Jump to content

Photography or Porn - How to distinguish?


Recommended Posts

Since I became a member on Photonet, I make time to rate other members photos

which are posted. I have come across many occasions where I have contemplated if

the photo I am looking at is an amazing artistic creation of an experienced

photographer or simply porn. However, I reserved my comments being a rookie and

decided to create this forum to receive your feedback on the following:-

 

1.what makes a nude photo artistic and just that.

2.what are the differentiating elements between porn from art.

 

As a rookie, I sometimes find myself in the "grey area" and lost for answers.

Please throw some light to my question and this might also clear up the

confusion for new photographers that are interested in nude photography. Thank

you for all your comments. ~Gopi~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A nude photo is artistic if it is art. Simple as that. What is art? There is a lot of disagreement in this area. I am not disparaging the views of others, but I take a traditional view about art, having been trained in th fifties and sixties. To me art is based on drawing. YOU CANNOT DRAW, YOU ARE NOT AN ARTIST AND ARE NOT PRODUCING ART. That is my view. Regarding the matter of art or porn, there are three types of nude photography: art (includes erotic art), boudoir and porn. Porn is produced with the sole purpose of producing sexual arousal. Boudoir, at it's best, is a mixture of art and porn. At it's worst it is porn with some clothing. Gopinath, congratulations. You have the name of a very great avatar and spiritual master. Sri Ramakrishna was one of the most important men to ever walk the earth. Om shanti!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Porn" is likely the wrong term. I doubt there is any porn on pnet, at least according to USA standards.

 

That said, consider that if it looks like an ad or looks "playboyish", it is probably not a Fine Art Nude. If the model looks directly into the camera, expressionless or full of expression, or if the model can be characterized as a "type", ie, girl (or boy) next door, shy cutey, hot club crumpet, regal princess (or prince) etc, it is probably not a Fine Art Nude.

 

Probably 99% of Fine Art Nudes are b&w or toned b&w.

 

NB: this does not mean the others are not good photos and do not display artistry. It just means they aren't Fine Art Nudes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most (90%+) people are ugly when naked. I mean ugly: no excuses, wincingly hard to look

upon ugly. If you're enjoying what you see too much, it's porn. Justifications are millionfold

for nude pinups of hardbodies. In the forties nudes were universally called 'fine art' photo's

in an effort to mask the erotica that everyone knew they represented. Nor should one delude

themselves into the school that says if it's nude it's 'art' .

 

The thought behind the image is what matters: the communication between viewer and

artist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Bruce and Don E for your response. As you mentioned, "playboyish" which is not defined as Fine Art Nude. I used the word "Porn" based on the term from wikipedia i.e. Porn is, in its broadest state, the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal and/or sexual relief. I have contemplated using the word but it clearly defines itself as term right term I had meant. However, your explanation for Fine Art Nude and non-Fine Art Nude threw some light in perspective to my question. Thanks a million.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I believe nude anything (photography, painting, sculpture) is meant to celebrate the human machine, its mechanics, its grace or power ect....(exceptions may be if the photo is meant to be a social commentary where the idea can only or best be expressed with a nude subject)

 

IMHO if it is degrading to the subject or purely to stimulate sexually then it is NOT art, it is smut.

 

If I am looking at a nude photo, I want to come away with a deeper appreciation for the human body or better understanding of the subject or idea. I dont want to feel dirty after having seen it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When is a photograph porn? hmzz thats a tough one since ther are a lot of people who consider the work of Mapplethorpe as porn while others think its fine-art.<br>

I think it all has to do with what the photographer originally intended to express, and, even more important, what the viewer thinks he intended.<br>

Its a very thin line, I've done shots which I consider to be artistic but on forums tended to be pushed in the erotic scene.<br>

For me porn starts when i see sexual intercourse or explicit shots of genitalia, shots less then that are not considered porn to me.<br>

A totaly different thing is if I find a non-pornshot (but close to it) to be "classy". I usually don't, they are way to obvious focused on selling sex and most time lack any creativity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This really is a "Grey Area" as you put it.

If I am Photographing a female nude, she would be pretty disgruntled if I did not make her look sexual and appealing. But I would hope to this in a creative manner, not purely a "Tits and Arse" shot!

The photographer Jeanloup Sieff produced some pretty sexual images, however they could not be classed as Porn as they are thoughtful and beautiful. Anybody can take a Porn shot, only a good Photographer can take an artistic nude shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once upon a time it was written that the difference between a photo-grapher and photographer was that the former shot only naked women. For over 50 years I have been involved in photography, much of that time being paid for my photographic services. Over that time I have also engaged in many discussions on the subject of nudes, some similar to this thread. It is my general view that the attempts to elevate nude photography to the level of an elitist art form only provides cover for us men who just love to see beautiful women sans clothing. There. I am out of the closet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alexander Thompson - Thank you for your insight on the topic, especially that nude photography used to be termed as fine-art in the 40s.

 

 

Nicole York - it was very interesting how you have help decipher nude photography to distinguish porn from art. Thank you.

 

 

Olof Wessels - thank you for sharing your experience on nude photography. It was interesting that you commented that nudity that includes genitalia are more likely to be referred as porn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's an "elitist art form"? Anyway, the Fine Art Nude developed in the 19th century academies as a technical exercise to prove the student's competence, since rendering the human form was (and should still be) considered the most difficult subject. Perfect proportion, tonality, natural perspective, creating texture, and dimensionality being the point. I've seen drawings and paintings of nudes by Bouguereau that are simply astounding. Unless one sees such draftsmanship displayed 'on the wall', it is probably not possible to imagine the level of skill the "academics" attained.

 

Photography has added to the genre by leaving the studio and placing the nude study in the environment, in nature. Quite often the "envirnomental" nude is a much smaller part of the frame that in studio work. Weston probably started it.

 

The Fine Art Nude should provide nothing to hang your sexual fantasies on. There's plenty of cheesecake (Bouguereau was great at it) masquerading as 'fine art' for that. Though some photographer's working in that genre test the boundaries of that by having the model express a personality -- what I call "charaterization" -- so that a connection is made with the spectator. Enjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don E. - Thank you once again for imparting your extensive knowledge on Fine Art Nude and the required competencies in general. It is ashamed that we don't find many that match the caliber of astounding photographers such as Bouguereau, Jeanloup Sieff and Ruth Bernhard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone heard of the Kama Sutra ? Written and illustrated 2000 years ago. Carvings

sculptures, coins and yes.. toys all depicting graphic sexual positions and erotic instructions.

I don't think it's a big leap to imagine if a DSLR and a color printer was handy on the Indian

sub-continent at that time that it would not have been put to good use for the same.

Nothing on PN comes close to the graphic nature of the Kama Sutra, lots of pretty 'tacky"

pics, houswives from the local mall dollyed up for a session at thier local photo studio and

some really beautiful photos of the naked form. But pornography ? I don't think so. It's all

about perception and depending on which culture you were bought up in then this is how

your world will be colored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the feeling from many of the postings above that people feel that a nude has to be

"attractive" or "beautiful" or "artistic" to be art. But you only have to look at Irving Penn's

book of nudes to see that this type of sterotypic view is not really true; or look at some of

the Araki nudes. Then read Kenneth Clark's <i>The Nude</i> for a history of the nude in

art. You might also think about the difference between the "naked" and the "nude".

<p>

Indeed there is nothing special about determining what is art when dealing with a nude

that you wouldn't consider in any other picture -- and standards and views change over

time. In some countries hyprocrisy and prudishness is stronger that in other ones. In any

case, have a look at the introduction to Gombrich's <i>The Story of Art</i>, which is the

best general introduction to the history of art, in which he contrasts a drawing by Durer of

his old mother with a cherubic picture of by Rubens of his baby son. The latter is very

pretty and sweet, while the Durer is a picture of old age, which is not, in itself attractive.

However, Gombrich explains that the Durer is beatiful because the deep truth and love

with which it was obviously drawn. You can look at nudes in the same way and make your

own judgments without anyone else telling you what you should think.

<p>

So what do you think of the following two pictures?

<p>

<center><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/223/535767173_b51fea2790_o.jpg"

width=572 height=864></center>

<p>

<center><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/227/535779761_ebf46c23b5_o.jpg"

width=864 height=577></center>

<p>

And if you want to see these picture in context you can look at this

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/sets/72157594271568487/

show/"><u>slideshow</u></a>, which has 112 pictures, in dour chapters although

there are no chapter titles.

<p>

--Mitch/Bangkok

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's my policy not to comment online photos, nor solicit comments for mine. What I know about art is that a lot of it is bad art, a lot of it is mediocre art, and a little bit of it is good art. Fine Art is a genre and is not all art (or all good art). It is just a genre of art.

 

An interesting display of the Fine Art Nude in photography is pnet member Zoe Wiseman's site:

 

http://www.zoewiseman.com/index2.htm

 

Imo, not all of the photos under the Fine Art Nude menu belong there, but nearly all of them display the aesthetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Nic Bower. Thank you for your comments. However, I would like to correct what you had written about the Kamasutra. You had mentioned "Nothing on PN comes close to the graphic nature of the Kamasutra..".

 

This might be out of context in this forum but I thought it would be worth clearing up since Kamasutra is mentioned as graphic. The very translation of the term Kamasutra, whereby Sutra (shastra) refers to "scripture" and not any form of graphic art. Nothing graphic yet until the end of 19th century when Sir Richard Burton together with Indian scholars translated it into English and of course lots of photos exemplified for the layman. Tantric text is often misconstrued for Kama Sutra. This again is perception and nothing to do with culture. So the drawings or art you were referring to are probably creations much later in books published in the West. This once again is often wrongly referred to as Kamasutra when it actually means Tantra which is a very very different scripture.

 

My humble apologies for dwelling out of topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Gopinath. The works of Vatsyayana, Kokka, Jyotirisvara, Gunakara, Jayadeva, Bhanudatta,

Kalyanamalla, i have all lumped together rightly or wrongly as the "kama sutra" - In any case

there was plenty of T & A depicted in the 1st and 2nd centuries !!! cheers, Nic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a comment to the photos that Mitch posted: maybe the difference between artistic nudes and porn is the difference between the photographer expressing appreciation of the model or just exploiting its features.

 

I think one problem with finding a satisfying answer is that you can still find photographs involving nudity that fall in other categories than these two (artistic and porn). Some photos are using bodies in unnatural positions - they don't feel like porn, but I don't feel they are very artistic either, regardless of the technical expertise involved - they just feel like contrived ad setups. Some photos appear to just document a person that happens to be fully or partially naked - the photograph can have value as a historical document, with it being neither artistical nor porn. Some photos may just document genitalia for medical purposes, again, being neither art nor porn. There are certainly other such examples.

 

Another problem, and this is probably the most difficult one, is that because of our upraising, we have different reactions to the naked body - we don't respond to it in the same way, hence photographers will react differently to a body, deciding on various aspects as being worthy of praise, and viewers will react differently to the resulting photograph. This is why some photos will be just documenting the photographer's obsessions, which may be construed as either porn or art depending on whether the viewer shares those obsessions or not.

 

Lots of gray areas here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...