Photography or Porn - How to distinguish?

Hi again Nic Bower. Thanks for your comments. I was just making a point that it was unnecessary to state "Nothing on PN comes close to the graphic nature of Kamasutra". It is simply unnecessary.

 

However, I do agree with you that sexuality took its form through art in the earlier centuries. It is interesting to note that erotism is depicted in ancient history in countries such as India, China, Japan. So did the Greeks and Romans thousands of years ago.

 

You also mentioned "It's all about perception and depending on which culture you were bought up in then this is how your world will be colored." The culture of the above countries such as India, China and Japan are all Asian where "erotic depiction" of some form were created. So asian cultures are not ruled out since ancient artifacts prove the existence of "erotic depiction" too. Please explain what do you mean by perception and depending on culture when Asian countries in the early days had "erotic depictions" in them too. I am using asian countries as an example. How would someone from such cultural background depict the so-called photograph as art or porn? What is the challenge faced by this person to make the distinction? Please throw some light to my question. Thank you.

Hi Laurentiu. Thank you for your intelligent observation pertaining to the reaction of every individual differs when viewing artistic nudes/porn. So clearly one of the "variable factor" is the background or upbringing of the viewer from your point of view.

Hi Gopinath; there is no challenge. If you grow up in a society that says nakedness is porn yet

a photograph on the front page of a national news paper showing a decapitated head with

blood oozing out is quite normal (Indonesia for example); then there is no challenge. It is

your culture that determines how you percieve everything around you. PN being US centric

obviously suffers from this as well - as we constantly see puritan values pop up here.

Culturally determined -- absolutely. Here is Thailand the Ministry of Culture keeps on

going on about young women wearing "spaghetti-strap" tops, which are in no way as

scanty as halters worn in summer in the West, as being "un-Thai". However, a hundred

years ago young Thai women often went topless, even in the royal palace. They covered up

during in the thirties under the westernizing, fascist inspired, nationalist prime minister,

Pibulsongkram. At one point he decreed that all people coming into Bangkok had to wear

hats and shoes, to be "civilized". Shops sprung up at the outskirts of the city that rented

hats and shoes to farmers coming into town.

 

--Mitch/Bangkok

Probably all academic art would appear pretentious to us; 19th century pictorialist photography, which adopted the conventions of the academics will have a similar effect. We're not here -- at least I'm not -- to critique online images. A pretentious activity if there ever was one.

 

I gave those examples to support my point that the intent of Fine Art Nude work is divorced from not merely pornography, but the common run of nudes photos.

No we're here for discussion, and it's impossible to discuss such a topic intelligently without

making judgments. Therefore, I'm not that impressed with repeated statements, rather

posmpous, statements that we're not here to evaluate of criticize online images because that

would make for rather unintersting discussions.

 

--Mitch/Bangkok

Thank you Nic Bower for your comments once again. I am trying to grow into photography with the right mindset and maturity especially when I look at a photo which is disputable. In this forum, it is nudity although it can be in the context of any genre. It is also difficult not to be influenced by being bias when looking at a photo, especially when it receives disputable comments from what you actually see. However, the eyes don't lie based on perception.

...or does it...?

Why does it matter? In the US pornography is legal. OBSCENITY is what is illegal.

Hi Daniel. Please read the heading. Not relevant to legality.

"...rather posmpous, statements that we're not here to evaluate of criticize online images..."

 

Criticizing online images as they appear on your computer display. You and others may be here to do that. I am not, so there is no "we".

 

"Posmpous (sic)", is nice. So is "pretentious". You do realize they are not criticisms of a photograph, but of the photographer? Not of what is written, but who wrote it? Perhaps not.

 

I think it is pretentious of someone who knows better pretending they are critiquing someone's photographs when what they are doing is criticising the images displayed on their computer. They are pretending. Same root, etymology, and meaning as pretentious.

 

Such a pretense, is, of course, the life's blood of sites like photo.net. So, 'the law' is on your side in this.

It remains my view that The Emperor, and his models, still wear no clothes.

Criticism of a photographer rather than of her work? Really? I don't know anything about the

photographer in question except the work shown on her website; and, once something is

shown to the public it can, and should, be evaluated and ciriticized, if that is what people

want to do. And I still think that the "Fine Art Nudes" series is pretentious. Is the

photographer pretentious? I've no idea; perhaps she makes good money this way. I certainly

don't mind if people evaluate my work: some people will like it; others won't. No big deal.

 

--Mitch/Bangkok

Dear all,

please do not use this forum as an avenue for wordplay and slandering/ridiculing each other. I respect all your views and thank you for the effort and time you have put in this forum. It is definitely a topic which has been in debate for a long time which is a matter of opinion and there is clearly no right or wrong. Thank you all for sharing your opinions.

Gopinath, you don't have to feel proprietary about this thread just because you started it. I

haven't slandered anyone by saying that the Fine Art Nude to which someone provided a link

is pretentious. Nor is there word paly or slandering, or even ridiculing here. This is a

discussion; please don't try to stop it.

 

--Mitch/Bangkok

Hi Mitch Alland. Not trying to stop anything nor did I mention anything about stopping this thread since I got the ball rolling in the first place. However, it was pretty obvious that the forum became You and Don E and it was noticeably drifting away. Please refer to both of your comments and it should speak for itself. I never claimed proprietary for this thread but just wisdom from it. There is nothing wrong when I direct the thread back to perspective (responsibility of all that care as members of PN).

Besides, take a chill pill! I was not even accusing you of slandering or ridiculing anyone. Read my last comment which starts with "Dear all". I do have a day job and don't intend to make this thread my life by claiming proprietary (thats exaggeration and am kidding!!). Cheers!

getting back to some really cool photography now and I would like to hear your comments

(porn or not) after looking over this site - http://tokyoundressed.blogspot.com/

This is wonderful stuff.

He (Rikki Kasso) has some very interesting creations, nude and other genres. I will be back later with my comments, Nic. Thank you for your contribution. ~Gopi~

Gopinath, I'll retire from the discussion. No problem. No stress.

 

"I certainly don't mind if people evaluate my work: some people will like it; others won't. No big deal"

 

I've got 5 computer displays plus two laptops here. Calibrated, uncalibrated, lcds, crts, 20 inchers to 14 inchers, and from 1600x1200 to 800x600 screen resolution. Your images (above) look different in each of them. This is one of many reasons why I don't critique images displayed in web browsers. Perhaps I take it too seriously.

Hi Don E. Thank you once again for sharing your thoughts and believes based on your experiences in photography. I am still on the quest for knowledge here and intend to come out wiser...hopefully..hehehe.

Hi Don,

why do you even bother opening your web browser at all ??? You've got some interesting pics

in your gallery - should i just dismiss them as little boxes of color and then ask you to print

off some really big ones. send to me and then I'll let you know if i think i like them or not ?

 

Like most threads and discussions on PN they always lead to the same tit for tat dribble,

become personal and useless - maybe all nudes/porn should be banned, there's obviously

enough masturbation going on in these forums already.

<i>getting back to some really cool photography now and I would like to hear your

comments (porn or not) after looking over this site...</i>

<p>

Nic:

<p>

I'd say most of it is soft porn of high technical proficiency, some of it fairly cheesy

(whichever of my monitors I view it with!). If you compare to Araki -- and you have really

to look at the best of Araki, since to just produces too much -- I think the point becomes

clear. A couple of the B&Ws transcend the cheesy sotf porn level, but that's about it. I like

your nudes a lot better, the one bending down to look out the windos comes to mind.

<p>

--Mitch/Bangkok

Nic, I should have added that a lot of it is kitsch, or perhaps <i>kitschy-koo</i> is more

appropriate. Concerning the great technical proficiency of these pictures, perhaps its

instructive to consider the following quote from Elliorr Erwitt that I just came across,

lodged in the depths of my computer:

<p>

<i>Quality doesn't mean deep blacks and whatever tonal range. That's not quality, that's a

kind of quality. The pictures of Robert Frank might strike someone as being sloppy--the

tone range isn't right and things like that--but they're far superior to the pictures of Ansel

Adams with regard to quality, because the quality of Ansel Adams, if I may say so, is

essentially the quality of a postcard. But the quality of Robert Frank is a quality that has

something to do with what he's doing, what his mind is. It's not balancing out the sky to

the sand and so forth. It's got to do with intention.</i>

<p>

--Mitch/Bangkok

thanks Mitch - I will Google Araki and check it out - I like this genre though, cheesy ? maybe,

but I think that is sometimes the point. Porn ? hmmmmm, many shots are definetly arousing

(my girlfriend agrees - the one bending down to look out the window - and thankyou for the

compliment) - so is it the 'arousal' factor that constitutes porn ? Not that it really mattters,

like you said from the beginning - 'judge nudes like other art' or not !

"Hi Don, why do you even bother opening your web browser at all ???"

 

I'm a website developer. It's my job.

 

"...should i just dismiss them as little boxes of color and then ask you to print off some really big ones. send to me and then I'll let you know if i think i like them or not ?"

 

I'd dismiss them if the intention is to critique. Otherwise, enjoy. If you critique, I can't take it seriously, having no idea what you are looking at.

 

Read the Digital Darkroom forum for awhile and note how many posters are happy with their displays that are 6+2 bits, not 8, and who don't think it is necessary to calibrate. Consider that most browsers are installed with the default to resize images on the fly to the dimensions of the browser window. Or who prefer their 7 year old crt to a new lcd. Or whose computer is a laptop. This goes far to explain why they find blocked shadows and blown highlights in images you know have no such things.

 

Print off 10 copies of a photo and mail them out. You can say with confidence that all 10 are "the same" photograph. But if you put up an image on the web, those 10 are each likely to see a different photograph.

 

The real photos of the images in my workspace portfolio are either what I (or anyone looking over my shoulder) see in Lightroom on one of my computers, or a print.

 

Even when I see my images in a browser, I am not seeing the photograph, just an image of it. I can line up the windows and compare the carefully prepared image for web display both in a browser and in Photoshop. They are already different.