| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/01/2007 06:37:11 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by yanko:
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? |
Is it about sex or is it about the shape and curvature of sex?
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 06:41:05 PM · #52 |
| What about some of the more graphic works of Robert Mapplethorpe. Art or Porn? |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 06:44:51 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
What about some of the more graphic works of Robert Mapplethorpe. Art or Porn? |
He never intended those photos to be seen |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 06:45:37 PM · #54 |
My thoughts...it is about the intent of what the image tries to evoke and convey.
Porn, simply tries evoke a physical erotic reaction. Nothing more...
Art, may be stimulating but the difference is that it should evoke further emotional responses such as admiration (ie: of the human form), thoughtful contemplation of angles and presentation, etc.
Where as porn just evokes the response of "meat".
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 06:48:09 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
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 submit and see how the 'majority' reacts. As an artist, you are expected to decide what works and what does not. |
|
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
A majority of what group of people? |
Us
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Can such things be determined by democracy? |
Not only can it be but it commonly is in the USA. Perhaps things are different in the UK.
That is not to say that the majority is any more 'right' than the individual is about such things. After all, the majority once believed the Earth is flat and the center of the universe and persecuted those who disagreed.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 06:53:39 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by dsterner:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
What about some of the more graphic works of Robert Mapplethorpe. Art or Porn? |
He never intended those photos to be seen |
But they are being seen. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 06:54:25 PM · #57 |
Who's to decide what a photo evokes, connotes or otherwise means..Perhaps for "high art" participants, wordly in art education, knowledge and critique. Surely they can see the difference, but what about my Mom or Dad or religous fanatics, the right wing fanatics teachers and priests?
Originally posted by theSaj:
My thoughts...it is about the intent of what the image tries to evoke and convey.
Porn, simply tries evoke a physical erotic reaction. Nothing more...
Art, may be stimulating but the difference is that it should evoke further emotional responses such as admiration (ie: of the human form), thoughtful contemplation of angles and presentation, etc.
Where as porn just evokes the response of "meat". |
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 06:57:40 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by dsterner:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
What about some of the more graphic works of Robert Mapplethorpe. Art or Porn? |
He never intended those photos to be seen |
Once again... back to my original statement about art being produce to be art and porn being produced as commercial photography.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 06:57:59 PM · #59 |
I do believe there is a gray zone...
(ie: some of the photos in the Nude challenge I found raunchy. Ironically, many that I felt leaned toward being too raunchy for my taste were not always the most nude or most revealing.)
I will say one other criteria I use for determining porn is whether it degrades women as opposed to respecting them.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 06:59:45 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by karmabreeze:
Originally posted by yanko:
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? |
Is it about sex or is it about the shape and curvature of sex? |
Now doesn't that depend on who's viewing it?
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 07:00:44 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
I will say one other criteria I use for determining porn is whether it degrades women as opposed to respecting them. |
So a man rockin' out with his cock out ain't porn? How about gay porn?
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 07:01:30 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
I do believe there is a gray zone...
(ie: some of the photos in the Nude challenge I found raunchy. Ironically, many that I felt leaned toward being too raunchy for my taste were not always the most nude or most revealing.)
I will say one other criteria I use for determining porn is whether it degrades women as opposed to respecting them. |
Well there's gay porn with no women - and I'd say society has different ideas on what is degrading for a man and what is degrading for a woman.
In any case I don't think degrading has much to do with it as many people would argue that porn can be liberating.
Art can be degrading as well - whether it's of a sexual nature or not. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 07:14:38 PM · #63 |
Consider: Poussin, Nicolas
The Rape of the Sabine Women
1633-34
The Rape of the Sabine Women is a mythological event from just after the founding of Rome. The young city of Rome had granted citizenship to criminals and lawless persons to grow quickly, and was therefore winning the wars againgst its neighbours, but a lack of women made it clear that the greatness of the city would vane in a generation or two due to lack of male offspring.
The neighbouring town scorned at Roman requests to marry their women, but accepted an invitation to a huge religious celebration in honour of Neptun. In the middle of the party, the Romans rushed in and abducted the Sabine women, who were the forced to marry their rapists.
The Sabines were horrified at this open breach of the rules of hospitality, and went home to prepare for war. When they later returned in arms to take back their women by force, the Sabine women had reconciled with their now husbonds, and stopped the commencing battle before it started by placing themselves inbetween the two battleready groups.
The Romans and the Sabines were reconciled and the city of Rome could continue on the path to greatness.
Originally posted by theSaj:
I do believe there is a gray zone...
(ie: some of the photos in the Nude challenge I found raunchy. Ironically, many that I felt leaned toward being too raunchy for my taste were not always the most nude or most revealing.)
I will say one other criteria I use for determining porn is whether it degrades women as opposed to respecting them. |
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 07:21:37 PM · #64 |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 07:30:21 PM · #65 |
Being a heterosexual, male porn doesn't appeal to me. And I have little knowledge of such.
If it degrades another human being, than I would likely judge it so. That said, depicting events of degredation does not always constitute porn. Going back to my earlier post about intent to convey or evoke other responses than mere eroto-physical.
(ie: Schindler's List has scenes in which women are displayed naked in degrading situations. However, the intent is to convey and evoke and emotional response other than erotic-physical desire.)
Hope that clarifies...
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 07:39:29 PM · #66 |
Thank you for posting the link. Given I have art history background, I forget some don't know about art history
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 07:52:01 PM · #67 |
I want to throw another image at you guys... "The Fall of Man and the Expulsion from the Garden of Eden." Michelangelo. Here's a link
Notice the submissive position of "Eve" to the left of the image. In modern Western Cultures that position would be considered degrading to women.
Also this depiction can be used for the "genitals debate".
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 08:10:50 PM · #68 |
[quote=kenskid] 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.
erm ... I can't seem to even figure out how to search for a photo by image number ... LOL |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 08:14:50 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Greetmir:
erm ... I can't seem to even figure out how to search for a photo by image number ... LOL |
Link for the Wicked this is a thread about porn.
Graphic nudity and undercooked seafood warning
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 08:30:55 PM · #70 |
OK ... I have seen it and I have to say that I do not think it is pornographic ... any more than a picture of, say, a dog having a bowel movement. But I don't find it an appealing work of art either.
Just for future reference ... how DOES one search for a photo by number, though? |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 08:31:36 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
Art can be degrading as well - whether it's of a sexual nature or not. |
I blame the society that raised me. ;-)
Although I don't have much interest in this debate/non-debate, I'll post my two cents (hopefully without being too degrading)...
I like what one said about a mother's point of view - what you might allow your children to see - as a defining criteria. I would also go with the "I know it when I see it" but that doesn't help find consensus (as if!).
If I had to define my own view, I essentially consider porn to be images depicting people engaged in a sexual act, with others or alone, naked or otherwise, real or overtly suggested. (some exceptions made for obvious intent to be considered humor - i.e. infamous "DPC Lust" photo pair). Bizarre presentations of genitalia (i.e. that squid pic), I would put more in the "vulgar" category.
I guess I could more easily define porn as "anything that would get my ass kicked if my wife ever found any in my browser cache" ;-)
Within the context of DPC, you might consider that any images in the Nude gallery with an astronomically higher-than-average view count, but with an average or lower-than-average comment count, is probably porn - at least to those whose hands are too busy to leave a comment. ;-)
That's all I got on the subject. For now anyway. :) |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 08:44:08 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Greetmir:
Just for future reference ... how DOES one search for a photo by number, though? |
I just went to an image from the front page and replaced the image ID with the new one .
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 08:50:50 PM · #73 |
Something I found in an essay on Censorware.net regarding the definition of pornography and obscenity that I think is applicable in this discussion.
--------------------------------------------
"Pornography" is a layperson's term, with no particular legal significance. Jones may believe that Penthouse is non-pornographic, while Smith believes that it is. Neither is incorrect.
The term of legal significance is "obscenity", which, after struggling for many years and through many cases, the U.S. Supreme Court defined in Miller v. California in 1973. It is a three-part test, as follows:
"The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be:
(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Kois v. Wisconsin, supra, at 230, quoting Roth v. United States, supra, at 489;
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
Note that part (a) does employ community standards. However, all three parts must be met for a work to be deemed obscene, and part (c), as the Court has held elsewhere, is a national threshold, not a community test.
----------------------------------------------
I found it enlightening if very American.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 09:31:27 PM · #74 |
mrb12186
i'm going to take this from a english literature point of view because i think there are two sides at play (which may be particularly relevant to your ethics study).
you've got the intention of the author (which some people have already mentioned) to create an image that is beautiful but not sexual or pornographic.
however (as reader response theorists claim) there are many who think that the author's intention is irrelevant, that the art is validated by the viewer. if the viewer sees it as beautiful, then it's art ... otherwise, it's pornography.
another funny quote about the difference between art and porn:
If it's in focus, it's pornography, if it's out of focus, it's art. LOL
there are rules however. once you depict sex explicitly, or focus too heavily on genitalia, then it's usually considered porn. but very few moderate people would look at a naked body and say it's porn ... compare classic art to the 'flesh parade' on the internet nowadays. galleries of naked girls, which most consider porn simply because it's on the internet.
also worth considering is the effect of classic art. michaelangelo's 'david' is a nude. nobody would dare consider that porn. so some nude art has been elevated beyond criticism.
however i think that for your ethics discussion, my original point is worth considering: that the biggest issue is the difference between author's intention and viewer's interpretation.
... good luck with the assignment! :)
Message edited by author 2007-02-01 21:33:33.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 09:39:04 PM · #75 |
| porn is usually more exciting, while the artistic nudes are usually less exciting, LOL! |
|
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 06:28:42 PM EDT.
