*** 145

comments and critque please !!

What is this? A woman doing it?

One can only hope. Beautiful and quite erotic image. Subtle and low key. I like it.

oh come on darius, don't be such a conservative prick. This is a good picture of an absolutely normal human habit.

How dare you call me a prick? A man shitting - pretty normal human behavior. Something to see on PN? No! If I want to wank I go to a porn site. What is this art, little fellow? A woman faking a self handjob? Gush!

well i guess it can't be too hard to make a good picture of a man shitting

i think you don't get/understand what is all about over here... you see people express themselves in different way; one does that with photographing cats, sunsets and friend holding cannabies leaf, others like Vit prefer to provoke people with shots like above. the key word over here is UNDERSTANDING. i know there is some puritans over here; they don't like call that kind of photos "art" - like you for example, but would you call your "friend with cannabies leaf" an "art"??? i wouldn't... you see different people - different needs.

i dont see much merit in the shot, what i have noticed though is that if you post something like this you get a lot of views, comments and ratings, so maybe thats is what Vit was hoping for.

vit, i think is great that people like you shows here as well photos of normal life, and this is a photo of a normal woman behaviour, what is wrong with that darius? is provocative, and has a message, if not why so much argued about is if art or not? art is everything created from the human mind, better or worst art is another subject, but this is a great shot, provocative, speaks to me, and your portfolio is superb, one of the best nudes portfolios in PS, thanks to share it with us, and please keep provocating here, thanks

I agree with Kelvin on this one, so so. Vit I think you have some that are better in you gallery.

I would crop on the middle of her hand. It would become more sensual. Good light. I agree that the number of views is big, most of the viewers are not looking for photo techniques, as in most of the nudes.

Vit,

 

Another very good image from you; your photos are alway so well lit, and the composition is creative and thoughtful.

 

Although I think that Francisco is right in that the photo could be considered more sensual (as opposed to erotic) if the right hand was cropped, I think that would be an unnecessary piece of self-censorship, and would weaken the whole impact of the image. My only criticism is with the other end of the photo; I find that the model's expression is too vacant, the eyes staring blankly into the distance.

 

Small complaint, though. Like I said, a very well done, quietly erotic image.

 

With regards,

 

Glenwood

I congratulate artists who wrangle away from the grip of the pornographers such beautiful subjects as masturbation and lovemaking. I also applaud you on excellent lighting and texture and mood.

model with his member in his hand? Same pose/lighting. Would it also be considered art?? Just asking...Helga

Helga - indeed, I posted for critique a photo as you described, and it received very negative comments, and then was removed by the administration. I since returned the photo to my portfolio without requesting critique.

What is my problem? It's been a long time since I used to be impressed by a woman faking masturbation. Porn? Let's say it isn't. Art? Yes. Worthing 3/3. And definitely not such attention.

Hey guys, I am rating this shot 7/7, is very original even if the image is very strong, but this is some thing that happens so let?s try not to be so blind! jc

Porn masquerading as "art" = bullshit. Period.

My goodness - what a bunch of prudes??!!

You can call it porn as much as you like, but you still had a good enough look! Call it what you want - it is a good shot, regardless of what some might think of the pose. Period!

 

It is not about being a prude, it is about the place. This is not the place for porn, it is a place for art. This does not qualify as art

It is funny how some people want to photographic nude/sexual images but condemn others who do so when those others cross some imaginary line. The problem is no one can agree on where that line should be. So people posting clearly sexual or nude shots should be very careful about labeling other peoples work as "porn". IMO this is a beautifully lit example of erotic art. And yes, a man on a toilet could conceivably be art- certainly not art I would want to view but art nevertheless (remember mapplethorp).

I find it funny and typical how so many immature men/(some women) on here rationalize this garbage as "art" and not porn just because they say it isn't, or because it's "well shot"/"well lit". What bull.

 

Any one who dares criticize it is automatically a "prude". Puleeze! Trust me - I'm FAR from that. It works the other way 'round boys and girls...see, the only people who find this "provocative" bullshit interesting (read:"pornolite") are men who've never or will never see the real deal in person and therefore need this as a substitute. And apparently the reems of free REAL porn on the net either aren't enough to satisfy this burning need or (more likely) the real thing is shameful to them...so they cover by calling this nonsense art...but still get their turn-on fix.

 

They hide this fact...even from themselves.

 

They tell themselves this is "proof" of how "free-thinking" they are...and the rest of us are old fogies...etc. Such is the spector of PC liberal indoctrination haunting this globe at this time in our history. "If we SAY it's art, it IS art...man."

 

Poppycock! Answer me this: Why is the most "interesting"(rolls eyes) photographer on this bloody site John "Porno-lite" Peri? Because his lighting is just tops?

 

And by the way Allen R, I believe the line being crossed is clearly in plain view above. See it?

 

She has her finger on it.

I actually enjoyed reading your response and agree with at least part of it. I do believe there is a certain degree of sublimination of sexual energy going on on PN. There are some people, I'm sure, who get their jollies from watching and/or photographing nudes because it is sexually stimulated but more socially acceptable than what you describe as "real" porn (which, by the way, logically implies that the above photo is NOT porn). But I am not a liberal and I abhor political correctness. But I am bright enough to know that porn is what is commonly called a "fuzzy concept"-not easily defined (even the US Supreme Court stated that). As for your suggestion that because it shows a vagina it is porn..THAT is why you are being labeled a prude (you obviously think certain parts of the body are off limits to photographers). If you look up the word porn you will find that refers to material "intended to cause sexual excitement" It is defined by its INTENT not by what it shows. There are many nonexplicit photos on this site (which you would probably have no problem with) that come closer to the true definition of porn than many of the more artistic but explicit ones. Finally, I personally do not find this photo to be particularly great, interesting, original, or artistic but I do think it is technically well done and has some artistic merit and should not be angrily dismissed as porn.

That is your opinion, and not a fact. Others feel different. Porn is dirty, filthy, disgusting and, most of all, cheap. This image is none of those.

 

Very sensual.