| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/05/2011 05:58:58 PM · #1 |
I would love to hear other members views on the image that won 2nd prize in the prestigous Taylor Wessing portrait prize. Art or porn? Are human genitals revolting\? Warning, do not open if you are offended by graphic nudity.
//www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/sep/17/panayiotis-lamprou-portrait-wife-photography# |
|
|
|
02/05/2011 06:06:16 PM · #2 |
| Human genitals aren't revolting, but that one isn't pretty. Without the genitalia, though, that image becomes a snapshot. Either way, nothing special. |
|
|
|
02/05/2011 06:08:39 PM · #3 |
| Nothing more than a photo of the human form. How it took 2nd is another matter, but the photo is a photo. |
|
|
|
02/05/2011 06:20:30 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Human genitals aren't revolting, but that one isn't pretty. |
Agreed.
That image IMO is nothing special and I am drawn to the vagina and don't see anything else in the picture really because of it's (insert negative adjective here) appearance. I think even a woman would share the same thoughts on this particular image.
A photographer that I have recently stumbled upon and really enjoy his work is Max Sauco. He photographs the human form in a surrealistic and artful way. There is a fine line between art and porn photography.
Message edited by author 2011-02-05 18:20:54.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2011 06:24:58 PM · #5 |
2nd place seriously.
It is not porn, but I am not sure it is art either to be honest and it is kinda ugly. ( I am so gonna get slammed for that one) |
|
|
|
02/05/2011 06:26:27 PM · #6 |
The article is amusing to read, it reads much like any piece on modern art, lots of blah and context but no real meaning.
I don't think much of the photo at all, and I definitely don't for for all the "deeper meaning" guff. |
|
|
|
02/05/2011 06:32:29 PM · #7 |
| IMO....if I was going to draw the line between art and porn, I would lean towards porn. The way in which genitalia is presented to the camera makes it porn or not. Not a great shot, but not horrible, but defiantly not the most attractive subject to where the eyes are intended to be drawn. Politically speaking of course. |
|
|
|
02/05/2011 06:44:53 PM · #8 |
| A reason they are called privates. |
|
|
|
02/05/2011 06:45:05 PM · #9 |
| Bit of a train wreck IMO. Your face curls up in shock and you ask yourself why am I still looking at this. This image is not for me; however, I have to agree that it beats you over the head with it's in your face subtlety. That subtlety is the reason for the OP's question. Ugh. |
|
|
|
02/05/2011 06:45:12 PM · #10 |
The fact that we are having this conversation means something; the image makes a cultural contribution by catalysing such debate. It is something of a self-fulfilling entity.
The art isn't in the woman, the vagina or any aspect of the picture, rather it is in the pulic sharing. With that act it becomes something else - a cultural artefact, our conversation is much a part of the 'art' as the picture itself.
At least I could convince myself of that if I chose to. |
|
|
|
02/05/2011 06:57:43 PM · #11 |
Why?
Referring to the image, and not to Paul's comment.
Message edited by author 2011-02-05 18:58:16. |
|
|
|
02/05/2011 07:15:15 PM · #12 |
i've seen a lot of porn.... i dont consider this image to be pornographic.
however, there is certainly an intimacy invoked by the image that can make you feel quite uncomfortable.
on that basis alone i dont think it is as terrible or "snapshotty" as is being suggested by quite a lot of people.
(nb - i am an art nude model and quite accustomed to seeing fine art nudes and even erotic pieces, there isnt a day that goes by that my poor laptop doesnt get to display a vagina in some state.... but that picture even had me go "oh! thats a little private!" but i think thats the reason why it is SO EFFECTIVE) |
|
|
|
02/05/2011 07:51:26 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by MrHllywd07:
IMO....if I was going to draw the line between art and porn, I would lean towards porn. The way in which genitalia is presented to the camera makes it porn or not. |
And how would you describe their presentation? |
|
|
|
02/05/2011 07:56:06 PM · #14 |
| her smile was so wonderfully enigmatic before i clicked |
|
|
|
02/05/2011 07:58:21 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by MrHllywd07:
IMO....if I was going to draw the line between art and porn, I would lean towards porn. The way in which genitalia is presented to the camera makes it porn or not. |
And how would you describe their presentation? |
I think the presentation is that, of porn. |
|
|
|
02/05/2011 08:01:28 PM · #16 |
| I have seen porn that is better lit and composed then that. IMHO it is more of a shock value but not really artistic however it does cause a reaction so maybe it is art. |
|
|
|
02/05/2011 08:08:33 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by MrHllywd07:
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by MrHllywd07:
IMO....if I was going to draw the line between art and porn, I would lean towards porn. The way in which genitalia is presented to the camera makes it porn or not. |
And how would you describe their presentation? |
I think the presentation is that, of porn. |
Porn is provocative. This is not. At least, not in a way that sells magazines.
Specifically I was asking, what about their presentation (they, the genetalia) makes you classify this as porn?
|
|
|
|
02/05/2011 08:16:29 PM · #18 |
| Looking at the image before (as presented in the article) and after (the full image), I find it neither art or porn, this is just a bad photo. |
|
|
|
02/05/2011 08:21:45 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by SEG:
A photographer that I have recently stumbled upon and really enjoy his work is Max Sauco. He photographs the human form in a surrealistic and artful way. There is a fine line between art and porn photography. |
These are pretty interesting. But doubt they would pass muster in "Advanced Editing." These images are "made" not "taken." |
|
|
|
02/05/2011 08:33:37 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by MrHllywd07:
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by MrHllywd07:
IMO....if I was going to draw the line between art and porn, I would lean towards porn. The way in which genitalia is presented to the camera makes it porn or not. |
And how would you describe their presentation? |
I think the presentation is that, of porn. |
Porn is provocative. This is not. At least, not in a way that sells magazines.
Specifically I was asking, what about their presentation (they, the genetalia) makes you classify this as porn? |
I do find this somewhat provocative, but it could be worse. My wife, who knew nothing of this thread, I asked her if that photo was art or porn. Her response was "If defiantly isn't art". The presentation of the genitals in such a manner, to me, would limit it in being included into the art category. If her legs were crossed, or even closed, that could have made it less "porn-ish." I did find many tasteful photos of nude females in the Nude Galleries on DPC. Most of them by  fotomann_forever |
|
|
|
02/05/2011 09:42:15 PM · #21 |
Simple question
Can it be a little of both? |
|
|
|
02/05/2011 10:05:32 PM · #22 |
| It can be a lot of neither. |
|
|
|
02/05/2011 10:24:27 PM · #23 |
Holy mother of... yikes...
Porn/Art... oy vey |
|
|
|
02/05/2011 10:28:44 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
I would love to hear other members views on the image that won 2nd prize in the prestigous Taylor Wessing portrait prize. |
perfect for this week's "What Doesn't Belong?" challenge.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2011 10:37:25 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
her smile was so wonderfully enigmatic before i clicked |
Her smile was still there after you clicked wasn't it? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 12:21:15 PM EDT.
