Art or Pornography? (Warning: Contains Nudity)

02/10/2005 01:27:15 PM · #126

Originally posted by rgarciah55:

Originally posted by Gordon:
I would say they were quite similarly focused entirely on the penis, in the same way the shots earlier do. The arching composition might be better but it is pretty clear what the focus of attention is.

I agree with you, but the composition as a whole is aesthetically appealing. (Parallel lines)

Yup - it is, but I feel a couple of the posted images (the ones I mentioned) are similarly well composed.

MikeO

Fujifilm x100

02/10/2005 02:20:25 PM · #127

One of the most entertaining threads for ages! Some of the comments had me in stiches.

As for the photos, well Its that age old question ''...but is it art''. To some it will be and to others it will not.
Being a fine figure of a man myself ( I have a keg not a six pack!) and having the body of a god (Buddah!) I would be of the opinion leaning towards 'art' more than pornography, although my wife said pornographic. To each his/her own I guess

Anyway Welcome to DPC!!

Mike

peete

Nikon D70

02/10/2005 02:33:21 PM · #128

im kind of hesitating between the two myself, but images like grip are still nice art. i think my personal opinion would lie towards art than porn.

Nikon AF Fisheye-Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G IF-ED DX

02/10/2005 03:08:07 PM · #129

Just a thought - why does it have to be an either/ or proposition ?
There's no reason why art can't be sexually arousing.

The pictures are certainly taken with artistic ideals in mind, treated as art, photographed tastefully, well lit, with good technique - they qualify as art just as much as anything else.

The subject matter may well be pornographic at the same time - though that's certainly a harder thing to define - sexually explicit yes, but were they shot to turn someone on ?

Message edited by author 2005-02-10 15:14:38.

grigrigirl

Nikon D3

02/10/2005 03:14:25 PM · #130

i think the difference between art and pornography is harsh lighting and bad photography

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

02/10/2005 03:16:01 PM · #131

Originally posted by grigrigirl:

i think the difference between art and pornography is harsh lighting and bad photography

I can find plenty of bad photography, with harsh lighting hanging in art galleries. Try the Guggenheim sometime... Nan Goldin springs to mind.

Message edited by author 2005-02-10 15:17:11.

Beach_mel

Nikon D70s

02/10/2005 03:16:56 PM · #132

Originally posted by grigrigirl:

i think the difference between art and pornography is harsh lighting and bad photography

Don't forget the 70's music playing in the background.

grigrigirl

Nikon D3

Nikon AF Fisheye-Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G IF-ED DX

02/10/2005 03:17:13 PM · #133

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by grigrigirl:
i think the difference between art and pornography is harsh lighting and bad photography

I can find plenty of bad photography, with harsh lighting hanging in art galleries. Try the Guggenheim sometime...

but is it in your face sexually explicit and shot to turn someone on?

grigrigirl

Nikon D3

Nikon AF Fisheye-Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G IF-ED DX

02/10/2005 03:18:50 PM · #134

Originally posted by Beach_mel:

Originally posted by grigrigirl:
i think the difference between art and pornography is harsh lighting and bad photography

Don't forget the 70's music playing in the background.

hehehe

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/10/2005 03:21:01 PM · #135

Originally posted by grigrigirl:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by grigrigirl:
i think the difference between art and pornography is harsh lighting and bad photography

I can find plenty of bad photography, with harsh lighting hanging in art galleries. Try the Guggenheim sometime...

but is it in your face sexually explicit and shot to turn someone on?

It is sexually explicit. The last question is in the mind of the photographer, not the viewer, I guess. Mostly why the courts have such a hard time too, I suspect.

Plenty of Robert Mapplethorpe nudes, quite often with two men, shall we say, interacting. Nan Goldin's pictures are a lot of naked women, in voyeuristic situations.

E.g., (though not particularly explicit)

//www.guggenheimcollection.org/site/artist_work_lg_97A_1.html

or
//www.guggenheimcollection.org/site/artist_work_lg_192_7.html

Again, not very explicit. But the collections of both artists have plenty of sexually explicit images, that were on display last time I was there.

Message edited by author 2005-02-10 15:24:38.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

02/10/2005 03:22:17 PM · #136

<<>>

Robt.

Alecia

Canon EOS-10D

02/10/2005 03:23:37 PM · #137

i guess everyone has different ideas of what porn is. after seeing grip, i think that that one, to me, would fall the most under the category of art. but i don't know that i would classify any under porn; rather some form of erotica. to me, porn seems to imply explicit acts, etc, where erotica might be the study of lines, forms, shadows, whatnot while using specific body parts that are generally kept under wraps. literally. ;)

my first thought on seeing these images was not at all of mapplethorpe, as mapplethorpe seemed to have a different vision than just stark shots of erections; capturing sensuality seemed to be more his agenda. even in the one that gordon posted, the lines and shadows flowed in such a way that, although it was clear what the focal point of the shot was, it was done in a manner that was quite not so: 'hi, here i am, right here in your face (wave).

here is another mapplethorpe example that while not even at all subtle, at least gives the eye something else to focus on, the brain something else to take in--a fuller context: warning nudity. as you look at the top picture--you might think, 'oh look, there is a guy on the phone.' ok, so not really, your eyes probably just go straight for the primary impact of the photo. ;) regardless, at least the phone is there for a diversion, which i think is what sets certain shots apart. don't get me wrong, certainly mapplethorpe had some highly erotic,explicit and even pornographic images in his collection (some subtle, some blatant), but when done with taste and not just nudity for the sake of nudity, they seem to become somehow less threatening in nature. and if that threatening factor (whatever that may be) is lessened, there might be a better chance of seducing the viewer.

02/10/2005 03:25:45 PM · #138

Originally posted by Alecia:

Again - why is it one or the other ? Art can be pornographic - it isn't a distinction. In fact the definitions of pornography include photos, videos and other art...

As to mapplethorpe's pictures not being about penises, or providing other aspects, the more famous ones I can think of are of the men in suits, with their members hanging out ( Man in Polyester Suit) or the range of symbolically explict floral shots - particularly when interleaved with his more obvious shots, it was very clear what he was expressing with the lilies.

Man in Polyester Suit ( explicit)

Marty & Veronica (also explicit)

Parrot Tulip in Vase (explicit ?)

Cala Lily (explict ?)

He happens to be one of my more favourite photographers too, though, even if I find a lot of his images difficult to enjoy. Interesting
thread. I don't think I've ever looked at quite so many penises in one day, before...

Message edited by author 2005-02-10 15:37:43.

Alecia

Canon EOS-10D

02/10/2005 03:42:28 PM · #139

Originally posted by Gordon:

note that i was speaking only about the current images being discussed, not debating art and pornography in general. ;) i am not disagreeing with you that art can and sometimes is pornographic...but was rather merely stating my option that i dont think of these particualar images in question as pornographic. nor do i think of most of mapplethorpe's work as pornographic, although some certainly leans that way. furthermore, i never implied that his work is not about penises--if you look at the example i posted, well, just look again. :) i was simply saying that he generally had some other context, some other vision to be shared than just a close up shot of the male anatomy with little other context. and i actually have a print of the cala lillies--and it is beautiful...one of his more subtly provacative efforts, to be sure.