"Artistic Pornography"

[catem]

Originally Posted by bruce terry

else). But once in a great while a picture has EMOTION AND CONTEXT, the subject (or subjects) BELONG in their surroundings, and everything is right ... and if supremely well-executed, it's art, and it's humanity, like everything else.

Agreed. Pictures (especially photographs) of bodies can somehow be about what's best in humanity or about what's worst. It can be something positive, and uplifting, (beauty, desire, sensuality, connection, empathy, even humour) or it can be reduced to the mechanical stuff, but in such a way that it often seems more to do with emotions like hatred and fear, funnily enough not only hatred of the subject but also the viewer.

Cate

[mark]

I think what is at issue here is more a definition of just what pornography is. What is obscene to one is not going to be obscene to another. There is not a way to define it. So there is no answer and no way to judge beyond our own personal definition.


Sure I think the concept is possible. I am not sure I have seen any, but the possibility is out there.

[Drew B.]

my New England puritan two cents: a nude person, (male or female) standing, sitting, lying is not porn. A sexual act (no..not kissing or hugging) could be considered in some way, porn. Bondage is definately porn. I think the viewer has to either look or not look. Myself, I would feel more relaxed looking at a female than a male.....
...and NO, the statue of David is not porn!

[Drew B.]

Originally Posted by Ed Sukach

This surprised me ... a national survey was taken of the Video Rental shops, by an association of porno movie producers, to determine WHO was renting their work... and the results surprised everyone: 56% were rented by WOMEN!!

Two reasons: 1.the women want to get their men aroused and apparently will do anything. (women sometimes create their own problems) 2. their men don't have the balls to get it themselves! sorry

[arigram]

That reminds me of that thread I started some time ago on the subject of erotic photography:
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum54/15821-erotic-photography.html

[Bromo33333]

Originally Posted by Jim Jones

I wonder if their business here in Missouri is as hot (pun intended) as in more sophisticated markets. I suspect it thrives, although local customers might not want to admit it.

Pornography certainly can be art. Mapplethorpe comes to mind. Although he sometimes used photography to promote himself and his fetishes, it was fine photography. Ansel Adams sometimes used photography to promote conservation, and it was fine photography. It's not the subject matter, but how it is done, that makes the difference.

I agree completely. I do think, though, that a lot of folks due to Puritanical Prudishness will view anything naked or sexual to be pornographic. Hence that is why Mapplethorpe was so controversial in Cincinatti. (BTW, I never understood why all the fuss, I find his photos to be rather boring and mechanical. At least the ones I have seen)

Sometimes an artist will be deliberately sexually provocative - which is almost cliche at this point - to deliberately tweak these folks and perhaps gain some notoriety. I am not sure if that would be art or porn, but it is definitely exploitative, though the exploited is the audience. To me this is only 1 notch above porn since challenging an audience is one thing, but to deliberately offend isn't right.

[Bromo33333]

Originally Posted by Drew B.

...and NO, the statue of David is not porn!

Reminds me of the Greek statuary in the British Museum where the privates were drilled out and leaves put in place so as not to offend. Classic Victorian move.

I don't know what is worse to pander (like in the British Museum who defaced ancient statuary) or to deliberately offend (knowingly put something just to tweak or offend the audience)?

[kb244]

Without having read thru this thread, I'm gona say that porn is penitration either by self or other.

Course it could be said that while Artistic Porn can exist, Tasteless Nudes can as well.

[Bromo33333]

Originally Posted by kb244

Without having read thru this thread, I'm gona say that porn is penitration either by self or other.

Course it could be said that while Artistic Porn can exist, Tasteless Nudes can as well.

And what about the programs on the Food Channel - definitely Food Porn the way I see it ...

[kb244]

Originally Posted by Bromo33333

And what about the programs on the Food Channel - definitely Food Porn the way I see it ...

Ya know, that chef was really going down on that carrot in the taste test....