PDA

View Full Version : "Artistic Pornography"



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

Ed Sukach
11-03-2006, 07:20 PM
Without having read thru this thread, I'm gona say that porn is penitration either by self or other.
Tattooing?
Ear piercing?
Sewing?
Taking the patient's temperature with a rectal thermometer?
Colonoscopy?
Applying Preparation "H"?

Markok765
11-03-2006, 07:21 PM
Tattooing?
Ear piercing?
Sewing?
Taking the patient's temperature with a rectal thermometer?
Colonoscopy?
Applying Preparation "H"?

You are implying you get to photograph sexy girls aren't you?

Pastiche
11-03-2006, 07:30 PM
Pastiche - A hopeless discussion I agree, but your forwarned website certainly defined what maybe emotionless Art is, depending on what your definition of Is is.

Bruce

Really?

I think that the subject matter in the link IS pornographic by any definition..
BUT, if you remove the "content" and appreciate things like line, shape, yada yada... the literal elements of visual representation, you will note that there has been a lot of thought put into balancing the composition, and creating fictitious shapes...

I find it rather comical. Not erotic. Pornographic, yes, sexy? No.
Interesting? Definitely. I'd not sit through several frames of that stuff if it were pictures of walls, flowers, junked cars, etc...

Aggie
11-03-2006, 07:32 PM
Tattooing?
Ear piercing?
Sewing?
Taking the patient's temperature with a rectal thermometer?
Colonoscopy?
Applying Preparation "H"?

Colonoscopy is where a camera should never be shoved!

BTW Ed, why is it when someone wants to think of puritanical or fundamentalists Utah is brought up. Yeah I agree about the Rodin exhibit being pitiful. In San Francisco I use to go the Museum out by the Presidio and see the rodin's on permeant display there. Think about it. If Utah was against nudity, why are there so many large families? There is one nude photo at BYU. It was taken on a survivaL class outing near Lake Powell back in the spring of 74. It is of a girl with very long blond hair sitting naked in a rain pool on top of a plateau. She is turned away from the camera, but the back shot is a classic Lady Godiva type image. Well you know what, I didn't see that damn photographer after I had hiked for hours to find a seculuded spot to take a bath. I have the distinction of being the only nude shown at BYU. There now take that for being stuffy and puritan like.

Ed Sukach
11-03-2006, 07:41 PM
You are implying you get to photograph sexy girls aren't you?
You lost me here. I'm not implying anything. I am simply stating my argument to the definition ... it is an oversimplified, sweeping generality, and as such, not very efficient, IMHO.

"I get to photograph sexy girls"? Well - yes ... but "sex" is not my primary, or even secondary, motivation. It goes with the territory... but my primary motivation is to produce work indicative of my fascination and obsession with the incredible beauty in this world as it exists in my "vision".
With very few exceptions, women - ALL women - are beautiful.

Markok765
11-03-2006, 07:55 PM
You lost me here. .
I lost myself..

TheFlyingCamera
11-03-2006, 08:01 PM
Here's an example of an image that in its day was considered borderline pornographic (the Catholic Cardinal who commissioned it kept it hidden behind a velvet curtain in his Roman Palazzo). Today it is considered part of the Canon of western art, much like Michelangelo's David. Yet you can't call it porn, because it has so many other points of reference beyond the sexual suggestion. There are the referents to classical mythology (Cupid, with his wings and bow), the contemporary symbols of musical instruments with their allusion to performance and education as well as seduction...and the masterful, even revolutionary, understanding of light and shadow, and how to capture them on canvas.

dmr
11-03-2006, 08:02 PM
Personally I believe that what we call "porn" stimulates one area of your brain that has to do with physical sexual arousal, while what we may call "art" stimulates a part of the brain that has to do with mental arousal.

For some reason I've been thinking of this all day off and on. What makes it porn?

For a while I was thinking that one thing all porn has in common is that it is commercially developed as a tool of arousal.

But, taking a step backwards ... if it informs, entertains, inspires, it's art or (not)porn.

If it arouses, it's porn.

And I don't think there can be a clear line between porn and (not)porn.

Markok765
11-03-2006, 08:13 PM
There are young people on here!

dmr
11-03-2006, 08:24 PM
You lost me here. .

I lost myself..

Have you tried Hari Krishna? :)

Markok765
11-03-2006, 08:25 PM
Have you tried Hari Krishna? :)

What is that?

blansky
11-03-2006, 08:27 PM
double post.

blansky
11-03-2006, 08:28 PM
For some reason I've been thinking of this all day off and on. What makes it porn?

For a while I was thinking that one thing all porn has in common is that it is commercially developed as a tool of arousal.

But, taking a step backwards ... if it informs, entertains, inspires, it's art or (not)porn.

If it arouses, it's porn.

And I don't think there can be a clear line between porn and (not)porn.

Porn is probably a word that was derogatorily used by some anal retentive sexually repressed religious nut, and the word I should have used is "eroticism" in my definition, and neither in my opinion is a negative word or a negative response.

Michael

Markok765
11-03-2006, 08:30 PM
double post blansky
He is getting old!

Claire Senft
11-03-2006, 08:36 PM
Marko, It is a Krishna that has not shaved anything. I am surprised that you did not know this. They are only to be found North of the US border.

Markok765
11-03-2006, 08:41 PM
Im too young to know this

dmr
11-03-2006, 08:45 PM
Have you tried Hari Krishna?

What is that?

LOL! it was my lame attempt at humor. :)

Comes from a running gag in "The Muppet Movie" ...

"Uh, excuse me, I'm lost."

"Have you tried Hari Krishna?" :)

I don't know why I posted that, but it came to mind when I read the "lost" comments.

Oh well ...

Markok765
11-03-2006, 08:46 PM
You are really bored, arrnt you........

kb244
11-03-2006, 08:51 PM
Here's an example of an image that in its day was considered borderline pornographic (the Catholic Cardinal who commissioned it kept it hidden behind a velvet curtain in his Roman Palazzo). Today it is considered part of the Canon of western art, much like Michelangelo's David. Yet you can't call it porn, because it has so many other points of reference beyond the sexual suggestion. There are the referents to classical mythology (Cupid, with his wings and bow), the contemporary symbols of musical instruments with their allusion to performance and education as well as seduction...and the masterful, even revolutionary, understanding of light and shadow, and how to capture them on canvas.

Is he planning on putting that violin bow up his....

Bromo33333
11-03-2006, 08:57 PM
Just to make it clear, the respondents stated specifically that the statue was pornographic. They were not asked questions about a criteria, and the statue met that criteria. They directly stated that "Michelangelo's David is pornographic" Yes, simply amazing, but Utah is a little behind the midwest. In illustration, most recently an Auguste Rodin exhibit was allowed, but the work was draped. I find that attitude far more revolting than pornography.

So .... there was a cloth covered statue - and you couldn't see the statue ...?

Was there a "R. Mutt" signature on the cloth somewhere ... ? :D