| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/05/2007 09:59:05 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by TCGuru:
IMO, both of those (the first photo and the painting) are UGLY. I have seen better work in Hustler.
I suppose, that if one were to really make it artistic and beautiful, it would be different.
A penis, in my humble opinion, is never beautiful. Men were cursed with that big ugly thing hanging off the front of their bodies. Women, on the other hand, were blessed. We have beautiful shapes and unless we are sitting down with our legs spread, we can still be modest. LOL
As far as art goes, 99% of what you see is subjective anyway. It is your OPINION as to whether or not it is art. If you choose to call it art and hang a giant photograph of a penis on your wall, then it is art TO YOU. When grandma comes in, blushes, screams, and faints when she sees it, it is pornography TO HER.
As far as the no females responding remark goes, you just had to give us time to find the thread LOL ;) |
What are you talk about? In your HUMBLE opinion, a penis is never beautiful???? I personally like mine so does my significant other...(and yes, I am hetero)
Absolutely nonsense!
Message edited by author 2007-10-05 22:02:34. |
|
|
|
10/05/2007 10:00:49 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
A photo of my junk will never be fine nor art...
|
Good art evokes an emotional response...
Hmmmm... |
LMAO I love that shot!!! ;-D |
|
|
|
10/05/2007 10:03:31 PM · #53 |
So I take it you're having trouble selling your art to aristocrats? :P
|
|
|
|
10/05/2007 10:45:16 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
In other words, only certain parts of genitalia can become fine art? |
Someone much wiser than I, PM'd me and told me that anything can be the subject of fine art.
If you can convince the aristocracy that ball sack photos are en vogue, I will fly up and model for you :-) |
Well, I need the model and photos before I can convince them... :) |
|
|
|
10/05/2007 10:53:03 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by _eug:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by TCGuru:
A penis, in my humble opinion, is never beautiful. |
Oh, I totally disagree. I think they are gooooooooooooooorgeous! |
Is there something we should know about you, dude? ;) |
Don't ask don't tell baby!
Could someone come up with a pretty penis award to hand out? There are all these other awards people have invented here and I think a Pretty Penis would be a great thing for one to display on their profile page.
Just think of all people vying for a Pretty Penis. Betcha the competition would be stiff. I'm sure some sour grapes loser would say they got the shaft though. |
|
|
|
10/05/2007 10:53:36 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by david_c:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Can a photo of privates be fine art? |
I suppose, but for the most part it's probably better classified as pornography. Whether or not "fine" art is real or imaginary, the type of images you've probably linked here (NSFW, and I'm @ work) are not meant to be enjoyed on a ephemeral/intellectual level, but on a carnal/visceral one. Which is fine, but not necessarily appropriate in most situations. Like at an art gallery, for instance. Ask yourself, would you like a 16x20 canvas print of a "nearly gynecological" image on your wall when your mother-in-law drops by for tea?
IMO, it'd be tough to have any discourse on an issue like this without touching on the role of religious beliefs...after all, repression of individual sexual expression has a long history as part of most religious dogmas. |
Religious bullsh*t aside, I have to take issue with the idea that art should not effect you on a carnal/visceral level. The notion that art should only be felt on an ephemeral/intellectual level is foolish. This is the stuff of lemming art snobs that discard whatever is not of the current flavor being pimped to them. Art SHOULD move you on a level deeper than just intellect, it should stir the pit of of your stomach and speak to you deep inside(yes I know I left the door wide open on that one!). Are we all really so lost to believe this?
Anyway, sorry to derail, I just had to mention the part of this whole thing that stood out to me.
Food for thought.... |
|
|
|
10/05/2007 11:03:23 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by doc_gonzo:
...I have to take issue with the idea that art should not effect you on a carnal/visceral level. The notion that art should only be felt on an ephemeral/intellectual level is foolish....
Art SHOULD move you on a level deeper than just intellect, it should stir the pit of of your stomach... |
True grit. |
|
|
|
10/05/2007 11:21:09 PM · #58 |
It is obvious that we all have different opinions about what constitutes art.
I would probably look at it this way:
Art = something made with artful intent (includes 3 year old scrawlings, leroy's Zoom V+A pic and pretty much anything you want to slap a label on) or made without artful intent that someone ascribes artful intent to.
Good Art = almost completely meaningless as a classification as it depends entirely on the POV of the viewer. Good Art is art that a particular person appreciates. Each individual has their own set of descriptions as to what classifies as "good". They may look exclusively at the technical skills. They may look at a deeper hidden meaning. They may look at it and expect to feel some powerful wave of emotion (see Rorschach for a discussion as to how relevant that would be to a common definition). It's all valid because it's valid to that individual. It's also all invalid because it's inapplicable to anyone else. This interpretation also has a lot to do with where this person is in the stream of life and how their experiences affect them.
Fine Art = a classification of a style of pictures indicating skill and mastery of technique. Attention to detail and continuity from the photographer's intent and vision right through to the ultimate presentation. If an artist wants you to look at something and come to the same thought as everyone else in the room, then that would define success to define their level of skill. If the artist wanted you to look at something and come up with a completely individual response open to infinite variation, then that would also define their level of skill. This is largely why many of the old masters would experiment with different styles or phases. If they could use several different media with similar success as to the actual effect in their viewers versus the intended effect in their viewers, then they could see that their expression was deeper than the media of expression.
Bad Art = I think we're all pretty much familiar with this guy:  |
|
|
|
10/05/2007 11:37:33 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by _eug:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by TCGuru:
A penis, in my humble opinion, is never beautiful. |
Oh, I totally disagree. I think they are gooooooooooooooorgeous! |
Is there something we should know about you, dude? ;) |
Don't ask don't tell baby! |
Now I know where all the views keep coming from...
 |
|
|
|
10/06/2007 12:16:00 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by doc_gonzo:
Religious bullsh*t aside, I have to take issue with the idea that art should not effect you on a carnal/visceral level.
Food for thought.... |
I agree, but again...what's appropriate to the environment? For example, do you think Tubgirl or the goatse.cx guy is art? (Note: these are links to the Wiki article on "Shock Sites", NOT links to the actual images). These types of images are made to affect you on a very base level...could it really be called "art"? I think it's all very subjective...the best litmus would be to ask yourself, "Would I like this displayed on the wall in my home?"
Don't get me wrong, I'm very much pro-erotica/nudity. Just throwing out an opinion on the original post. |
|
|
|
10/06/2007 01:46:26 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Fine Art = a classification of a style of pictures indicating skill and mastery of technique. Attention to detail |
I call bull shit on that statement. Many commercial photographers have more skill and mastery of the craft than most "fine art" photographers.
If I'm not mistaken Leonard Nimmoy is being displayed as a fine art photographer and he sucks (as a photographer).
Message edited by author 2007-10-06 01:47:11.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2007 06:06:11 AM · #62 |
Most photographs are not art anyway, but if it is attractive to your eyes, then, this is good enough.
Hammer, hammer, hammer. |
|
|
|
10/06/2007 10:07:12 AM · #63 |
There are no right or wrong answers. Art is subjective and determined by our minds eye, not by societys definition, or anyone elses for that matter. You decide if it is art.
In most of the nude art I have seen, and enjoy they leave the macro shots out. To me inuendo is way sexier than full frontal assault in this regard.
I found this link interesting.
Bauer Nudes |
|
|
|
10/06/2007 10:21:04 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by msieglerfr:
Originally posted by TCGuru:
IMO, both of those (the first photo and the painting) are UGLY. I have seen better work in Hustler.
I suppose, that if one were to really make it artistic and beautiful, it would be different.
A penis, in my humble opinion, is never beautiful. Men were cursed with that big ugly thing hanging off the front of their bodies. Women, on the other hand, were blessed. We have beautiful shapes and unless we are sitting down with our legs spread, we can still be modest. LOL
As far as art goes, 99% of what you see is subjective anyway. It is your OPINION as to whether or not it is art. If you choose to call it art and hang a giant photograph of a penis on your wall, then it is art TO YOU. When grandma comes in, blushes, screams, and faints when she sees it, it is pornography TO HER.
As far as the no females responding remark goes, you just had to give us time to find the thread LOL ;) |
What are you talk about? In your HUMBLE opinion, a penis is never beautiful???? I personally like mine so does my significant other...(and yes, I am hetero)
Absolutely nonsense! |
First off, it is absolute nonsense that I am talking about. ;)
I am glad you like yours, wasn't singling you out. Glad you are proud and heterosexual.
I still think they are ugly. Like you, I am entitled to an opinion, it was asked for and I gave it.
Don't worry!! Be happy!! :) |
|
|
|
10/06/2007 11:04:41 AM · #65 |
Semi-hetero female chiming in.
Yes, I believe that privates can be created and viewed as artistic, as art, without being pornography.
I don't believe there is a true definition of "fine art", as "fine art" so seldom relies on quality, rather price and limitations.
Also, even if an image of labia is not something I would hang on my living room wall doesn't mean it would be unsuitable for adorning the wall of a midwifery clinic.
It's not just the matter of the image itself, but the presentation as well.
And TC - I'm with you - penis' are ugly most of the time.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2007 11:12:50 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by david_c:
the best litmus would be to ask yourself, "Would I like this displayed on the wall in my home?" |
Why's that a good litmus test ? Some of the most thought provoking and interesting art I've seen are things I'd certainly not want in my house.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2007 11:22:01 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by david_c:
the best litmus would be to ask yourself, "Would I like this displayed on the wall in my home?" |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Why's that a good litmus test ? Some of the most thought provoking and interesting art I've seen are things I'd certainly not want in my house. |
Exactly - art suitable for display in the home won't necessarily look right in a gallery or museum, and vice versa. Does that make one or the other better ?
|
|
|
|
10/06/2007 12:06:21 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Why's that a good litmus test ? Some of the most thought provoking and interesting art I've seen are things I'd certainly not want in my house. |
We are talking about very specific subject matter vs. a narrow definition based on the OP, i.e. "can privates be fine art?". |
|
|
|
10/06/2007 04:00:52 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by TCGuru:
I still think they are ugly. Like you, I am entitled to an opinion, it was asked for and I gave it. |
So, um, would it be less ugly if we dressed them up? Would this be more artistic?
:) |
|
|
|
10/06/2007 04:11:02 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by _eug:
...would it be less ugly if we dressed them up? Would this be more artistic?...
|
Would this (above) be more artistic if veiled? |
|
|
|
10/06/2007 04:12:20 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by _eug:
Originally posted by TCGuru:
I still think they are ugly. Like you, I am entitled to an opinion, it was asked for and I gave it. |
So, um, would it be less ugly if we dressed them up? Would this be more artistic?
:) |
ROFLMAO!!!
Somehow, I get the feeling lil miss jojo will be receiving a 'trick' (treat?) for Halloween!!!! Hmmmm - maybe a collage?
|
|
|
|
10/06/2007 04:41:01 PM · #72 |
Do a google image search of Man in Polyester Suit. Probably the most famous sexual organ photo ever...
Oh heck, I'll just post a link here:
Man in Polyester Suit
|
|
|
|
10/06/2007 04:43:48 PM · #73 |
Aubrey Beardsley is perhaps the most noted artist of erotic art. Many of his line drawing contained gentialia, male and female. They became a defining point of his highly regarded art.
Check him out?
Used in the same way, a photo could and should depict similar artistic traits. |
|
|
|
10/06/2007 04:47:26 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by _eug:
Originally posted by TCGuru:
I still think they are ugly. Like you, I am entitled to an opinion, it was asked for and I gave it. |
So, um, would it be less ugly if we dressed them up? Would this be more artistic?
:) |
How about a bouquet of Penis?
warning bunches of penises
|
|
|
|
10/06/2007 04:50:31 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by _eug:
Originally posted by TCGuru:
I still think they are ugly. Like you, I am entitled to an opinion, it was asked for and I gave it. |
So, um, would it be less ugly if we dressed them up? Would this be more artistic?
:) |
I dunno, but if you have that kind of time, knock yourself out honey!! I'll let ya know how it turned out via PM ;) |
|
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: 03/13/2025 08:15:14 AM EDT.
