Discussions
Nudity - Art vs. Porn
Posted by 2sweetnsaxy • 2/01/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: nudity, Photography
I've been looking at a lot of photography lately and there are a LOT of nudes. I couldn't help thinking that a lot of these could actually be in those girly magazines. So, I was wondering... what exactly makes the different between something that appears in a girly magazine and something that would be considered "art"? Is it just a matter of who's holding the camera? LOL!
User Comments
-
In my opinion I think its up the person viewing it. What I consider art someone else might not. As a woman girly magazines don't offend me, but hardcore porn doesn't offend me either yet I choose not look at it.-
Girly magazines don't offend me either. I just think it's interesting that one is considered x-rated and the other art. Someone might cover a child's eyes if it's the cover of a girly magazine but the same type of pose in a museum wouldn't necessarily get the same response.
-
-
Intent. Is the image meant to titilate, to arouse, or meant to inspire something beyond that, such as an appreciation for the form,a political statement etc.-
Intent. I think I like that response. Good one. But... now that I'm thinking about it. What if someone's intent is to arouse but it is intentionally being disguised as art? Sorry, my mind is just wandering....
-
Here, here ... I agree that intent is the deciding factor.
In the movie about the owner of Hustler magazine, Larry, points out that pictures of naked girls or folks making love, or having sex, is not obscene. The pictures of war and bombing and countries being torn apart are the obscene things in life. -
That could be a type of art though, since art is meant to communicate something. Perhaps the artist is looking to make people aware of the pornography industry.
-
-
Exactly 2sweetnsaxy, as jafabrit said before us, the intent of the image plays a huge role.
By the way, I love your Sax blog, my husband and I are big fans of Jr. Walker and David sandborn.-
I did like that "intent" answer. And thank you so much! I'm glad you enjoyed my blog. I've got a lot of musicians to get around to like the ones you mentioned. :-)
-
-
If you are serious about the matter, you can check out www.porn-report.com/ - its the full text of the The Meese Report on Pornography from 1986. Its 1960 pages, five parts, and 35 chapters. Much of it deals with the porn industry, but the sections on the definition of Obscenity may be of interest.-
Thanks. I think I'll check that out.
-
-
shoot I pressed the wrong flipping button and reported instead of replied, YIKES sorry.
In answer to your question.
"What if someone's intent is to arouse but it is intentionally being disguised as art?"
My first question is who is that someone? Are they an artist with a portfolio that showcases their art, and their skill as a photographer, or are they a photographer whose only ability has been to take porn pics. Is the artist trying to make a statement using voyeurism as a means.
Jeff Koons "made in heaven series" comes to mind, his images are a reflection of his view of porn and his relationship with it (his x wife was a porn star). There was a big show called "Seduced: Art and Sex From Antiquity to Now" in London
which I heard was very controversial and interesting. I do think there is a fine line.-
That sounds really interesting. I'm going to look that up to and see if I can find it online. I think there can be a fine line too.
-
-
There's artful and aesthetic nudity.-
What do you think the difference is?
-
-
In the January 2004 issue of ARTnews, there were articles about artists who make pornographic art. I know this doesn't help your discussion. However, it does affect the climate in which all artists show their art.
artnews.com/issues/issue.asp?id=10301-
Thanks for the link. Very interesting.
-
-
depends on what comes in your mind if u think it is an art it is but if u think it is porn it is LOL-
I have no problem with nudes, took classes drawing them, etc. I guess in looking at some I couldn't help but wonder how many artists get off on nudes so to speak and use art as an excuse to do as many nudes as possible.
I guess it is all in the eye of who views it... but sometimes the artist will tell you what you're "supposed" to see. :-D -
Yes we had a few amateurs in the life drawing classes that thought they would get off with nude models, that is until they saw most of the models that semester, LOL! Most serious artists are too busy trying to get the skeletal and muscluar proportions right, the least interesting to render is the genitalia. Anybody can draw boobs,bums and plumbing, but to draw a figure where one can a sense muscles and bones under the flesh with a few lines and modeling, now that is really something.
I agree dotartdude. Every now and again when I feel I am getting lazy with drawing I go and do some life drawing sessions.
-
-
The New Orleans Academy of Fine Art maintains that if you can master painting the human form, then you can paint anything.
-
I guess there's a point. I'm still having trouble with hands and feet. :-(
-
-
My general opinion is that porn is a form of art that is specifically intended to sexually arouse a specific group (or several groups) of people, and art, although a nude may be included - isn't about the nude, nudity or sex.
Another interesting way to look at is this - I learned it in art history - there is a difference in art between *nude* and *naked*. Nude is a fully unclothed body with no reference to clothes ever having been on the body - whereas naked means that the model has just removed clothing, or is still in the act of disrobing, or is partially, and seductively covered by clothing or some other form of normal outerwear (such as shoes, or a choker).
The first simply is, and while it can be arousing or pornographic to be "nude", the act of undressing is far more seductive. So take that into consideration, then add into it what else is going on in the picture or sculpture or movie...if sexual acts and penetration is involved, it's porn.
Also keep in mind, that porn doesn't have to be a dirty word. -
Porn
-
:-D
-
-
I did a write-up last year about "Suicide Girls" and how they rip everyone off for the fantastic payment of about 500 dollars in exchange for a contract.-
Do you have a link to that write-up?
-
-
I suppose it all depends, when I was fourteen, catalog underware pages were porn.-
They're still porn to SOME men at any age. :-D
-
-
I think - in america anyway that both are and should be taboo..call me old fashioned, but i would never want my kids walking by and seeing a naked woman..art or not. Plus, "most" (NOT all) but yes..most lol men are perverts! and even in a museum im sure would become sexually aroused by a naked woman! lol
-
I agree with you ayachin. -
Probably kids should not be taken to place were they shouldn't go. People who appreciate art do go to the museum, and if they want serious porn there are better places than a museum
Again, it all matters in what perspective it's being viewed -
I don't think there is anything wrong with nudity in art. The human body is natural and if Adam and Eve hadn't messed up, we'd probably all be walking around naked anyway. But I do think there is a line you don't cross. The problem is, who determines where the line is drawn? It becomes an individual choice and like most are saying, a matter of how one views it for themself.
-
Never? What will you do when your children see a nude person anyway? Like in your home, when you are in the shower? Scream and then tell them never to look a nude woman again? What exactly is wrong with the human body that it needs to be covered up at all times, never to be seen or spoken of?
Isn't making a big deal of nudity the cause of such "perverted" men? Don't you think that making nudity such a hush-hush topic creates the frenzy and inappropriate reactions to it? How are you supposed to teach children what is and isn't normal, and what is and isn't appropriate when it comes to nudity and sexuality, if it is sop taboo?
Furthermore, I find it incredibly insulting to men in general to state that nudity in art or any form should be a taboo because they are perverts. Men can and are aroused by any number of things - not just nudity, and yet these things are not taboo. A man can be turned on by a woman in a potato sack if he is attracted to her. (or him, by the way)
It also implies that men can't control themselves - and will somehow ruin the lives of others - particularly children - should they see a nude. And furthermore creates the slippery slope of blaming *women* for the inappropriate actions of men. "Well, you know men are perverts, and she's attractive and she was showing some skin....so its her fault that he grabbed her rear end...there ought to be a law banning anything that could stimulate a man's sexual desire"
That is really, really, insulting.
-
-
ART-
:-)
-
-
Art without nudity its not interesting
-
Respect your viewpoint, just not sure I agree with that. :-)
-
-
Something so natural portrayed in an interesting artful way with a positive intent to share with others the wonders of the human body shouldnt be found to be obscene or offensive. We are all nude under the coverings we wear to hide ourselves.
It is a personal standpoint that some will have differing opinions of when the art/porn line is crossed. The whole idea of art though is that everyone will see something different depending on their life expereiences, so I guess neither viewpoint is wrong nor right. It just is. How you view it is up to you.-
I tend to think the key words in what you said is "interesting artful way with a positive intent". It's like you said, it's all in how one views it. We don't all see things the same way.
-
-
It's insane that nudity is so taboo in this country. Why is it that we have to demonize sexuality, yet we so warmly embrace violence in all forms of our popular culture (TV, music, video games, etc.)? Are we really more afraid of a nude form than things like physical assault and murder? Who's running this show? My cable channel would have continuous nudity so people would stop being so uptight. -
I wonder if it's too late to reinvent the wheel so to speak. I'm with you in that violence is prevalent in our society but if you think about it, sex and sexual tension is behind a lot of that violence. Rape, incest, child abuse... We are a society in which everyone thinks sex is the end-all be-all of our existence so they will do and say anything to get sex, see sex, think about sex. A simple, natural nude in art in not likely to be viewed as simple art when the minds of society are clouded and dirty. And these same minds in art field are portraying nudity without that "simple, art" mindset.
Can you possibly reinvent that wheel?-
If you think about it...where do you find rape, molestation, and other forms of sexual abuse are more prevalent? In countries that started out with strict, Puritanical mores. When something is demonized, be it sex, nudity, art, music, religion, alcohol, even drugs....there is an inevitable backlash that creates violence, crime, and abuse.
So to combat this, one must be able to let go of social taboos, and try to understand that some things are natural, such as nudity and sex, other things are normal, such as sexual desires and religious beliefs, and many other things in appropriate settings are not harmful, such as alcohol, and certain drugs. When this happens, we can than allow ourselves an age appropriate education with regards to social standards in these areas.
What is, and isn't a healthy sexual relationship. What is, and isn't safe sex, what is and isn't appropriate use of alcohol, drugs, etc...
Then, you reduce violence and crime.
When you outlaw something either socially or morally, you create a barrier that forces secrecy - sometimes that secrecy leads to real crime (drug running, illegal prostitution, organized crime) and other times it leads to psychological and emotional isolation - which then can lead to a variety of other mental problems that go unchecked or unnoticed and surface in the most heinous of ways.
Thats just my two cents though... -
Sex is the end-all-be-all, biologically speaking. Our only true purpose as a species among species is to reproduce. It wasn't to make spreadsheets and wear Ugg Boots. These things are just a factor of mate selection, or deselection, as the case may be. Of course then, sexuality is attributable to violence. It's the basest human drive. That doesn't make violence more acceptable, yet in this culture, it is. And yes, Anok has a point. It's only in a society that demonizes a perfectly natural human instinct that the means to attain it will inherently know no bounds. If someone told me I couldn't breath because breathing is wrong, I'd probably stab him just on principle, and continue breathing, like I'm supposed to.
-
-
Fair point, Dubai a case in point - lotsa prostitutes from China n Russia but never out in the public eye!
-
Fair point, Dubai a case in point - lotsa prostitutes from China n Russia but never out in the public eye!
-
It depends... a lot of the things I draw involve nudity but are rarely pornographic. -
Art tugs at the very fabric of your soul.
porn, well you know, that effects other regions of the body.-
I think thats the best distinction I've heard yet....
-
-
In traditional art there is an appreciation of the beauty of the human form. Of course what is considered beautiful can vary by time and/or culture.
-
At it's simplest, though, the only difference is penetration.
-
Insinuating sexuality is art, insinuating sexual acts is also art, but at another level.
If a model is showing her buns, that's what I would call calm, but once she spreads her cheeks, well that I would call an invitation.
And inviting sex in that manner is the porn side of nudity.
BTW, Penetration is not always porn, a woman fully dressed with her finger penetrating her lips, is sexual, but not really porn.
But I get your drift on that comment, most would be considered porn. -
I'm just curious. Why are you asking the question. Do any of your blogs showcase nudity? Or do you like nudity generally speaking or as an art form?
-
I'm wondering why you rejuvenated this year-old discussion! I never added my opinion, which is that the line should depend on a certain amount of plastic surgery and air-brushing. If you're showing people as they really look, and they happen to be arousing, that's art. If you've airbrushed their zits, wrinkles, stretch marks, body fat, and eye color into some bizarre idea of ideal, it's pron. -
art offers insight - porn offers titillation -
I think that porn is "roudy" and nudity art is tastefull. You can show a picture of the same person and one is port and the other nudity art (depanding on how it is done) Looking at pics of Marylin Monroe done by a professional photographer can be considered nudity art while looking at shots of gilrs in Hustler magazine make you think of cheap who--s
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
