PDA

View Full Version : "Artistic Pornography"



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16

Michel Hardy-Vallée
11-06-2006, 12:54 PM
Mark, the problem is not that he had an opinion. The problem was just that he is trying to present them as fact. I don't see any reason to debates opinion; I find it important to debate the truth of facts.

Aggie
11-06-2006, 12:59 PM
Mark, the problem is not that he had an opinion. The problem was just that he is trying to present them as fact. I don't see any reason to debates opinion; I find it important to debate the truth of facts.

Then both sides show the concrete studies that support each claim. I'm with Mark on this one. I don't agree with either side that have posted.

blansky
11-06-2006, 01:07 PM
I don't see any reason to debates opinion; I find it important to debate the truth of facts.

I'm not sure what "facts" are.

As for debate, it is an exchange of opinions for the purpose of an exchange of ideas or concensus.

Since we all come from differing backgrounds, debate enables a healthy exchange of ideas. At one time differing ideas led to wars and deaths.

However when someone starts spouting rhetoric because the bible told him so or because Jesus came to him in a dream or it's church policy, all he has to do is back up his arguments like we all do.

Michael

bruce terry
11-06-2006, 01:49 PM
Salmonoid "A direct quote from my original post. "It is a well established fact that all sexaul preditors are users of pornography first." There is a link between sexual preditors and pornography use. There is a link between pornography production and pornography use/addiction. (I am sure you will argue this point as well, but why?)"

Why should we. It's a no-brainer that all sexual predators more than enjoy hard-core porn of their deplorable choice. But you can't reverse that and assume that those who look at casual or artistic porn are in training to become sexual predators. If you DO insist on such a stand: All persons of the 'cloth' who are sexual predators read the Bible with great intensity - so the Bible and, maybe, the myopic confines of RELIGION did it.

Salmonoid "From these studies it would also logical to deduce that there are responders on topic who are also sexual preditors. Statistically this is very probable. I think many of you doth protest too much."

Cute, Your Holiness, but a wild-ass-guess that must include you and your fellow Annointed in with us depraved Stone-Throwers.

Now can we get back to what was a really interesting discussion about Art, for God's Sake?

Michel Hardy-Vallée
11-06-2006, 02:22 PM
I'm not sure what "facts" are.

Then let's just call them "claims to truth" for the sake of clarity...

bjorke
11-06-2006, 03:43 PM
Then both sides show the concrete studies that support each claim. I'm with Mark on this one. I don't agree with either side that have posted.I can see you skipped-past the various links in my previous posts :)

I'm increasingly convinced, however, that 'porn art' is a sales slogan, used to drum up the market for what is ultimately pretentious and dull 'erotica.'

One assumes a grand party was had all 'round at the studio while making it, I guess.

Christopher Nisperos
11-06-2006, 03:51 PM
Ahem... (not to be confused with "amen")... can I change the subject?... I mean, get back to the subject? Has anybody here ever heard of Jock Sturges?

[Note: This is my second attempt to kick-start the original thread ... and yes, excuse my hypocrisy 'cause I'm among those who participated in putting it off track .. but will someone pleeeease throw-in their opinion of Sturges?:( ]

Peter De Smidt
11-06-2006, 03:54 PM
Ahem... (not to be confused with "amen")... can I change the subject?... I mean, get back to the subject? Has anybody here ever heard of Jock Sturges?


He does terrific environmental portraiture.

Roger Hicks
11-06-2006, 03:57 PM
Ahem... (not to be confused with "amen")... can I change the subject?... I mean, get back to the subject? Has anybody here ever heard of Jock Sturges?

[Note: This is my second attempt to kick-start the original thread ... and yes, excuse my hypocrisy 'cause I'm among those who participated in putting it off track .. but will someone pleeeease throw-in their opinion of Sturges?:( ]

Great photographer of pubescent girls -- but his best pictures are often the ones where they have their clothes on, rather than off. If we're going to have a 'porn divide' I'd put Hamilton fractionally on the porn side and Sturges fractionally on the not-porn side. Quite honestly, though, I'd hesitate to call that a ringing condemnation of Hamilton or a ringing endorsement of Sturgess.

At photokina on one of the book stands there was a photographically illustrated version of The Story Of O. Almost certainly porn, but beautifully executed: lush, one might say. Why didn't I buy it? Was it because it didn't turn me on or because it didn't tell me much about photography? Who cares? I didn't buy it. I wish every happiness to those who did.

Cheers,

R.

Christopher Nisperos
11-06-2006, 04:03 PM
Ok.. I see that so far Jock Sturges isn't exactly considered close enough to porn to create a discussion. So now, ladies and gentlemen, to put a little fun into the subject, here's a little quiz:

http://film.guardian.co.uk/quiz/questions/0,,1196044,00.html

blansky
11-06-2006, 04:04 PM
Jock Sturges. I'm kinda torn.

It seems kind of like voyeurism to me. I certainly haven't been moved (now stop that) by anything I've seen of his.

It sort of seems like a guy pushing the envelope and engaging our irrational fear of nudity and shame, that we in this country have about pictures of naked people including children. This of course brings us back to the influence that religion namely christianity, has had on our feelings about nudity in this country.

Nudity has for me always been about dropping barriers and "uniforms" and an attempt to reveal the real person, or at least the real persons body. To see a sort of bland who cares kind of nudity which I think is his context, in my opinion, doesn't really do too much for me, pro or con.

Michael

blansky
11-06-2006, 04:06 PM
Great photographer of pubescent girls -- but his best pictures are often the ones where they have their clothes on, rather than off. If we're going to have a 'porn divide' I'd put Hamilton fractionally on the porn side and Sturges fractionally on the not-porn side.

Cheers,

R.

I find Hamilton is beautiful coming of age, in color, in a French cottage kind of thing and Sturges, coming of age in black and white, at the beach.

Neither porn.


Michael

TheFlyingCamera
11-06-2006, 04:08 PM
I'm more partial to Sally Mann than Jock Sturges. If we're talking about budding youth in general, how about some of Bruce Weber's work he did for the Abercrombie & Fitch campaigns? it may not be technically pornographic, but to me it is more suggestive and intended to titillate than Jock's work. Or for yet another take, Reuven Afanador's Torero series, where he photographed some young toreadors in various countries in Latin America where the bullfighting tradition is still strong, in some homoerotic poses. I think some of the boys he photographed were in their late teens (16+), but from the scars some of them had, they were more "men" than most of us couch potatoes participating in this chat. How do you draw the dividing line between maturity and immaturity? Can someone who has faced down a 1000 lb bull with 18" horns be too young to decide to pose nude at 16?

Christopher Nisperos
11-06-2006, 04:17 PM
. . . and as remarkable as it seems, a whole museum on the subject:

http://www.porninart.ch/museum/index.html

Roger Hicks
11-06-2006, 04:28 PM
I find Hamilton is beautiful coming of age, in color, in a French cottage kind of thing and Sturges, coming of age in black and white, at the beach.

Neither porn.


Michael


Dear Michael,

Once, I'd have agreed with you. But consider this comment from the younger sister of a girl I once fancied. She (the sister, not the girl) was maybe 14. When she heard I has a Hamilton book, she asked to borrow it.

"You see one, and you think, wow. And you see another, and you think, he's good. And by the tenth you say, what else can he do?"

That's why I've not bought another Hamilton book in 25-30 years.

Porn? Possibly; possibly not. I don't really care in either case. The main purpose was to draw a parallel with Sturges, where there is far less overt eroticism.

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks
11-06-2006, 04:32 PM
Jock Sturges. I'm kinda torn.

It seems kind of like voyeurism to me....It sort of seems like a guy pushing the envelope and engaging our irrational fear of nudity and shame, that we in this country have about pictures of naked people including children....

Michael

I'll go along with that. Some of those girls don't look comfortable. Others do. And a lot depends on your definition of 'child'.

Cheers,

R.

blansky
11-06-2006, 04:41 PM
"You see one, and you think, wow. And you see another, and you think, he's good. And by the tenth you say, what else can he do?"

That's why I've not bought another Hamilton book in 25-30 years.


You nailed it there. His work is kind of like the antithesis of a tattoo, " I bet you can't get just one".

One Hamilton and you're good for life. I settled for his greatest hits....the best of David Hamilton.


Michael

Michel Hardy-Vallée
11-06-2006, 04:46 PM
What about Roy Stuart? Given that he uses precisely the visual conventions of pornography in his work, wherein would lie that fine line he wants us to make between porn and his work?

Christopher Nisperos
11-06-2006, 04:51 PM
I'm more partial to Sally Mann than Jock Sturges. If we're talking about budding youth in general, how about some of Bruce Weber's work he did for the Abercrombie & Fitch campaigns? it may not be technically pornographic, but to me it is more suggestive and intended to titillate than Jock's work. Or for yet another take, Reuven Afanador's Torero series, where he photographed some young toreadors in various countries in Latin America where the bullfighting tradition is still strong, in some homoerotic poses. I think some of the boys he photographed were in their late teens (16+), but from the scars some of them had, they were more "men" than most of us couch potatoes participating in this chat. How do you draw the dividing line between maturity and immaturity? Can someone who has faced down a 1000 lb bull with 18" horns be too young to decide to pose nude at 16?

.. and speaking of male nudes and the question of porn as art (plus, considering my interest in Hollywood lighting), what about the work of Jim French? Here you have males, sometimes in full erection, but with some of the best damned 'Hollywood' lighting you can find anywhere.

When people contact me and ask me where there can see modern-day examples of Hollywood lighting, I've frequently refered them to the Jim French/Colt website. The posing can be a little "kitschy", but I suppose that's part of the Hollywood look too. When I tell people about the site, I don't ask whether or not they are gay (and don't care). Anyway, if they're not, I have to assume that they're interested enough in the technical aspects of the lighting to see past the subject matter. (I do tell them the nature of the site).

I don't know if the website still has alot of spot-lit nudes, but give a look. Is it porn? Is it art? Those who would be shocked to see photos of erect males, please wear your blindfold while looking at the site.

http://jimfrench.com/about.html

.

blansky
11-06-2006, 05:01 PM
A lot of the French stuff is merely gay beefcake with a few Herb Rittsy type gay arty stuff. At least on his site.

I don't see much that is very arty and I don't see any great lighting here either, centainly not Hollywood glamour lighting.

There seems to me to be a definite "gay beefcake" element in male nudes and in others more of a male nude study similar to a female nude study.

His stuff to me seems like gay beefcake.


Michael