Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

art and pornography

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

pablo perez
20 Dec 2002 - 9:23 AM

can porn be artistic? can art be pornographic?

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
20 Dec 2002 - 9:23 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

pablo perez
20 Dec 2002 - 9:27 AM

just returned from a site in which sexually explicit photographic material is allowed and displayed.the site is about photography,all kind,but has no restrictions to theme.
many viewers there say porn is disgusting and should not be shown...but is there a lie to porn and art? or isnt porn just a topic as any other in photography?

J-P
J-P  11396 forum posts
20 Dec 2002 - 10:51 PM

Pablo,This article in the Guardian newspaper may interest you.

J-P
J-P  11396 forum posts
20 Dec 2002 - 11:00 PM

Or

pablo perez
21 Dec 2002 - 6:34 AM

thanks a lot.
funny we are dealing with such an ancient topic,isnt it?
i think there is a huge difference in showing a naked body,as to say in a medical journal,a nude artistic photo or in open porn.
but,the issue is,can open porn,meaning the explicit depiction of sexual acts,be featured in a technical artistic way?

centur
centur  12106 forum posts
21 Dec 2002 - 9:30 AM

Of course it can Pablo ...however it can only be shown amongst adults . I think you are very brave to raise the subject here ...I wonder where do we draw the line thoSmile My mind boggles at the thought of my collection of images of shoes being used for the shoe fetish market! and worse still seeing them banned by overzealous watch dogs!
Most people do NOT have an interest in Erotica per se ...there IS a Time and place for it tho ..and yes as I said it can be done with a sensitivity towards asthetics ...and not purely for the sole pourpose of sexual arousal and marketed only in the area that is the Sex Industry ..however I would wonder what then would be its point? my artistic mind can see a use of course ..tho the statement I would be conveying would be far to 'political' to be considered pornography...imho Cheryl

Stan. L-B
Stan. L-B  12222 forum posts United Kingdom
21 Dec 2002 - 7:48 PM

Nothing new here of course as any well read art student will know. One particualr 'icon' comes to mind, and one which I just cannot understand just why he is so revered in the art world. He is/was the creator of, Surrealist Photography, who entertained the art world, and in particular the French groups in Paris in the 1930s, until his death in 1976. No artist, to my mind has ever managed pass off porn., as art, as he did. Not only did he portray intimate sexual acts between like sexes but explicit acts of sexual nature using models as in his, Mr and Mrs Woodman. Yet, this very contoversial 'artist' still has a strong following in Europe and the States and is still part of the course study at uiniversity level in Britain. But,is it Art, I think not!

pablo perez
22 Dec 2002 - 12:34 AM

one of the most sexually attractive images ive seen,though its not porn,is lichtensteins girl with beach ball.olympia by e. manet is so relaxed and yet strongly sexual.
would most appreciate having the name of the artist you just talked about in order to review his work.

Stan. L-B
Stan. L-B  12222 forum posts United Kingdom
22 Dec 2002 - 11:57 AM

To accede to your request, and to give my final comment on this subject.
Through history, for some pathetic characters, art has been a means or medium by which they are able to release, gratify and satisfy their depraved sexual perversions. They have largely been sucessful in their proliferation in the art world as they are promoted by like minded individuals. Having said that, it seem that they have one thing in their favour in that they tend to keep their sordid activities within a group; unlike the pervert that use children to satisfy their sexual desires.
As for the name of the 'artist', I purposely did not mention his name knowing that there would be someone that would take the bait; his name is,
Man Ray.

SteveCharles
23 Dec 2002 - 12:43 PM

what is porn, what is art? It is an old one, but quite interesting. To my mind, the distinction is a fairly clear, and lies more in the intended use and type of image.

True porn, of the top shelf mag and video variety, is done for one reason; to sexually arouse the viewer and be used as an aid to sexual gratification (usually of the self inflicted kind). The pictures, correspondingly, feature open views of genitalia and other body parts that promote arousal in the intended audience. Then there's the harder stuff that shows sexual acts taking place, but in positions that allow the viewer to see it taking place. There is no real art to it, because the images are disposable and created with a specific purpose in mind.

You can see the difference in artistic erotic photography. More thought goes into the image, and while often sexually stimulating to certain viewers (maybe intentionally), there is often a message in the picture that is missing from straight pornography. Good erotic photography can imply sexuality and arouse without even showing anything. A full frontal nude figure can be placed contextually within the image so that the picture says much more than "here's a naked body to get off on". These pictures come in many types and usually say something about what the photographer wanted to achieve, whether it's a simple study in form and lighting or a powerful statement or the juxtaposition of the naked body in an unusual or shocking environment. But it is not porn, because porn doesn't really say anything, it is a product.

The distinction often becomes blurred when one type of photography becomes influenced by another. Some fashion photography has been described as thinly veiled porn, but how can it be? Fashion photography may contain quite sexually charged images, but as it is generally used in advertising it cannot show what porn shows and its purpose is entirely different.

Also, glamour photography shouldn't be confused with erotic or artistic nude photography. It is soft porn, but disguised under a different name. That's not to say it isn't a valid form of photography, but it's intention is to appeal to the sexual nature of the audience in the same direct way as porn, not the more cerebral way of erotica.

Now I really should do some work!!

Steve

ella
ella  1143 forum posts
26 Mar 2003 - 11:45 PM

From the Oxford Dictionary:

Pornography - explicit representation of sexual activity visually or descriptively to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic feelings; film, literature, etc containing this.

pinkpanthess
28 Mar 2003 - 6:56 PM

is anyone familiar with helmut newton? what side of the discussion would he fall on?

sneaky
sneaky  11132 forum posts
29 Apr 2003 - 8:45 AM

I think there is a distinct difference depending on your upbringing and culture.I am a Brit working in Europe,and I have seen the difference in attitudes to this subject.The Danes are relaxed and liberal about erotic art,and the Germans and Dutch have a different approach all together.But what a Dane would call erotic art,a Brit would be jailed for.Then again the Germans have some really explicit exhibitions that would be banned out right in UK but to them its Art.I agree with everyone here,but then again I know people who use the womens section of the Kays catalogue for self gratification.( Say no more ).Take a look at Saudi Arabia... I had my FHM mag taken off me when I was out there by customs.
I believe that Art is something that is personal and unique to the indervidual and is created for ones personal enjoyment.Did Pacasso paint for others or himself ?.Porn is Art but depends on what angle you look at it and what social and cultural values you have.

Graflex
Graflex  11488 forum posts United Kingdom
29 Apr 2003 - 9:41 AM

I spent 30-years with one glamour magazine company as chief photographer,started around 1967,those were the best days,when glamour was glamour,not like today.
Anyhow,I saw the changing years to what it has become today.Im glad I retired when I did-anyhow,more and more material was being imported by the company-so why did they need a photographer of their own-anyhow,a good excuse to leave all that behind.
Bring back the day's of 'Spick & Span'remember those,unlike today where everyone is swinging from the chandelier....
Anyhow,the internet has made sales tumble and everyone and his wife now believes he/she is a "glamour photographer" since the invention of the digital camera..firemen,traindrivers,postman,they are all at it.The days of the 'true'glamour photographer have long gone-most retired from the business and let the amateurs take over the kitchen.

sneaky
sneaky  11132 forum posts
29 Apr 2003 - 3:36 PM

Graflex... interesting and true mate...

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.