Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Glamour & Nude Talk
Thread started 25 May 2016 (Wednesday) 12:47
Prev/next

Fine art nude vs Pornography

 
fourfa
Member
fourfa's Avatar
185 posts
Joined Nov 2015
Los Angeles, CA
May 25, 2016 12:47 |  #1
banned

Pornography is in the eye of the beholder; but so is art. In my view nudity in itself is not pornographic per se.

It is all about quality, taste and in some extent intent.

Is Michelagelo's David porn? Are Boticelli's paintings porn? If not why not?

Pornography and art are not mutually exclusive. You may argue that Henry Miller's books are pornographic, but they are also considered works of literature.

What you find on porn sites is almost all not art, but then most of the stuff some photographers label as fine art isn't either.


“Photography for me is not looking, it’s feeling. If you can’t feel what you’re looking at, then you’re never going to get others to feel anything when they look at your pictures.”
— Don McCullin

LOG IN TO REPLY
steve126a
Member
125 posts
Joined Mar 2013
Michigan
May 27, 2016 14:41 |  #2

Simply, pornography is an image or video designed to illicit a sexual response from the viewer. Obviously images that portray or insinuate sexual acts would clearly be classified as pornography. Images that portray a nude form in a non-sexual manner should not be considered pornography.


Canon EOS 5D Mark III | Canon EOS 6D | Canon 85mm ƒ/1.8 | Canon 100mm ƒ/2.8 Macro | Canon 24-70L ƒ/2.8 II | Canon 17-40L ƒ/4 | Canon 70-200LII ƒ/2.8 | Canon 135L ƒ/2| 2 Canon 580EX II's | Canon 430EX II

LOG IN TO REPLY
losangelino
Senior Member
Joined Jul 2012
Post has been last edited over 1 year ago by losangelino. 3 edits done in total.
May 27, 2016 15:25 as a reply to steve126a's post |  #3

@Steve... I think your definition of pornography is too broad. There are many images and videos that illicit a sexual response from a viewer. E.g. am image of lips sucking on a cherry would meet your definition for some in that it could illicit a sexual response. But such image would not in US or western courts meet the definition of pornography.

A simpler definition of porn is that it is an image or video or another form of artistic expression designed for the main purpose of creating sexual arousal and / or sexual release the viewer. Meaning something that was made for sex or masturbation. But even this definition does not exclude it from being artistic. It just may not be appropriate for all ages.

I would argue that all porn is art. As it is still an artistic expression whether it is fine art or not depends on the viewers and the standard by which it is judged. Some 1900s porn is no longer porn by today's standard and can fall into the realm of fine art. But not all art is all-ages appropriate.

In sum, any artistic expression including porn can be argued to be art. And the viewer or a culture using his or her or its own lenses will have to determine if it is porn or art or fine art. It doesnt really matter. There is just art that people can connect with in someway or it doesnt.

If the question has to do with public presentation such as obscene vs art. US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said in Jacobellis v Ohio
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

I guess you know it when you see it.



Flickr (external link)
IG: @spyology (external link)
IG: @photomagicology (external link)
website: ClothesAndDagger.com (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
OhLook's Avatar
15,192 posts
Gallery: 64 photos
Joined Dec 2012
California: SF Bay Area
May 27, 2016 18:16 |  #4

losangelino wrote in post #18021032 (external link)
A simpler definition of porn is that it is an image or video or another form of artistic expression designed for the main purpose of creating sexual arousal and / or sexual release the viewer. Meaning something that was made for sex or masturbation.

Wow, what a male-centered definition that is! Perhaps I'm being naive, but don't people ever look at porn just to enjoy it visually or because they're curious?


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS FOR YOU: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.) | IMAGE EDITING OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
PineBomb
I have many notable flaws
PineBomb's Avatar
Joined Apr 2014
Psych Ward, East Wing, USA
May 27, 2016 18:42 |  #5

OhLook wrote in post #18021164 (external link)
Perhaps I'm being naive, but don't people ever look at porn just to enjoy it visually or because they're curious?

Yes. Justice Stewart for instance. ;-)a


-Matt
Website (external link) | flickr (external link) | instagram (external link) | street portrait project on instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Copidosoma
Goldmember
Joined Jul 2009
Edmonton AB, Canada
May 29, 2016 15:45 |  #6

OhLook wrote in post #18021164 (external link)
Wow, what a male-centered definition that is! Perhaps I'm being naive, but don't people ever look at porn just to enjoy it visually or because they're curious?


I don't understand how this is 'male-centered'.

Unless you are suggesting women don't seek arousal or sexual release. Which would be silly.


Gear: 7DII | 6D | Fuji X100s |Sigma 24A, 50A, 150-600C |24-105L |Samyang 14 2.8|Tamron 90mm f2.8 |and some other stuff
http://www.shutterstoc​k.com/g/copidosoma (external link)
https://500px.com/chri​s_kolaczan (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
OhLook's Avatar
15,192 posts
Gallery: 64 photos
Joined Dec 2012
California: SF Bay Area
May 29, 2016 16:13 |  #7

Copidosoma wrote in post #18022926 (external link)
I don't understand how this is 'male-centered'.

Unless you are suggesting women don't seek arousal or sexual release. Which would be silly.

It's male-centered because men are known to connect sex with vision more than women do. I didn't know about men's private use of pictures, for instance, until I was well into adulthood; apparently it's very common, perhaps universal. A film with a sexual subject might be used as a stimulant, as Post #3 says, but it might also be viewed for entertainment only. One needn't watch a film as part of a plan to go and do something.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS FOR YOU: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.) | IMAGE EDITING OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
Copidosoma
Goldmember
Joined Jul 2009
Edmonton AB, Canada
May 29, 2016 16:18 as a reply to OhLook's post |  #8

women are pretty well known to enjoy their porn too. Possibly different subject matter (not always) or emphasis but visual stimulation isn't gender specific.


Gear: 7DII | 6D | Fuji X100s |Sigma 24A, 50A, 150-600C |24-105L |Samyang 14 2.8|Tamron 90mm f2.8 |and some other stuff
http://www.shutterstoc​k.com/g/copidosoma (external link)
https://500px.com/chri​s_kolaczan (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Copidosoma
Goldmember
Joined Jul 2009
Edmonton AB, Canada
May 29, 2016 16:24 |  #9

FWIW

I'd argue that all porn is art and almost anything can be porn (show some people a picture of a foot and they get turned on).

The distinction has vastly more to do with how the person viewing it is interpreting it (and/or being affected by it) than it has to do with the material itself. Which is why it is so hard to say, "this is pornographic but this isn't". Ultimately the distiction is sort of a value judgment and everyone has their own point at which something crosses the line. Granted, some things are further along the spectrum either way.


Gear: 7DII | 6D | Fuji X100s |Sigma 24A, 50A, 150-600C |24-105L |Samyang 14 2.8|Tamron 90mm f2.8 |and some other stuff
http://www.shutterstoc​k.com/g/copidosoma (external link)
https://500px.com/chri​s_kolaczan (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
scriveyn
Goldmember
scriveyn's Avatar
Joined Jun 2011
SW Germany
Post has been edited over 1 year ago by scriveyn.
May 29, 2016 16:36 |  #10

@steve126a + losangelino: in your posts it should read elicit, not illicit.

Besides, humankind is as far away from defining what art is as it from defining pornography.


Frank, also known as jazzman
C&C welcome
Image Editing OK (for reposting in the same thread)

I Jazz

LOG IN TO REPLY
PineBomb
I have many notable flaws
PineBomb's Avatar
Joined Apr 2014
Psych Ward, East Wing, USA
May 29, 2016 16:55 |  #11

The only reason to define pornography is to distinguish it from other forms of art. That distinction is the purpose for which it was created--i.e., to stir the freaky beast within.

Once it's created, viewers can watch it for whatever reason they please or admit--sexual curiosity, educational curiosity, censorship, etc. Creators and viewers alike are often cagey about their intentions and in some cases for good reason. Is there a difference between pornography with a a little added literary merit vs a dramatic film with a little added unsimulated sex? It depends on who you ask.


-Matt
Website (external link) | flickr (external link) | instagram (external link) | street portrait project on instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,600 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
May 29, 2016 17:29 |  #12

Call it what you like. If you don't like it, please feel free to not look at it. I think anyone should be allowed to create, view, distribute any kind of images they want, provided no laws were broken in the making of said images. You know, murder, child abuse, those kinds of things. The First Amendment is still valid. So is the Second, should you decide to trample on the my rights under the First.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
OhLook's Avatar
15,192 posts
Gallery: 64 photos
Joined Dec 2012
California: SF Bay Area
May 29, 2016 19:00 |  #13

Copidosoma wrote in post #18022952 (external link)
visual stimulation isn't gender specific.

Pardon me, but researchers have found that there is a difference. I don't make these things up.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS FOR YOU: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.) | IMAGE EDITING OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,600 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
May 29, 2016 19:58 |  #14

Gotta chime in with Spiderwoman, here. She is right. While some members of each sex enjoy visual erotica, the trait is predominantly male.

It still comes down to matters of degree and kind. I don't like all movies. I don't like all photos. This is irrespective of content, the judgement of which should ALWAYS be in the eye of the beholder. If you don't like my photos, or my home videos, that is OK with me, don't view them. That said, the producing artist should be realistic with the consuming public about the content of his (her) productions.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
nathancarter
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2010
May 31, 2016 09:56 as a reply to OhLook's post |  #15

scriveyn wrote in post #18022977 (external link)
@steve126a + losangelino: in your posts it should read elicit, not illicit.


I kinda like "illicit" in this context. :)


http://www.avidchick.c​om (external link) for business stuff
http://www.facebook.co​m/VictorVoyeur (external link) for fun stuff

LOG IN TO REPLY

8,829 views & 8 likes for this thread
Fine art nude vs Pornography
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Glamour & Nude Talk

Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.0009 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.04s
Latest registered member is Fishingaddict
923 guests, 434 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016