Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,707   Posts: 1,548,505   Online: 902
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11
    Akki14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    London, UK
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,873
    Images
    210
    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.
    ~Heather
    oooh shiny!
    http://www.stargazy.org/

  2. #12
    scootermm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,867
    Images
    235
    The photos in Paradis where/are much more artistic than Playboy.
    Nigel Tufnel: It's like, how much more black could this be? and the answer is none.
    None more black.

  3. #13
    jp80874's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Bath, OH 44210 USA
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,436
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee L View Post
    I only read the French version of Playboy to keep up my foreign language skills.

    Lee
    Braille?

  4. #14
    eddym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,927
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee L View Post
    I only read the French version of Playboy to keep up my foreign language skills.

    Lee
    A picture is worth a thousand words....
    Eddy McDonald
    www.fotoartes.com
    Eschew defenestration!

  5. #15
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by winger View Post
    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!
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 10-13-2008 at 07:23 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  6. #16
    AutumnJazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Fairfield, Connecticut
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    730
    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).

  7. #17
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by scootermm View Post
    The photos in Paradis where/are much more artistic than Playboy.
    link please...

    *

  8. #18
    scootermm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,867
    Images
    235
    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.
    Nigel Tufnel: It's like, how much more black could this be? and the answer is none.
    None more black.

  9. #19
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by AutumnJazz View Post
    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.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 10-13-2008 at 04:38 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  10. #20
    eddym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,927
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    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.
    Eddy McDonald
    www.fotoartes.com
    Eschew defenestration!

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin