Recently I was in a comic book store here in Paris, frequented by adult collectores and fans (comic books are a cult item here and in Belgian ... excellent stuff).
Near the 'adult comics' section, I happened across a display of photography books, including one entitled, "Porn Art". Curious by the juxtaposition of terms in the title, I thumbed through the book and —jokes aside— I was really impressed by the quality of photography, regardless of the subject matter.
"Hmm", I thought, " 'artistic pornography' ". The question came to mind:
are the terms necessarily mutually exclusive? I mean, as a fan of Hollywood glamour portrait lighting, I've always maintained that the last real bastion of that genre is (or used to be —now that digital means have replaced traditional) Playboy magazine .. all the elements were there: large format, fresnel spots, retouching on the film, etc.
As well, my friend Ed Fox comes to mind. For years he has created some beautiful images in the genre of fetish photography (women's feet). When he first told me about it years ago, I laughed. Then I saw some of his astonishing images and it shut me up. Ed's Art Center background hasn't gone to waste.
Basically, my mind is made up on the question. I have no problem with the issue. However, I'm particularly interested though in hearing from those who feel that pornography cannot in anycase be considered artistic (agreeing, in advance, that are varying degrees of pornography).
Last edited by Christopher Nisperos; 11-03-2006 at 06:57 AM. Click to view previous post history.