Is it porn if it's in Color? Is it art if it's B&W?

[vic_.]

I think it was Justice Brennan (of the US Supreme Court) who said something to the effect that: "I don't know how to describe porn, but I know it when I see it." (Maybe I got the wrong justice, so please correct me!)

 

<p>

 

Mike Dixon had asked a few weeks ago, when he posted a set of pictures of a pretty model sitting at a window, whether it was art or something else (if I remember correctly). And now people have made some strong statements on the Lichtenwalter site about the content of some of the nudes. (I've only seen a few, accidently, since I'm at work and don't know who's watching!)

 

<p>

 

I found Mike's portraits to be extremely tasteful and pleasant. Maybe I'm from a different era, but I could not have any of the Lichtenwalter nudes on my living room walls. Not that they are pornographic, but my guests might be offended, not to menton my wife.

 

<p>

 

This gets me to my question. I think if some of the Lichtenwalter pictures were in Color, they might be considered porn by more people than if they were B&W. (I know that Mike has stated that the women were comfortable with posing for such shots, and that is good to know.)

 

<p>

 

Or for another way of thinking, a lot of people think that if they photograph drivel in Black and White, that somehow it magically becomes art.

 

<p>

 

For what it's worth, I found Mike's shots to be spectacular in Black and White, and I haven't seen them in color, but I think I would prefer not to. I'm not too experienced in the nuances of photography, so I can't articulate exactly what B&W does to images versus Color, but I know what I like.

 

<p>

 

I have thought about the B&W vs. Color issue many times since reading this site, and I wonder what others think about it.

 

<p>

 

Thanks,

[john_chan2]

That's so subjective that there is no real answer. One thing you

might think about doing is leafing through some old Penthouse

magazines where Jeff Dunas started his career. Look at the photos he

took back then... in color; then go to his website and study his fine-

art series (also some nudes) in color and see how his aesthetic has

evolved since the days of corporate pressure for the maximum "oogle"

factor.

[jackflesher]

Wasn't it Faye Dunaway that said something like this to Jack

Nicholson in the movie "Chinatown" about porn: "...just look at the

photos and tell me what you see. If they're in focus it's porn and

if they're out of focus it's art..."

 

<p>

 

:-),

[vic_.]

<< If they're in focus it's porn and if they're out of focus it's

art..." >>

 

<p>

 

And if they're tack sharp it's a Leica 90mm APO!

 

<p>

 

:)

[bobtodrick]

That's the problem with any kind of art isn't it? One persons cup

of tea is anothers poison. The field is pretty evenly split, for

example when someone like Mapplethorp is discussed, or the teenage

nudes of David Hamilton. It's funny - Hamiltons work, color, softly

sensual teenage nudes is often considered soft porn - yet the tack

sharp 8X10 B&W image of Jock Sturgess are considered art by most

(other than the FBI). I personally have a hard time critisizing

others photography (except like the obvious like poor exposure or

print finishing) because just because I don't see anything

spectacular doesn't mean someone else does. An example is Annie

Liebovitz. I just don't like it - too contrived and set up for my

tastes - but her income obviously says a whole heck of a lot of

people don't agree with me. Too me - as long as the models are of

age and no one is being forced - it's art if the photographer says

it is.

[john_chan2]

<i>An example is Annie Liebovitz. I just don't like it - <b>too

contrived and set up for my tastes</b> - but her income obviously

says a whole heck of a lot of people don't agree with me. Too me - as

long as the models are of age and no one is being forced - it's art

if the photographer says it is.</i>

 

<p>

 

You want contrived... just look at some of <b>Cindy Sherman's</b>

self portraits. Still, for contrived and set-up they speak volumes

to a whole generation of women who are conscious of their self-image

in society. So as long as it serves a higher purpose... I would

consider it art... along them same lines... I guess it would really

depend on how the photographer depicted the vulva for me to

subjectively label it <b>art</b> or <b>smut</b>.

[roger_michel]

maybe faye's blurry/sharp distinction is not so different than the

b&w/color dichotomy suggested by the original poster. for me, good

art should embody lots of possibilities: different interpretations

of the artist's intent, different personal resonances for the viewer,

different graphic interpretations. the more a photo is totally

realistic (i.e. sharp, in color, familiar object in a familiar

setting) the more difficult it is for me to see these different

possibilities. the work seems narrow, constrained and, ultimately,

trivial. that is why porncan be so boring -- it is intentionally and

unequivocally about one thing and one thing only. the world is in

color and in sharp focus. take away the color and the focus and you

can start using your imagination a little, focusing more on graphic

elements, allusions, etc.

[vic_.]

This debate gets really infantile and stupid when politicians try to

decide what is art and what is <fill in the blanks>? The whole

controversy over "Piss Christ" (Serrano) and the Mapplethorp brouhaha

being two prominent cases in point in the US.

 

<p>

 

My view is: float it out there. Some people will like it, some

won't. You're not here to please everyone, otherwise your "art" will

end up looking like PG Disney garbage.

 

<p>

 

Is photography (or other art) meant to do something besides titillate

the viewer? If it just titillates, then it is just today's newspaper

picture, or smut or junk. Or it could be a record of the times, such

as family snapshots. If it evokes emotions and deeper thoughts, then

it has achieved something more than just being a physical record.

Forget bokeh shokeh mokeh. Most of the evocative pictures in history

lack any bokeh. Once again, purely subjective.

[mike dixon]

<i>Mike Dixon had asked a few weeks ago, when he posted a set of

pictures of a pretty model sitting at a window, whether it was art or

something else (if I remember correctly).</i>

 

<p>

 

Perhaps you're conflating my photos with someone else's question--I

<i>never</i> ask the "Is it art?" question about my photos ("Is it

good?" is risky enough, and I can only count on reliable answers to

"Do you like it?").

 

<p>

 

Regarding color vs. b&w/art vs. porn, I don't have an answer. One

reason I don't have an answer is that it's unclear to what degree the

psychology of color or of b&w is affecting our perceptions of the

work, and to what degree social/historical associations are affecting

them. The overwhelming majority of "standard porn" is in color, and

much of "art photography" is b&w (until a few decades ago, the

overwhelming majority was b&w).

[ralph_barker]

We used to have the same debate back in the days we were doing those

cave paintings in France, Vikram. We could never agree about whether

adding ochre pigments made the paintings porn, and no one has come up

with a good answer since, either. But, it's still fun to debate the

question.

 

<p>

 

My take is that it is more difficult to convey art (as opposed to

glamour or porn) in color because of the realism added by the color

film. The in-focus/fuzzy concept doesn't work for me at all - at least

something is in sharp focus in all my work, even the nudes.

 

<p>

 

Ultimately, I'm of the opinion that the porn vs. art question is

resolved by the effort to portray beauty with respect. Art does, porn

doesn't - whether in color or B&W.

[kristian dowling]

If it turns me on, it's porn.....and if not, it's art!

[vic_.]

<< Perhaps you're conflating my photos with someone else's question--

I never ask the "Is it art?" question about my photos -- Mike Dixon >>

 

<p>

 

Sorry, my memory is failing me. I think you had asked whether it was

porn or not. (Or some other word for porn.) This was the three

photo set of a woman wearing glasses (and some strategic cloting)

sitting on a windowsill.

[michael_darnton1]

Is "art" what you'll hang on your wall, and if you won't, it's not? I

like the art, but I wouldn't hang it in my house, along with a lot of

other art. That doesn't mean that it's not good, though.

[mike dixon]

Vikram, your memory is fine--mine's a bit rusty. I do remember asking

that as a purely rhetorical question to raise the issue of individual

perspectives.

[steve_b.2]

If you took the photo with a Leica, it's art. If you used a Nikon or

Mamiya RB67, it's porn.

[Rob F.]

Black and White is more abstract than color. Reality becomes

abstracted in some degree, in the black and white photo. Form and

tonality then become more prominent. Ralph said that color is more

realistic. We're pretty much saying the same thing. That might be

another reason why B & W nudes are perceived as more artful, in

addition to what Mike said.

 

<p>

 

When I read the title, I immediately though of David Hamilton, just

as Bob Todrick thought to mention him. I think of Hamilton's work as

artfully erotic. I don't think it's porn.

 

<p>

 

Degas (and others) have done nudes in color. I don't think they are

porn, either.

[peter_hughes1]

The only way I--or anyone else--could answer this question properly

is by posting some of my/our own examples. And since they would be

instantly deleted, why are we even discussing this?

[kristian dowling]

Loving Steve's answer!

[ray_moth]

Well, I don't! Steve seems to overlook the fact that many a good

porno shot has been taken with a Canon.

[Rob F.]

You can even shoot art nudes with a Nikon, if you use a fisheye lens.

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

those realy turn me on, but I belive they are beautiful pics of naked

women with open legs, I mean framing, printing, and a quality that

can be follow through all the site pictures, those turn me on even

more that dirty porno, but I would hang one of those anywhere, of

course I know what my wife would say...

[steve_b.2]

To amend my first comment, if you take a nude's photo with a Leica

and use B&W film, and include some out-of-focus elements, the it's

art. (Which is why I don't understand why we all spend two grand for

an aspheric Leica lens, like we're trying to get as close to large

format quality as possible, and then turn around and pursue fine art

photography that looks like it came out of a pinhole camera). If you

use any other camera, especially a Canon, and render an ultra sharp

color photo, then maybe it's porn. But in the latter case Bob, I'd

use a macro lens, not a fisheye.

[j._tombrello]

OK, here goes: Should... ought.... erotic.... artistic.... intent... sexual.... perverted.... exploitive...

voyeuristic.... sensitive... All this is just a bunch of talk. If everyone wants to sit around and talk

about their �feelings� that is wonderful, and illuminating. The question is of limited importance

though. I will use the question of �bodybuilding as a sport� to illustrate.

For years a psudodebate as been around about bodybuilding being a sport or not. The question

itself only became meaningful when its classification as sport determined whether it would be part

of the Olympics. Until then, it was anyone�s opinion, and who really cared what you called it.

I think it is the same way with �classifying� a nude photograph. Its just an image that everyone

can say something different about and who cares anyway. BUT, historically, fighting for its

classification as �art� kept some people out of prison. I am sure we can agree that maximum

creativity means minimum constraint by authorities. Man Ray said that he never criticizes a work

that doesn�t interest him, because the act of creation is Devine, and that where a bad cook or

doctor can kill you, and bad artist can�t hurt you.

All images are �Art� of value to �someone� and everyone has the right to create what they like, to

see what others have created and wish to share, and the right to be delighted, disgusted, horrified,

or board and say so. I enjoy everyone�s opinions and reactions to art and find their comments

instructive. My two cents worth is to say: Satisfy yourself and/or your client. Just take pictures as

you will and don�t get bogged down in intellectuality or other peoples opinions. Remember what

Big Daddy said in �Cat on a Hot Tin Roof�.. �I live with too much space around me to be

infected with other peoples ideas...� And, if you expose your art to the world, be ready for

anything reaction or don�t show it at all.

[eliot]

Vikram, it was Justice Potter Stewart who made that comment about the definition of pornography (not Justice Brennan). Unfortunately, it's not as simple as you make it seem about politicians defining what is pornography. Some of the exhibits you talk about at museums are offensive to many people (eg., Catholics), who complain to their elected representatives. The museums in question are publicly funded (meaning taxpayer supported) and to that extent, should have to answer to our elected representatives. They may have the right to exhibit whatever they want, but they most certainly do not have the right to my tax dollars regardless of whatever crap they choose to exhibit. To make things worse, in at least one case, the museum director had a personal financial relationship with the person who created the offensive exhibit.