Jump to content

Photography or Porn - How to distinguish?


Recommended Posts

Don, I don't buy your edicts :-)

 

The fabled Greeks, for what they're worth, reportedly* restricted "art" to performance: song, spoken word, dance, acting. Ephemeral, transient events. Sculpture and painted vases were too vulgar for "art", like Elvis on velvet. *email from Olympus

 

Using "art" to describe a photograph means the image is decorative, belongs on a motel wall. Easy to apprehend. Ansel made art. I don't think Weston's work often slipped to that level.

 

"Art" porn? Mapplethorpe. His work never rose above decorative, so I'm content if someone calls it art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Juha, if you read my post, I explained what I meant by art. True, I didn't explain it before my first use of the word, but if you read the entire response, my meaning should come forward. Yes, if you read just "art", it's just a word. If you read the rest, you'll see that a vase does most likely not qualify as art, unless it's a very interesting vase.

 

And I beg to differ on the "no border" as an attribute of art - there are always borders inherent in the medium - film, sound, stone, etc. I think an artist knows how to maximize the output given the constraints he's working with. Chaplin worked with black and white and no sound, yet his movies will outlive most color/Dolby Surround works made in our days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I don't understand your objections, John. I'm not making any edicts, just reporting the historic or traditional use of the term Fine Art.

 

I have nothing to say about Art or "art", and couldn't care less. This may soothe you, and you should not feel compelled to object to my opinion on Art or "art", as I have none. I realize it is a major bug up your ass, though.

 

Decorative Arts is another traditional or customary genre label, like Fine Art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don, actually I'm fairly relaxed about that "bug." However I do, as a personal discipline, make the point when it seems appropriate. As an old guy, I think I'm entitled. As are you.

 

You seem remarkably interested in categories and labels. Not a criticism.

 

My thinking is similar to that of investment managers when they speak of "style drift" : "art" meant something magical fr centuries, even literally magical, but has drifted to "decor."

 

BTW, did you get my email?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

""art" meant something magical fr centuries, even literally magical, but has drifted to "decor.""

 

But I do not discuss "art". Art is a subject for spectators, such as collectors, critics, gallery owners, museum curators, academics and their students. The photographer has no essential interest in them or their "art" unless they are prospects to buy his work. Then economics makes an essential connection.

 

"You seem remarkably interested in categories and labels."

 

You mean like "art" and "decor"?

 

I got your email.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, thats very close to being true as so many romance novels are nearly lewd in their depictions of lovemaking. Still, I think you'd find less women pleasuring themselves physically from reading things like that. It's more of a mental exersize, I guess.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicole, "close to being true" is truer than what's alleged to be "true" because the latter doesn't exist. What do you think?

 

Don E, "Art" and "decor" are easily-apprehended and relatively-valid labels ....until one uses "art" for puffery of "decor," which is the dominant Photo.net practice. Sunsets, wet rocks with sunsets, nice nipples with wet rocks and sunsets. You know what I mean :-)

 

The photographers who most impress me use phrases like "fine print" and "well seen" and "shows promise" and "excessively Photoshopped." I don't notice them wasting the term "art." Do we disagree about that last point?

 

Simple observations. Your mileage may vary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, I've been answering the OP's two questions: "1.what makes a nude photo artistic and just that. 2.what are the differentiating elements between porn from art."

 

Well, I'm only answering the first: all the "artistic" elements "and just that" are to be found in the traditional Fine Art Nude print. Photograph a non-Fine Art nude using those skills and you are likely to get an "artistic" result. The second I can't answer because I don't see why porn and art are exclusive. There certainly are examples of "artistic" pornography -- your Greek vases, for example. were the Greeks medium of choice for pornography, which were "artisitc" as art gets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don, First, let me say that I think I've misunderstood or simply not understood some of what you've written. If it appears that way to you you're probably right, I apologize.

 

Right, "fine art" and "porn" aren't exclusive concepts. I'm straight, but I'm thinking of some evocative gay porn by a photographer for "Blue Boy," a sort of Playboy that once existed. Infinitely stronger work than Mapplethorpe's and, despite my orientation, much more erotic than Hugh Heffner's magazine.

 

As for those Greek vases..

 

http://www.theoi.com/Galleries.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, no need for apology. Online discussions are like that and this one has been difficult with several sidetracks. If you're interested in early Greek art and their "artistic" pornography look up the book Before Sexuality.

 

Someone, here in a pnet forum awhile back, wrote that they found online porn stimulating, but only on a CRT, not on an LCD. I thought it a neat joke, but I wonder if there is any truth to it.

 

Regards,

 

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, John, that depends on your world view I guess. Close to being true is generally the most we can expect, I suppose, but as to whether or not real truth exists...that might be a question better left to another thread where I wont get stones thrown at me...hopefully.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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"

 

Lucky fellow! Would you mind posting a link to these naughty pix please?

 

When *I* look at other people's work on PN it's either dogs or kids...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way modern arts need an explanation, Even our brain should be educated to see good things also.

It is not necessary to find porn in nudity.

Some psychos can find it even when completely dressed.

Its what you see and what you think of the subject.

Nudity are always fun to see if they are presently well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that romance novels are most definitely porn. They generally have no believable storyline, or storyline at all except that which leads up to the "main event", the sexual encounter which occurs dependably in the latter one-third of the book. This is, of course, so that one can easily skip ahead to the good stuff. Also, they lack any real character development. The woman is a victim type, who the book repeatedly tells us is strong, but we see no evidence of that. We are also beaten over the head with how attractive, intelligent, kind, and desirable she is, like an antifeminist mantra: This is how all women should be if they want to get the guy. And the male character? He is always a protector, and frequently masquerades as a cad and womanizer during the first one-third of the book, because everyone knows that women love badboys. The sex scene itself generally occurs in a fashion reminiscent of a rape.

Okay, so it might seem as though I am going off on a tangent here. But I believe that nude photography can be examined in a similar way. Is the photographer taking advantage of his model? Is there sexual exploitation? Is there oppression of a certain group of people? (It is pretty naive to say that models for porn are generally in it for their own enjoyment. Usually there is something else at play, such as a desire for attention.) Is there violence, either real or threatened? Is there an obvious metaphor in the work that serves to degrade the model? (An example is an older issue of Hustler that depicted cockroaches crawling around a woman's vagina.) Unfortunately, we can't always know the answers to all of these questions just by looking at the image. But, as photographers, I think that we can set our own limits by asking ourselves, "If I had children, would I be comfortable with them seeing this: 1. at the appropriate age? 2. EVER?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I wasn't going to respond. I am not a great photographer but I have an opinion.

 

I disagree with anyone who tries to answer this question with a simple 'yay' or 'nay'. You cannot classify art, that is to say, one man's art is another man's garbage. Darnit, there are even artists who pile up real, stinky, rotting garbage and call it art - and to them and their admirers, it IS art.

 

If you are interested in taking photos of people unclothed, or any other subject, do whatever suits your taste. If you do it without thinking about what the critics will have to say about it then you are expressing your SELF, and thus creating art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This is a question that government's, the clergy and academics have been asking, seemingly forever. Interpretation of the 1st amendment has opened the doors to a flood of questionable images to be legally printed and openly distributed in the U.S. But what exactly is what is a questionable image?

For puritanical Americans, a photo of a woman's belly button is objectionable. For more liberal Europeans, the nude body doesn't present any problems. If reared in many "3rd world countries" exposed genitalia is commonplace. Thus, questionable images appear to be regional.

I watched a film some time ago that for all intents and purposed could have been classified as pornography. It was high contrast B&W and beautifully filmed. For all intents it was a figure study. A tour de force of the female body. The camera lens never got further away from the subject than 6 inches. It panned the entire body, every square cm. very, very slowly effectively using shadows to subdue and highlight

the more 'visually delicate' areas of her body. Her curves were transformed into landscapes of hills, mountains and valleys. The background music was a neo-classical piece performed by cello, viola and violin. It was done by a student at UCLA and was eliminated from the venue of a student film fest after the first day. Too controversial. "Pornographic trash" one reviewer said. I thought it was beautiful. We are treated with murder and mayhem all day long in the media. We are subjected to 'Girls Gone Wild', on late night cable infomercials. At any news stand we can get copies of 'free' hip, urban liberal weeklies whose back pages consist of ads for massage parlors, out call services, men seeking men, women seeking women, men seeking men & women and any combination there of.

As to the exploitation of women, which is a very big argument against porn. If a woman is kidnapped, held hostage and forced to perform sex acts on film. The kidnappers should be shot in the head. If a woman, or man for that matter, accepts money to perform sexually, on camera or if they do it simply because they want to, That's not exploitation. If a man and woman ( or any combination there of ) don't mind being filmed or photographed while having a sexual encounter, then that's their business. If someone wants to pay to see or own that film or photo, then that's their business as well.

I consider myself a relatively normal, well adjusted individual. I love women. They generally look, feel, and smell good. I enjoy their attitudes, their way of thinking. They generally smile more than men and are more pleasant to be around. They're more outgoing and honest than men. They're usually a joy to be around. I suppose this make me a sexist pig in today's politically correct world, so be it. I also think sex with women is great. Guess I'm a pervert too. It's virtually impossible for me to look at a photo of a nude woman and be offended. I suppose it's possible for a woman to have the same opinion about photos of nude men??? I find many photos of fully clothed women can be as sexually stimulating as raw porn, at if well done, sometimes even more so. Sex simply isn't a bad thing. We probably all partake in it and I'd venture to say, the vast majority of us enjoy it. Why do insist on denying it's existence and why are we so hypocritical about it. Why not just accept it as a pleasant part the human experience and deal with real issues.

There's a fairly famous photo from the Vietnam era of a man holding a pistol to another man's head. The photo is taken just as the man with the gun fires into the other man, killing him ( I assume ). A frozen moment in time that is the very last moment in someones life. That is Pornography...

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...