I've heard it said (I forget by whom) that the difference between art and porn is that porn has one purpose only: immediate sexual stimulation. Art is ambiguous - it may or may not have immediate sexual stimulation as a byproduct, but that is not the primary or only intent of the piece.
There's a difference between prudishness and modesty. Especially for women.
I wonder how many men who love to look at photos of naked women would jump at the chance to be seen totally naked on a public web site.
Guy went to psychiatrist and they perform some test:
Originally Posted by jnanian
Doctor draw a triangle and ask - what do you see?
Then he draws a circle - asks again what do you see?
Same answer to square. Then psychiatrist told him "you are pervert", and he answers - "you are drawing - not me"!
As a heterosexual, I find the sexual nature of viewing a female nude is a distraction from the art of the image. But when viewing something like the picture by Herb Ritts - Fred with tyres, I can more appreciate the artistic merit.
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”
Remember the movie Frankie and Johnny?
The cook said "That boy, all he got on his mind is p_ssy. Yea, you open up his head I bet you find is little hairy triangles."
Originally Posted by darkosaric
"Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
In my youth (and a time I was in better shape), I did do some modeling. A few times the photographer was female. Once, male (and my wife was also in the photos). For one of the female photographers it was part of her Master's thesis show. While it was pre-internet, I was at the opening, with about 100 other people. The photos weren't anonymous- it was easy to tell it was me. Large, silver gelatin prints... At first, I didn't go near the photos I was in, but was conscious of people looking at the photographs then turning to me. That only lasted a few minutes, though. After that, all I felt was a sense of pride in being involved in the project. Alas, I wish I could say that women gave me business cards, or wrote their numbers on my hand, but it didn't happen.
Originally Posted by Alan Klein
I did it because they were all photographers I respected and trusted. I also had never shot nudes, but hoped to, so I wanted to know what it felt like to be on the other side of the camera. I think the experience served me well when I returned to my normal side of the camera.
Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera
that might be true some of the time not sure about all the time scott ...
there are many subsets of pornography.
some call boudoir photography porn
some call erotica porn
and some call softcore and hardcore porn "art"
i have seen what some might call hardcore porn billed as art / fine art by the maker
and later i am SURE they were sold through galleries as "fine art photography" ...
in my one farsighted, one nearsighted eyes, a pig wearing lipstick is still a pig
... no matter how it is dressed-up...
the difference is that if someone doesn't want to go to a viewing of erotic photography labelled "fine art" they don't have to, and
if they do and say "ewww" that's OK, the person displaying the work probably expected someone to say "ewww" but often times
if someone says "ewww" to what they equate to tasteless or bad nudes in an online gallery they are labelled a prude
or an art hater or anti-whatever ... because they voiced their opinion. if the maker of the artwork
is able to voice their opinion ( by posting the work in the gallery ) why shouldn't a viewer be able to voice their opinion ?
people call bad portraits, or landscapes bad portraits or landscapes why is saying the same thing about a nude taboo
because it shows raw honesty and vulnerability or because it is so hard to make ?
and we don't really live in an honest world, people make up all sorts of bul$hit about their photography
nudes or whatever, whose to say their intent wasn't to create porn and disguise it as art to begin with.
Last edited by jnanian; 05-27-2014 at 02:51 PM. Click to view previous post history.
I wasn't intending it to be an all-encompassing complete definition of what is or is not art. Justice Potter's statement still applies: "I can't define it but I know it when I see it". But I do think that comes closer to a definition than many I've heard. Then of course, it takes for granted what is stimulating to everyone, which is obviously not universal. To one person, it's toes, to another, it's fat toes, to a third, it's fat hairy toes, and to a fourth, it's hairy earlobes and toes have nothing to do with it.
As a Dane I got interested in this: Wow - yet another Danish Porn actress I don't know about?
Originally Posted by Xmas
(But I don't get the suggestion, even if it is not by said porn actress, and it would be Chriatiania... (with an a))
yes - but isn't it about how you depict it?
Originally Posted by jnanian
John: I would like to show you some images I have done... (Can't show them here... )