The line between art and porn grown thin at times. I�ve seen paintings at museums (specifically the fine art museum in Boston) that I would nearly catagorize as porn, and I�ve seen pictures on Photo.net that I call art. I believe that the difference is in the intent: is the subject being portrayed in such a way as to simply display the beauty of this body that God has created? Then I consider it to be art. But if the intent of the image is merely to arouse or, worse, to turn the subject into an object to be ogled at, cut off from any thought of her (or him) as a human being... That I consider to be porn.
Just a side note: I find there to be ~no~ trace of art in so called �fetish� imagery, its sole purpose is to reduce the subject to the same level as (if not below that of) a still life or animal.
Pornagraphic Art vs Artistic Porn
in Portraits & Fashion
Posted
The line between art and porn grown thin at times. I�ve seen paintings at museums (specifically the fine art museum in Boston) that I would nearly catagorize as porn, and I�ve seen pictures on Photo.net that I call art. I believe that the difference is in the intent: is the subject being portrayed in such a way as to simply display the beauty of this body that God has created? Then I consider it to be art. But if the intent of the image is merely to arouse or, worse, to turn the subject into an object to be ogled at, cut off from any thought of her (or him) as a human being... That I consider to be porn.
Just a side note: I find there to be ~no~ trace of art in so called �fetish� imagery, its sole purpose is to reduce the subject to the same level as (if not below that of) a still life or animal.