Photography or Porn - How to distinguish?

Nic, to tell you the truth I couldn't continue to look at those photos. A couple at the very begining were nothig if not nice shots of a beautiful girl but continuing on I might as well have bought myself a magazine from the local minute mart and flipped through pages of any attractive girl in mostly removed undies touching herself and making faces. How in the WORLD are those NOT porn? What is the point of a photo of a woman sticking her butt at you with her hand between her legs ON A BED in sexy undies if not to exite lust? A study in light on the human form? I dont think so. They may have the best lighting, be perfectly composed and have great tonal range and still be trash.

 

If I'm going to take the time to stare at an image, I want to come away with something other than wet drawers.

Well put, Nicole, and, as you can see from my earlier posting, I agree. But the issue is a

difficult one because, in the case of Araki's best work, which is similar in subject matter, the

kitsch and soft-porn is transcended into art. Mind you, I refer to his best work, not all his

work. It is interesting to work out why Araki's best work does transcend this. Clearly, nudes

don't have to be "artistic" and high-toned -- think of Weston -- to be art.

 

--Mitch/Bangkok

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

 

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

 

Answer 1. It is the eye of the beholder

 

Answer 2. See answer 1

 

This is not to trivialized the debate nor to demean any other`s answers or opinions.

 

It is the bottom line from a working for 4 years on a paper dissecting the subject the Still Photography in Advertising from post Second World War to Present Day, which took into account the rapid onset of use of the sexualized image and much of what was `pornography` and the ever changing definition of it.

 

Bottom line: it is really up to the viewer to decide.

 

WW

Mitch, you'll have to let me know what you think is his best stuff. I had a look at his gallery and there were a couple of nudes that were sentimental and some that were intimate and even a couple that almost seemed to be a social statement but others that were also just plain soft porn.

 

Were there any in particular that seemed to transcend to you?

Porn's honest. "Art" rarely is.

Nicole: I went through his pictures quickly and have pretty much the same view as you do. I

would have to go through them again to pick up the ones that were not soft porn, and am

not inclined to do that as the effort is not really worth it. You'd probably pick the same ones

that I would and, mind you, all they transcend, as I said, is in not being cheesy soft porn.

 

--Mitch/Bangkok

<i>Porn's honest. "Art" rarely is.</i>

<p>

John:

<p>

An important point: "Fine Art Nudes" are rarely, if ever, true -- and that is the reason I

used the word "pretentious" in a posting above. I'd says "Fine art nudes are rarely honest",

but wouldn't say this about art, because good art is honest -- if it didn't have truth it

wouldn't be good art or art at all; and the latter depends on what you think is art.

<p>

--Mitch/Bangkok

Ah, alright Mitch I misunderstood a little. Yes, we are in agreement then.

 

Sure, porn is honest. Honestly trashy.

Nude art, porn, sports, morale - just words to whom anyone give a personal content. To me:<p>

Nude art<br>

A form study or an abstract study of human form, a study into the light on human form. The function is seldom to arouse sexually, but that can happen as a side effect. Very often the function is to create an aesthetic experience, to touch beauty visually.<p>

Porno<br>

Photographic material whose function is to cause arousement. This form of photography has a cast on it which makes it very difficult to see the photography in fair way. Knowing that sex is the most used word on the net search engines proves definitely there is a market and a function. In many ways I agree that porn is very honest. It's not pretending to be anything else what it is.<p>

Of course categories are not black and white. Fashion and glamour photos are often very superficial and even hypocrite at times, often with elements of hidden porn. I guess that relates to voyerism. Talking of which, I think that some photos here in the nude category (e.g. those of John Peri's) represent voyeristic nude photography rather than nude art. It's not quite porn but it definitely is not a form study either.<p>

Playing with words?

"Porn's honest."

 

Why is porn honest? What does "honest" mean here?

Don E, I guess your question is rhetoric, but in case it is not, here is my explanation. You can do a nude art, lingerie or fashion shot pretending that you are doing something high art or classy where as you really have the motives in your sexual needs. You can easily lie to yourself about the motives behind you. With porno the name of the game is artless. A porn photo is a tool for sexual arousement, in blunt words, a stimulator for masturbation.<p>

But again, it's playing with words. Honest means something to you, perhaps slightly another thing to me and something completely else to the next man.

"Don E, I guess your question is rhetoric, but in case it is not..."

 

It's not. So, you are saying the honesty lies in the conscious intent of the photographer, and (I'm guessing here) the photographer of pornography cannot not have the conscious intent of "stimulating sexual arousal" and no other unadmitted or unconscious motive, but the art nude, lingerie, or fashion photographer might be dishonest with herself and think her photographs don't do that or that they don't consider that aspect of their work consciously?

 

That's a lot of peering into the motives of other photographers. I thought it might be something more objective, like the actual photographs. My tendency is to never give a thought to the photographer or their motives when viewing a photograph.

"...and (I'm guessing here) the photographer of pornography cannot not have the conscious intent of "stimulating sexual arousal" and no other unadmitted or unconscious motive"<p>

No, no, no. Exactly the other way around. A porn photographer openly admits he is shooting to create something for stimulation, or perhaps, stimulating himself. A nude art photographer can cheat himself here. Now, it does not mean every nude art photographer cheats himself. It merely says it is possible, whereas, in porno open sexual function is plain.

Hi Juha. Thank you for breaking down Nude Art and Porn. As you did mention before about the intention of the photographer. I think part of the truth lies here but my opinion stands out for what the viewers of the photographs perceive. Beauty (Photography/Art) or Porn lies in the eye of the beholder.....my humble opinion. It is indeed a distinctive difference between the 2 but most of the time the viewer would clearly be able to differentiate between porn and nude art. Nic Bower's "tokyoundress" is a very good example for argument sake. Most of the photos in the site are clearly soft porn except a few which fall into the "grey area". However, most of the time it would be easy for the viewer of photographs to call a spade a spade.

There is no consensus but there were some great posts.

 

William Retired I think was the closest to how I feel.

 

But all agruments seem to lead that porn is bad and can not be art. This I disagree with. And I'll step out on the plank and say I like porn, if it had no artistic merit, I wouldn't like it. Yes, there is some really bad porn.

 

To sum my answer, the question is circular and has no answer.

Juha, I understand the argument to be: honesty is applied to the photographer, and apparently a photographer of pornography cannot but be "honest", no matter his photographs are a total contrivance, 'dishonest' by other measures...dishonest the same way an art nude is dishonest, being a total contrivance as well, but may even be more dishonest because an nude art or (lingerie or fashion) photographer might also pretend the photo has no sexual element along with it being a total contrivance.

 

I think I'll stick to considering honesty in terms of the photograph.

I never understood the point of saying "X is in the eye of the beholder"... Of course it is, what matters is what is the thought process going on behind the eye and that is always worth discussing.

 

It might be more interesting to ask what makes art - art, because the subject is not a differentiator as long as it is interesting.

 

Real art has the potential of reaching people regardless of their life experience and beliefs. Of course, it cannot reach everyone all the time, but the potential exists. And this potential is due to it being able to stimulate thought without a prerequisite of specific knowledge related to some epoch and its habits.

 

When it comes down to depictions of the naked body, the main question I would ask is: if we would live in a society where everyone walked around naked and sex would be a social activity like eating, what kind of interest would that work generate. If the answer is - only a passable interest, then we're not dealing with art. You could as well photograph a cabbage and it would generate the same sort of interest that nudes usually generate today, if exposed to people who never saw a nice, green, fresh cabbage. (Not to say you couldn't photograph a cabbage with the love and talent required to result in an amazing cabbage photograph appreciated by everyone till the end of time).

 

Porn can be dismissed easily today as having nothing to do with art because you don't have to be artistic to make money in the porn business.

 

No matter the subject, a real artist will find out a way of representing it in a way that generates interest.

 

There is a twist of art that is polemic in purpose: it's not destined to last forever, but it's making a statement in a specific social context. There seem to always be more people involved in this transient art than in art, probably because it generates attention much faster, being particularly relevant to that moment. This isn't bad art, this is just art that will survive as long as the context in which it was created will still be relevant or remembered.

Hi Laurentiu. Thanks for your thoughts. I do agree with you and realized what I stated means nothing i.e. "X lies in the eyes of the beholder" does not mean anything. It is indeed the thought process behind those eyes that see that makes discussions about art interesting indeed. I was merely stating the obvious that the eyes can tell the difference between porn and art most of the time. Thanks for sharing your thoughts once again. ~Gopi~

Laurentiu, art is just a word and anyone give the word a content.<p>By the way a word like artefact means something done by human hands, my company is named Arteform - a derivation from artefact.

Notice that the history of the art, artefacts. First they were functional stuff: vases, documentary to cave walls and only when the human being began to afford to be futile artefacts became pieces of no real everyday functionality. Today we conceive art being something with no border conditions. If it has no border conditions it's called design or engineering. Basically becauise of the historical derivatoin of teh word art I find the present concept of art pretty futile and discussion about what is art quite fruitless. These discussion usually tell more about the commentor than the subject because -art is a word to which anyone can give a personal content.

"If it has no border conditions it's called design or engineering." <p>

Should be of course:<br>

If it has border conditions it's called design or engineering.

i know porn when i see it.

If one's hat stays on one's lap when one stands, it might be porn.

Only, John, if one were a man. If a hat stayed on a womans lap, we might have cause for concern...

Nicole, yes.

 

Someone said romance novels were women's porn.

 

Different strokes. :-)

The product of Fine Art photography, whether a nude or other, is a paper print, and not an online jpeg, magazine layout, advertisement, screensaver, calendar, or poster. The Fine Art photographer will either be a master printer as well or have a working relationship with one.

 

Prior to photography the fine art format was an edition of prints of drawings (not paintings) and we have centuries worth of examples, including fine art pornography. I have not seen examples, but undoubtedly there are fine art pornography photographs.

 

So, that jpeg may or may not be pornography, but what it cannot be in itself is what is traditionally known as fine art.