Lilly Cole in Playboy

[Akki14]

Unfortunately her face somewhat disturbs me. Nothing against her but there is something odd there I can't put my finger on it except maybe it's because she looks like a living, walking Blythe Doll which can't be natural and some would argue the point of a nude has something to do with nature at least on a base level.
Not sure I can be bothered to buy a copy of Playboy to check out the photos.

[scootermm]

The photos in Paradis where/are much more artistic than Playboy.

[jp80874]

I only read the French version of Playboy to keep up my foreign language skills.

Lee

Braille?

[eddym]

I only read the French version of Playboy to keep up my foreign language skills.

Lee

A picture is worth a thousand words....

[2F/2F]

The thing that jumps out at me is that the "No" essay (James Fox) seems to say that maybe it could be art if it weren't in Playboy. So putting it in Playboy makes it not art.

Absolutely. Intended and/or final use is everything. It is strictly commercial work using the techniques and concepts of fine art, as usual. It is made not for the sake of making art photographs, but for the sake of making money. It is commercial, through and through.

Calling it art doesn't mean the same as calling it good, and calling it commercial doesn't equal calling it bad. Commercial work can be done quite artfully, or by an artist proper, and art work can be done quite commercially as well, if that is part of the concept.

However, calling something art based only on the medium has always been a weird and overly technical argument for me. Something's physical being does not define it. Its use does. These photographs were made, arguably using artistic techniques and concepts, to sell magazines, not to make art.

Your questioning the author's argument makes perfect sense if this were existent fine art work that was "[put into] Playboy". However, this a phrase with which I disagree. This is not something that was already in existence as "art" that was then selected for placement in the magazine. It is work that was made specifically for this purpose. Thus, "putting it in Playboy" is its entire purpose for existing in the first place...and it is thus commercial photography.

Now, Hustler...THAT is ART!

[AutumnJazz]

Most, if not all, classical painters at least tried to paint for a living. So that means it isn't art?

If someone uses a picture as pornography, does that make it pornography?

The problem is that some people use your argument to say that child/adolsecent nudes are pornography (or nudes in general).

[jd callow]

The photos in Paradis where/are much more artistic than Playboy.

link please...

[scootermm]

I have the issue of Paradis at home, but don't know of any link online.
The UK version of Paradis is a very well done and gorgeous publication.
The photographer was/is Juergen Teller.
They are kinda uncomfortable and mildly trashy, but done well.

[2F/2F]

Most, if not all, classical painters at least tried to paint for a living. So that means it isn't art?

If someone uses a picture as pornography, does that make it pornography?

The problem is that some people use your argument to say that child/adolsecent nudes are pornography (or nudes in general).

Painting or shooting on commission is not the same as commercial work. (The people who buy it call it "art"...and the person who made it calls it "work". ) Commercial work means that the image serves some commercial purpose other than to just exist as an image. If it is selling something other than itself, it is very commercial. I would even argue that religious art built into chapels, cathedrals, etc., is largely commercial, because the imagery's point is to promote a religion, not to simply exist as art.

If someone uses a picture as pornography...then YES! It's pornography! Good or bad, that's what it is. The problem comes with pornography having a bad connotation. People have kneejerk reactions to the word, which shuts off all intelligent thought in regards to the matter and causes falling back on preconceived strong opinions on the matter...very reactionary. The minute genitals become involved, all rational thought goes out the window, and people are ready to ban this and censor that and burn this and that. This makes pornographers very reluctant to admit that something is pornography and not art. I would be fine with pornography simply being called pornography, and this not being a bad thing. It would be a lot easier to stomach than some pretentious pornographer claiming that his or her commercial work is art so that it somehow makes it better.

I have never heard anyone use the notion that the use and not the work itself makes child/adolescent nudes into pornography. People who believe this crap don't care about the use of the "work", whether it be on a gallery wall or in Smut Magazine. To them, smut is smut.

I am not using the terms "art" or "commercial" to judge "quality" in any way.

[eddym]

I would even argue that religious art built into chapels, cathedrals, etc., is largely commercial, because the imagery's point is to promote a religion, not to simply exist as art.

Interesting point, but I don't think so. Religious art, I believe, is more likely didactic. It's purpose is to teach some fundamental of the religion, or in many cases to instill in the viewer a religious sentiment or feeling. In the best case, it might instill in the viewer a religious epiphany or transformation. I would not call that commercial.

If it is used outside the church, then it could more more likely be commercial, intended to invite the viewer to enter the church. But once inside, I would not call most of the art commercial, but rather didactic.