artist, they're still breasts.

That difference in attention that these images get from the public on average doesn't come from the art aspect - it comes from the sexual aspect - so it ends up being erotic whether you want it to be or not. The world may admire your ability as a photographer, but they'll still think, hey, why look at the pretty picture where nothing is showing when you can look at the pretty picture with boobs in it!

That's the way things are. Take a picture of a handsome, muscular shirtless man with a huge bulge nearly ripping his pants open and it's going to draw more attention than a shot where he's just standing there fully clothed smiling even if they're artistically and technically equivalent in quality.

I'm not saying people will think the more "erotic" images are better. I'm saying they gain more attention and it's because of their perceived erotic nature. The more eroticism there seems to be, the more attention the images will get.

In short, I don't think it really matters how we define erotica because someone can find eroticism in a picture of an apple if they wanted. What's more important is acknowledging the fact that you can't remove the erotic or sexual nature from body parts, poses, or imagery that are intrinsincally erotic in nature regardless of how creative you try to be with it. It can be art, but it will never be without that erotic element.

Not until the day when society stops associating reproductive organs and suggestive poses and imagery (like a woman on all fours with her back arched and her legs spread or a picture of a banana with something white squirting out of it) with erotica and sex - and do we really think that will happen any time soon?

[rdenney]

C. S. Lewis (bet you didn't expect a reference to him in a thread about porn) wrote that art probably should be defined by how it is received rather than by how it is intended. He distinguished non-artistic writing from artistic literature on that basis--were there readers who responded to the writing as if it was art? I read newspapers all the time and while I may admire the craft of the writing it does not affect me in an artistic way. But I have been forced to reread passages of literature ten times in a row because it just compelled me to do so.

That lends some credence to Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's famous definition of obscenity: "I know it when I see it." That statement was the basis for judging such on the basis of community standards--tying the definition to how people receive it rather than the elements actually included in the image.

And the standard that has been used for a long time--appealing only to the viewer's prurient nature--also is tied to how it is received.

That doesn't help the artist trying to dance along the line, of course. But my observation is that most artists who are close to that line are intentionally so, and know the risks.

Trying to define it by what the image includes is fruitless. The difference between having an artistic appeal and not can be a slight change in pose.

Rick "who defines 'erotica' as porn owned by rich and educated people" Denney

[number six]

I have a simple test:

If I yawn, it's Art (with a capital A);
If I like it, it's porn.

Works for me!

-js

[DarksideTi]

To take the debate further......

There are numerous classical art pieces depicting nude figures, nude figures touching etc, and many of these were painting done by artists that frequently used prostitutes as their models. Also there are infinite examples of art that depict sexual acts, genitalia etc, but many of these pieces are regarded as treasured fertility artifacts. There is no defined line for what is art, and what is not, there is only the line of what is culturally acceptable for the current day.

[RDKirk]

I think if something is art and only art, then it should be appropriate for any age because in my mind, pure art has no age limit. Once art becomes something that might be age specific, it has a higher chance of being part art, part erotica or not art at all.

I agree. But I will say that while art is not pornography, pornography is art...if it's good pornography.

C. S. Lewis (bet you didn't expect a reference to him in a thread about porn) wrote that art probably should be defined by how it is received rather than by how it is intended.

I am a great admirer of C.S. Lewis when it comes to religion, but I disagree with him when it comes to art. If Lewis is correct, then everything becomes art and the word becomes meaningless.

IMO, art is all about intent. At least, being an artist is all about intent.

I consider art to be the communication of emotion by sensual media, and IMO, a good artist can call his emotional shots the way Minnesota Fats could call his pockets.

Have you ever listened to Holst's "Die Planets" suite? Holst daringly calls his shots: "Jupiter, the Bringer of Joviality" is specifically designed to make you smile...and darned if it doesn't. "Mar, the Bringer of War" is designed to raise the hairs on your neck, and darned if it doesn't.

A good stand-up comic is another kind of artist--he performs his art with the intent of making you laugh (perhaps rufully).

So is a good propagandist who can rouse an indifferent rabble to riot with a single speech.

So as far as I'm concerned, art is all about the intent of the content. If the artist intended to arouse my libido and succeeds...well, I'd call that art, too.

[BobOh]

[quote=RDKirk;8209163]Have you ever listened to Holst's "Die Planets" suite? Holst daringly calls his shots: "Jupiter, the Bringer of Joviality" is specifically designed to make you smile...and darned if it doesn't. "Mar, the Bringer of War" is designed to raise the hairs on your neck, and darned if it doesn't./quote]

And in the only example I have heard of where The Planets were almost turned into porn...First you need to know that the Venus section of The Planets is called "Venus, the Bringer of Peace". While listening to Wisconsin Public Radio one time I heard the announcer say, "And now we will hear Penis...PARDON ME, Venus, the Bringer of Peace". I turned to my wife and said, "Did he just say what I thought he said?" One of the best bloopers I've ever heard. OK, back on topic (on which I don't have any other input).

[CyberDyneSystems]

Now I have "Mars the Bringer of War" in my head...
Once you've heard it live with a full orchestra....



Good luck sleeping tonight!

[Fade2]

I have a simple test:

If I yawn, it's Art (with a capital A);
If I like it, it's porn.

Works for me!

-js

lol
I like the way you think!
But really if there is insertion between male and female I'd say it's porn.
If there are pictures of women spreading eagle I'd say porn.

Anything else is ART.

[rral22]

For some, pictures of shoes are erotic.

The question can not be answered.

[Wilt]

There is 'art', there is 'scientific illustration', there is 'literotica' there is 'porn', and there is 'trash'.

For each person, according the mores with with they were raised, the distinction between the categories is a variably placed dividing line, and there is no single definition. To try to apply such a definition is simply blind ignorance to the standards which apply across humankind. The law attempts at times to rigidly define the terms, but the standards are constantly in evolution. The root problem is 'I know it when I see it" is entirely too subjective. Pornography is in the mind of the viewer.

[fotographee]

erotica can be respectable, but imo porn is not. Art on the otherhand is completely far from porn lol

[number six]

erotica can be respectable, but imo porn is not. Art on the otherhand is completely far from porn lol

Porn is the purest form of art. Its only purpose is to give pleasure.

:cool:

[mikekelley]

Isn't some art meant to also give pleasure to A. the viewer and B. the artist?