PDA

View Full Version : "Artistic Pornography"



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

blansky
11-06-2006, 04:08 PM
I just looked at the Roy Stuart work. His work seems very cinematic and an exploration of sexual fantasies. It's a sort of detached erotica more in the vein of a porno movie. Beautiful people, beautifully lit, having sex.

I see this stuff every night on the porno channel. Whooops, I mean this stuff is available every night on the porno channel.


Michael

Christopher Nisperos
11-06-2006, 04:08 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?

Funny thing about Roy Stuart's work, I often get a feeling from it of commercial photography, rather (or more than) so-called fine art (ok, ok .. admitting the sometimes blurred line between the two). I mean, I can easily imagine some of his work serving as fashion shots in Vogue, even as crude/nude as some of it can be.

(speaking of which, don't forget a trend in fashion photography whose vestiges are still trailing around here and there, to imply pornography
in certain shoots)

TheFlyingCamera
11-06-2006, 04:09 PM
Jim French's stuff bores me to tears... I'd say regardless of how well lit it may or may not be, it firmly comes down on the side of porn - soft-core or medium-core, depending on your take on it, but nonetheless, porn. It's the gay equivalent of Penthouse (a bit raunchier than Playboy/Playgirl, but not Hustler-esque). The Bruce Weber stuff he did for Abercrombie & Fitch, to me, sidles right up against the porn limits, despite the mainstream distribution of the images, and the "artsy" composition, lighting and printing. BTW - did you know that Bruce owns a Littman? Knowing this, does that push him over the line one direction or the other??? :D

Christopher Nisperos
11-06-2006, 04:20 PM
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.

Hey, Raj .. your right. Earlier this year, here in the big city, there was a Hamilton exhibit. The work looked amazingly like the stuff I remember from the 1970's. But at least he can't be accused of not having his own look!

For me, it's corny rather than porny. However, there is still some shock-value
when a pre-pubescent, bare-chested girl is starring you in the eyes. More disconcerting than erotic.
.

Roger Hicks
11-06-2006, 04:38 PM
Hey, Raj .. your right.
.
Cher Nisp,

Of course I'm right, dear boy. I make a habit of it, whenever possible. Though I have to admit I've seen very little of David Hamilton's new work in, well, maybe 25-30 years. Or maybe I have and didn't realize it was new.

But don't knock it. There have to be many worse ways of earning a living, and what looks like quite a good living at that. I think I'd be happy with his lifestyle and income, though it's always hard to tell, and it's all very hypothetical anyway: I'm happy only with a couple of my nude shots, ever, and the subject had to be pushing 30 at the time.

Now we're really into the realm of 'Is It Art'? A friend of mine used to paint what he called 'wallpaper' for a leading London furniture stores: as I recall, 3 paintings for a thousand quid, thirty years ago. What's that today? Five thousand ($9500)? Ten thousand (£19,000)? It funded his serious work.

Next question: has anyone seen Hamilton's serious work?

Cheers,

R.

Christopher Nisperos
11-06-2006, 04:39 PM
Jim French's stuff bores me to tears... I'd say regardless of how well lit it may or may not be, it firmly comes down on the side of porn - soft-core or medium-core, depending on your take on it, but nonetheless, porn. It's the gay equivalent of Penthouse (a bit raunchier than Playboy/Playgirl, but not Hustler-esque). The Bruce Weber stuff he did for Abercrombie & Fitch, to me, sidles right up against the porn limits, despite the mainstream distribution of the images, and the "artsy" composition, lighting and printing. BTW - did you know that Bruce owns a Littman? Knowing this, does that push him over the line one direction or the other??? :D

Dear Flying,

I dunno. While I'd probably agree that a nude-with-erection could be considered porn (whatever degree you choose), seems to me that a simple nude pose (especially when not showing the genitals), isn't really pornographic. To return to the question: boring or not, would you consider it art?

(Interesting observation: Taking your phrase, "Jim French's stuff bores me to tears" and substituting Ansel Adam's name, this is something I've heard before! Yet French and Adams both sell lots of prints, post cards and calendars .... hmmm... maybe "boring" is a market-segment we're all missing?)

(nawwww)

.

Ed Sukach
11-06-2006, 05:12 PM
The fact that there is a direct link between pornography and sexual assault in children and adults is well documented. Please go to this web site for a listing of studies concerning this topic. www.ktk.ru/~cm/stat2.htm
It took a while, but I finally have been able to wade through much of the "proof" (n.b. quotation marks) presented on this site. After straining everything through my "Does it prove there is a significant relationship between cause and effect" filter, there isn't a lot left, and the greater part of all that really falls into the category of "everyone knows".

Interesting statistics: "43% of sexual predators were exposed to pornography." What do we compare that to ... there is no mention of the incidence of "exposure to pornography" among the general public, or among those who are NOT sexual predators... and without that comparison, coherent conclusions are difficult, at best.

One thing in particular was interesting -- the idea that abstaining from sex was in some way 'healthful" while participating in it, under ANY circumstances - was not ... and that even pro ...? digressed? ... to the idea of "If you play with yourself, you'll go blind".

Oh, come ON!! In this day and age?

I would suggest one thing ... take time to read everything on this site. Consider all the pseudo - medical jargon, and the "Well, YOU don't know - and I do!" attitudes. The more I read, the more it sounded like a transcript of the Bible-thumping frenzy so common to the ... not really Evangelical ... "Sour Godliness" programs on the idiot box.

To tell the truth, that web site scares me. The ONE distiguishing factor is that of denial, and with it, a severely unbalanced set of theories. I wonder how these "abstainers" do as time goes by ... How many will say, "Well, yes - I bought crystal meth ... but I didn't USE it ... I threw it away ... or its sexual equivalent.

In the meantime -- I'll read some erotic literature - beautifully written: The Song of Solomon, in my King James Bible.

Michel Hardy-Vallée
11-06-2006, 05:26 PM
Funny thing about Roy Stuart's work, I often get a feeling from it of commercial photography, rather (or more than) so-called fine art (ok, ok .. admitting the sometimes blurred line between the two). I mean, I can easily imagine some of his work serving as fashion shots in Vogue, even as crude/nude as some of it can be.

(speaking of which, don't forget a trend in fashion photography whose vestiges are still trailing around here and there, to imply pornography
in certain shoots)

Like the Guess ads, for example. I find these particularly tasteless: it's always involving a girl with spread open legs and something in front of the quaint area (e.g. a cinema clapper). Shot in a dumb way, so no, there is no thoughtful treatment of its subject. The problem is with the treatment, not the subject.

Roy Stuart to me looks very 80's in the way he lights stuff, the feel of the film stock, his color compositions (lots of blue...).

Michel Hardy-Vallée
11-06-2006, 05:28 PM
It took a while, but I finally have been able to wade through much of the "proof" (n.b. quotation marks) presented on this site. After straining everything through my "Does it prove there is a significant relationship between cause and effect" filter, there isn't a lot left, and the greater part of all that really falls into the category of "everyone knows".

Seriously Ed, I've been trying to tell him that but it doesn't seem like it matters. I agree with you: all of that evidence is gerrymandered to prove a point it does not support. And there's nothing that's not at least 15 years old. In terms of quality of literature review, I'm sure an undergrad could do better.

Peter De Smidt
11-06-2006, 05:28 PM
In the meantime -- I'll read some erotic literature - beautifully written: The Song of Solomon, in my King James Bible.

Go, Ed, go!

My Sunday school teacher told me that Solomon was the wisest person ever. If so, and given his lifestyle, remember that this is the person chosen by Jehovah to build his temple, it's hard to see how people who believe this story can be prudish about sex. How many concubines were there? Kinda puts a different spin on the current Christian interpretations of fornication and adultery. And then there's the Song of Solomon. Somehow our pastor never got around to giving a sermon on it, and I had to go every week for 18 years.

Christopher Nisperos
11-06-2006, 05:39 PM
BTW - did you know that Bruce owns a Littman? Knowing this, does that push him over the line one direction or the other??? :D

Dear Flying,

I'm not sure that Bruce Weber's use of Littman (and Rolleiflex TLR) would necessarily qualify his work as art instead of pornography (but in any case, for me, I see it as more homo-erotic than pornographic).

Anyway, if one had to judge by a photographer's equipment whether
the resulting work were pornographic or not, a lot of Playboy's earlier stuff —photographed with an 8x10 Deardorff— would be in a museum! As well,
Bob Miser's AMC images —originally made with a Speed Graphic— would be at the Getty (hey, there's an idea!).

Having said that, it's heartwarming to know that Weber —among many other top professionals— are still using film cameras (a term which, just ten years ago, would have been weird!).

Best,

Christopher
.

Christopher Nisperos
11-06-2006, 06:01 PM
Cher Nisp,

Of course I'm right, dear boy. I make a habit of it, whenever possible. ...

I'm happy only with a couple of my nude shots, ever, . . .


Shouldn't it be, "I'm happy only with a couple of my nude shots, however, ..." , dear boy? :p



Now we're really into the realm of 'Is It Art'? A friend of mine used to paint what he called 'wallpaper' for a leading London furniture stores: as I recall, 3 paintings for a thousand quid, thirty years ago. What's that today? Five thousand ($9500)? Ten thousand (£19,000)? It funded his serious work.

Next question: has anyone seen Hamilton's serious work?

Cheers,

R.


Bien vu!


Le Nisp


.

Ole
11-06-2006, 06:29 PM
Interesting statistics: "43% of sexual predators were exposed to pornography." What do we compare that to ... there is no mention of the incidence of "exposure to pornography" among the general public, or among those who are NOT sexual predators... and without that comparison, coherent conclusions are difficult, at best.

Very interesting - that would imply that 57% of "sexual predators" (what does that mean, by the way? The phrase doesn't make sense in any consistent way) were not exposed to pornography. 57% would be considered a majority in most other types of study... :)


I've been reading through this thread with great interest and a little trepidation. This d*mn thing tends to lose the conncetion everytime I try to post, so I don't really put much effort into posting this week. But I'll keep on following this thread!

BrianShaw
11-06-2006, 07:01 PM
BTW... It has been proven, conclusively, that 99% of ALL serial killers, rapists, sexual predators, child molesters ... ate MASHED POTATOES at one time or another in their lives. Do you think that banning mashed potatoes would be a "good thing"?

Oh dear, I ate mashed potatos last night... lots of them. what's going to become of me?

Michel Hardy-Vallée
11-06-2006, 08:59 PM
Oh dear, I ate mashed potatos last night... lots of them. what's going to become of me?

Maybe a very big poo, and a smelly one on top of that.

George Papantoniou
11-07-2006, 02:09 AM
I ate lobster last night and kept running to the toilet since.

I think that 99% of all men were exposed to pornography (at least a few times in their lives). And 70% are periodically exposed during their whole life. Then this would mean that the sexual predators (the male ones) get LESS exposure to pornography than the guys who don't get around raping and harassing people.

Bromo33333
11-07-2006, 07:08 AM
I ate lobster last night and kept running to the toilet since.

I think that 99% of all men were exposed to pornography (at least a few times in their lives). And 70% are periodically exposed during their whole life. Then this would mean that the sexual predators (the male ones) get LESS exposure to pornography than the guys who don't get around raping and harassing people.

On the net, without a good SPAM filter, you rapidly vector back to 99% from 70%. At least in exposure to V1.ag.RRAH. :D

WarEaglemtn
11-20-2006, 01:05 AM
In the US pornograpy, unless it depicts minors, is legal. Obscenity is what is illegal. Many do not see a distinction and it causes problems. Show an image in one city or town and you are fine. Show it in another and you are arrested and charged with whatever they can come up with. In Provo, Utah you might be charged with crimes against 'community standards' for showing your photo while the local Marriott Hotel pushes in-room 'adult' movies.(and J.Willard Marriott who started them is a Mormon). But, you get caught because the local DA sees you are an easy target while Marriott corp has money and lawyers.

As long as it doesn't legally qualify as obscene, print or publish it. I dont' have to look if I don't want to.

Aggie
11-20-2006, 09:12 AM
In the US pornograpy, unless it depicts minors, is legal. Obscenity is what is illegal. Many do not see a distinction and it causes problems. Show an image in one city or town and you are fine. Show it in another and you are arrested and charged with whatever they can come up with. In Provo, Utah you might be charged with crimes against 'community standards' for showing your photo while the local Marriott Hotel pushes in-room 'adult' movies.(and J.Willard Marriott who started them is a Mormon). But, you get caught because the local DA sees you are an easy target while Marriott corp has money and lawyers.

As long as it doesn't legally qualify as obscene, print or publish it. I dont' have to look if I don't want to.
Yep and the example is again about Mormons. Why is there a need to under lie this whole thread with bashing Mormons? Other religions do the same thing. Especially in the South. Try Franklin Tennessee. You might be surprised what the Southern Baptists do there. I know it well having worked at the Barnes and Noble's at Coolsprings. Yet not one of you in this thread want to bash any other religion than Mormons. Yeah I will believe your crap when you speak from a view point of including all who do not like PORNography. I as a woman not as a mormon do not like it. Too many of those images say they are depicitng women artistically when it is only for one purpose they were taken. Now before you all get your g strings in a twist, I have nothing against nudes. In fact issue #2 of Emulsion has a nude on the cover. If I was against nudity I would not have it in my magazine, espeically not on the cover.

Now for another thought in this whole debate, what about people who think that the only real photography is of people? What about landscape photographers who think that taking people pictures is not artistic. You have individuals here that like different things, and abhor others. It is the same with nudity in all it's forms. Some will like it, and other abhor it. As a community we have varied ethnoticities from around the world. Many of those other ethnic groups do not like nudity in any form. Yet some of us here think we should push it in their faces to make them conform to a small group because we are better than they are? What you forget is it is a community of varied backgrounds, religions/or not, and cultural taboos. All that was ever asked is that the nudes not pop up in thunbnails on the home page, and that like the critique gallery, there be a seperate gallery for nudes in all their forms. It is not censorship it is being mindful of other peoples culture/taboos/relgion/likes-dislikes what ever it be. I'll still look at the nudes no matter if they are in a seperate gallery. Yeah shocking the mormon looks at nudes.

Peter De Smidt
11-20-2006, 10:34 AM
So Aggie are you suggesting that any type of picture that might be offensive to a large enough cultural group be relegated to it's own gallery, such that these pictures won't pop up to a casual visitor of this site? That seems to be the principle underlying your last post. But then should your avatar be shown? It clearly is offensive to millions of Muslims.