DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Ethical Question: Art vs. Pornography
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 75, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 02/01/2007 02:06:50 PM · #26
Nude Art: Emotional, dramatic, or tells a story, nothing overly sexual about it.
Pornography: Sexually suggestive posses, bad lighting etc..

Just my $0.02.
 02/01/2007 02:09:52 PM · #27
I actually agree with this too, well said.

Originally posted by fotodude:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
And I heard once that the difference between Fine Art and Porn is lighting.


haha...well thats kinda true.

i think that it comes closest to this- Artistic nude images try to show the beauty of the human form. the key is form, its based around sculpture the capture of form.

porn i would say is more or less an exact representation of the ones body but the intent is not to focus on form and shape so much as to create a copy.

its the intent and with that the care taken in making the person more than just a recration of flesh.

i think Edward Weston among other did artistic nude the best and often there was nothing explisite shown but one cound see the human form and beauty in his images-
-i think this is really one of the best examples that can be show in favor of a clear difference between the two.
-its been darkened alot but its the best example i could find of this shot (suffers from a poor color space)

so yeah for whatever its worth....that my opinion and i'll hold to it (the statue od David is not pron...its art......right?...then there is a difference here as well

(note for example of pron.....give a gess its the web)

_brando_
02/01/2007 02:10:24 PM · #28
Originally posted by metatate:
This is a very good point. So you're saying it's a trick question -- I love that.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I think that the question is miscast. Porn is probably a subset of art: it is art that is pornographic. It is therefore impossible to identify a boundary at which something ceases to be art. I cannot think of any porn that could not be considered artistic in some fashion (even if you might consider it bad, tasteless or unskilful art: like a 3 year old's drawing, it remains art).

It is more than that. It is the rule of the majority. If the majority believes something to be pornography then it is, if they do not then it is not.

The problem for true artists (and I do NOT consider myself in that class) is whether or not to take a chance that an image you capture will be considered pornography or not.

The only way you will know for sure is to submitt and see how the 'majority' reacts. As an artist, you are expected to decide what works and what does not.
02/01/2007 02:11:37 PM · #29
For the OP:

IMHO, you cannot draw a line between the two. When you see an artistic nude, you know it. When you see porn, you know it. It is a matter of the reaction of the person looking.

Therefore it is subjective from person to person.

After all, when I see a beautiful nude, SOMETHING is stimulated, even if it is just my appreciation for the artists' ability to capture it. When someone who does not approve of nudity sees any nude at all, their stimulation leads to disgust.

All art stimulates us to some point. All art causes a reaction. That is why I say it is subjective and that no line can be drawn. Everyone will interpret it in their own way with their own values and beliefs that they were raised with or have come to hold via their own experiences.

I know this is probably not what you wanted to hear, but that is basically what everyone is saying.

Jojo
 02/01/2007 02:15:34 PM · #30
Originally posted by stdavidson:


The problem for true artists (and I do NOT consider myself in that class) is whether or not to take a chance that an image you capture will be considered pornography or not.


I don't believe a true artist worries about this. A true artist will create whatever he/she wants to create regardless without fear of commentary.
02/01/2007 02:18:23 PM · #31
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by stdavidson:


The problem for true artists (and I do NOT consider myself in that class) is whether or not to take a chance that an image you capture will be considered pornography or not.


I don't believe a true artist worries about this. A true artist will create whatever he/she wants to create regardless without fear of commentary.


Exactly and that is the point I was making earlier about the difference being the "commercialism" of pornography.
 02/01/2007 02:19:20 PM · #32
Originally posted by stdavidson:

It is more than that. It is the rule of the majority. If the majority believes something to be pornography then it is, if they do not then it is not.

The problem for true artists (and I do NOT consider myself in that class) is whether or not to take a chance that an image you capture will be considered pornography or not.

The only way you will know for sure is to submitt and see how the 'majority' reacts. As an artist, you are expected to decide what works and what does not.


Really? A majority of what group of people? Can such things be determined by democracy?

If you are trying to do nothing more than define a word, then you are exploring only one way in which the word "pornography" may be defined. If you are trying to contemplate the nature of the words "pornography" and "art" and their interrelationship, then your analysis is sorely unsophisticated when the issues are so complex and interesting.
 02/01/2007 03:39:05 PM · #33
Originally posted by mrb12186:
I have just been assigned in my ethics class to start a debate over the difference between art and pornography, and where the line is (if it can be) drawn between the two. -Bryan


You can't debate the difference between them until you can define them. And if you can define them, there would be no "debate" as to the differences between them. One might debate whether or not pornography is "acceptable", say, but the "differences" between art and pornography are dictated by the definitions.

As others have pointed out, there is arguably a third category, "erotica".

As the beagle has pointed out (and I heartily concur), pornography rightly should be called a category of art. It may not be "high art" (which is perhaps what the debate is really about, "high art" vs "pornography"), but it is assuredly "an art". It involves the creation of images, and that fits the definition of "art", or at least visual art.

So IMO the terms of your putative "debate" need to be redefined.

R.
 02/01/2007 03:53:50 PM · #34
Originally posted by mrb12186:
I have just been assigned in my ethics class to start a debate over the difference between art and pornography...Please let me know where you stand on the issue.


I can't help but wonder if this question relates more to ethics or is rather just a matter of semantics. The word \"Pornography\" as defined by the American Heritage dictionary is as follows: \"Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal."

If a photograph falls within that definition, I guess the answer is obvious notwithstanding that the picture may or may not also have artistic value as well. A nude photograph and the use of that photograph (sexual or otherwise) falls directly within the perception of the individual. Of course, a cultural taboo may exist as well in regard to any form of nude photography which is especially prevalent in the Western culture. Thus, the "forbidden" photograph is so fascinating to behold both in the artistic AND the pornographic sense.

So, does it really matter whether or not a photograph is considered "Art" or "Pornography?" I do not believe an inherent difference exists within the photograph itself, but rather in the individual's perception (and usage) of it. Either way, we are all responsible for our own level of perception when gazing upon the nakedness of our own humanity...and our individual reaction (physical or otherwise) to it.
 02/01/2007 03:59:35 PM · #35
Ok... my two cents...

Nudity in art should be designed to ellicit an appreciation for the form presented. An artistic nude would lead the viewer (keep in mind you can't control your viewer's perception) to express a gratitude and awe of the human form.

Pornography is not meant to ellicit appreciation, but arouse sexual desire.

You can like the way a person or body looks and appreciate their beauty without being sexually aroused.

Hey.. there's porn out there where the people are fully clothed!
 02/01/2007 04:13:35 PM · #36
Originally posted by kawana:

Pornography: ... bad lighting etc..


I've seen some really well photographed porn and I've seen some really BAD "art". Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler... none of these would sell well if the photography sucked. And financially, I'd much rather work for one of these mags than be a starving artist any day. We're talking big bucks and a lot of skill.

I would caution those that think the difference is in the technicals or artistic merit of the photo to actually evaluate some well done porn (not come and go Internet porn).

I wonder what Hugh Hefner would add to this debate. Or would he care? He might agree with me that it's commercial. He definitely would have the right to say that. :-)


02/01/2007 05:08:01 PM · #37
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:


I wonder what Hugh Hefner would add to this debate. Or would he care? He might agree with me that it's commercial. He definitely would have the right to say that. :-)


Actually, I'd love to hear his thoughts as well. Only because he's been so impactful of the whole porn industry in the last 40-50 years that if anyone SHOULD have a well thought out, and tested response, it'd be him.

As I'm often prone to do, I wrote a very long explination of my thoughts on this matter, and realized, I'd written myself into a circle... good luck to the OP. Luckily, it's easy to find PLENTY of debate on the subject here, and other places on the internet and media.
 02/01/2007 05:15:41 PM · #38
Hugh Hefner isn't a photographer so his opinions don't really count in this issue. His photographers are so well paid that they like whatever it is they do that fills the pocket.
 02/01/2007 05:28:04 PM · #39
I submit to you this classic image of Marylin Monroe

//www.eplaymates.us/images/marilyn-monroe.jpg <===Nudity Warning

Many consider it as Classic Americana, yet it was run in what many now call a porn mag.

Message edited by author 2007-02-01 17:28:24.
 02/01/2007 05:28:18 PM · #40
Yeah Hugh Hefner knows nothing about photography or fine art.
 02/01/2007 05:34:05 PM · #41
Originally posted by nhuto:
I stumbled on this quote about art vs. pornography sometime ago.. it says something like this "art is when you use only the feather, ponography is when you use the whole chicken"

I thought that line was meant to be "kinky is using a feather, fetish is using the whole chicken".
02/01/2007 05:40:28 PM · #42
Here's the mom in me talking.

Art is what I don't mind my kids seeing.
Porn is what I do mind if my kids see.

Kids in question - 2 months, 2½ years and 4½ years.
 02/01/2007 05:44:19 PM · #43
Consider the Venessa Williams scandal photos - ART or PORN? I saw the photos and they were beautiful...no sexual over tones for me, however sexual stimulation could be ther for others...so the question remains: What's porn - what's art?

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I draw my own line between artistic nudity and pornography by defining the terms as follows:

Artistic Nudity: A celebration of the human form through visual representations without sexual overtones.

Pornography: A celebration of sexual stimulation through visual representation of the human form.

02/01/2007 06:00:33 PM · #44
Isn't the degree to which genitalia are shown important in determining if a photo is pornographic? I've seen beautiful art photos where you can see a penis, say, and that by itself doesn't make it pornographic. However, porn, in my opinion, involves either a sexual act or a lot of gratuitously exposed private parts, which nude art photography generally does not.

The Marilyn Monroe photo was probably considered pornographic in its time. I remember my parents' Playboy magazines where you never ever saw any genitalia (yes, I peeked). Obviously we (as a society in the US) have grown to need more and more stimulation and so more and more is shown. So the porn shots of yore become the nude art photography of today, perhaps.
 02/01/2007 06:03:23 PM · #45
There is no *ethical* difference between art and pornography. Neither have any inherent ethics. Ethics have more to do with how you treat your models, whether your shutter was open for 2 seconds in a 2 second challenge, stuff like that.
 02/01/2007 06:13:28 PM · #46
There was a lot of debate over this shot.

411102

It is an image number...go see it for yourself. I didn't want this thread to get and R rating.

Originally posted by mrb12186:
I have just been assigned in my ethics class to start a debate over the difference between art and pornography, and where the line is (if it can be) drawn between the two. I thought that I would try something different and make a post online in hopes that I would get a more practical answer from those in the photography industry. Please let me know where you stand on the issue, and of any real world experience you may have had with it. Thanks for the help.
-Bryan


Message edited by author 2007-02-01 18:14:27.
 02/01/2007 06:20:00 PM · #47
Originally posted by posthumous:
There is no *ethical* difference between art and pornography. Neither have any inherent ethics. Ethics have more to do with how you treat your models, whether your shutter was open for 2 seconds in a 2 second challenge, stuff like that.


I agree, I'm not sure what the "ethical" debate is. If the question was "Is it ethical to shoot pornography?" or "Is it ethical to look at pornography?" that would be but "Art vs. Pornography" is kind of like "Apples vs Oranges" - which is more ethical.
 02/01/2007 06:22:39 PM · #48
Originally posted by dsterner:
Consider the Venessa Williams scandal photos - ART or PORN? I saw the photos and they were beautiful...no sexual over tones for me, however sexual stimulation could be ther for others...so the question remains: What's porn - what's art?

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I draw my own line between artistic nudity and pornography by defining the terms as follows:

Artistic Nudity: A celebration of the human form through visual representations without sexual overtones.

Pornography: A celebration of sexual stimulation through visual representation of the human form.



I agree. Any nude image can satisfy John's pornography definition. It all depends on the attractiveness of the model to the person viewing it and the mindset of that person at the time of said viewing.

Message edited by author 2007-02-01 18:23:57.
 02/01/2007 06:24:31 PM · #49
I don't think your personal level of arousal is relevant. Look at the photo's intent. It it's about the shape of a body, or a specific non-sexual emotion, it's art. If it's about sex, it's porn.

Message edited by author 2007-02-01 18:26:14.
 02/01/2007 06:28:25 PM · #50
Originally posted by karmabreeze:
I don't think your personal level of arousal is relevant. Look at the photo's intent. It it's about the shape of a body, or a specific non-sexual emotion, it's art. If it's about sex, it's porn.


What if it's two people having sex but the composition, lighting, etc., produce very artistic shapes and patterns. Not art?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 06:54:39 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 06:54:39 PM EDT.