DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> art or porn\?
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 116, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 02/08/2011 12:21:24 AM · #76
Oh - I meant one set of testicles so large that a wheelbarrow was required. Anyone who has browsed the Journal of Urology can tell ya ;-)
And the shaving - may help generate distaste because it uncovers so much detail.

Message edited by author 2011-02-08 00:27:25.
 02/08/2011 09:19:04 PM · #77
As stated before by other members, I believe this is art (good or bad is for you to decide) because it has brought so much discussion. There is a shock value which makes the image memorable (whether we want to remember it or not) and that is something that all photographers strive for, a memorable image.
 02/08/2011 09:23:56 PM · #78
Originally posted by dvanwolvelaere:
As stated before by other members, I believe this is art (good or bad is for you to decide) because it has brought so much discussion. There is a shock value which makes the image memorable (whether we want to remember it or not) and that is something that all photographers strive for, a memorable image.


By your definition someone blowing their brains out on TV is art, I saw it happen, it was memorable but I certainly would not call it art just because it was memorable.
 02/08/2011 09:33:29 PM · #79
Originally posted by skewsme:
And before you fellas get all up-in-yer-shorts-feminist on those of us saying 'yuck' - well how long do you want to gaze at an real ugly wiener or a wheelbarrow full of testicles?


Hey, i'm a privileged, Western, middle-aged white male! I can have whatever opinions i damn well like godammit! That's one of the bonuses!!
 02/08/2011 09:40:04 PM · #80
Originally posted by dvanwolvelaere:
As stated before by other members, I believe this is art (good or bad is for you to decide) because it has brought so much discussion. There is a shock value which makes the image memorable (whether we want to remember it or not) and that is something that all photographers strive for, a memorable image.


I think it comes down to an individual choice is to what is art and what it porn. I do not believe this to be art, but as I said in an earlier post that I would lean towards porn. I think it is "Porn-ish." If you think of this, could this image be in a pornographic magazine such as "Hustler"? If there was a pictorial of her, I think this "Could" be included. I wouldn't imagine walking through an art museum and seeing this photo hanging next to the "Mona Lisa"....OK, that is a little extreme. I could take a photo of my ass in the mirror and call it art, but I do not think anyone in their right mind would say it was art, even though it would draw a discussion, maybe some harsh criticism, and some questions from my wife. As I stated before, just individual opinions, so no one is right or wrong.
 02/08/2011 09:47:41 PM · #81
Originally posted by PapaBob:
Originally posted by dvanwolvelaere:
As stated before by other members, I believe this is art (good or bad is for you to decide) because it has brought so much discussion. There is a shock value which makes the image memorable (whether we want to remember it or not) and that is something that all photographers strive for, a memorable image.


By your definition someone blowing their brains out on TV is art, I saw it happen, it was memorable but I certainly would not call it art just because it was memorable.


If you do a search, what makes a good photograph, you will come up with all sorts of things, depth, lines, perspective, composition, color, emotion, shape, and yes also capturing the unexpected. If you look at this photo you see a lot of these elements if you take the time to look away from her vagina.

That being stated after the initial shock of her vagina, there were other aspects of this photograph that were very distracting, this lighting for one, the horizontal highlights all over the picture really distracted me. I will not say that this is good art, however I will say it is art.
02/08/2011 09:52:37 PM · #82
Is grey black or white?
If we deem it to be porn, can it not still be art?
If it is art, can we still call it porn?
 02/08/2011 09:57:35 PM · #83
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Is grey black or white?
If we deem it to be porn, can it not still be art?
If it is art, can we still call it porn?


Yes to all 3 questions :-)

R.
 02/08/2011 09:58:38 PM · #84
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Is grey black or white?
If we deem it to be porn, can it not still be art?
If it is art, can we still call it porn?


agree
 02/08/2011 10:24:33 PM · #85
Originally posted by PapaBob:
Originally posted by dvanwolvelaere:
As stated before by other members, I believe this is art (good or bad is for you to decide) because it has brought so much discussion. There is a shock value which makes the image memorable (whether we want to remember it or not) and that is something that all photographers strive for, a memorable image.


By your definition someone blowing their brains out on TV is art, I saw it happen, it was memorable but I certainly would not call it art just because it was memorable.


I came to this conclusion myself. Just "causing discussion" cannot be the sole definition for what makes "art".
 02/08/2011 10:44:35 PM · #86
paraphrasing something I read a while back:

"Creativity requires the freedom & willingness to make mistakes. Art is knowing which mistakes to keep."

For me, the photograph in question is more of a willing, experimental mistake, but not a keeper. It seemed to be an attempt to do two things at once, neither of which were quite successful when combined. It would have been a lovely portrait without the anatomical addition. I could have been an intriguing nude. Mostly it appears to me that the photographer couldn't settle on an intention.

There is a sense of forced "artistry" about it to me, a subtle desperation, hiding behind the skirts of controversy and claiming it to be art. "If I have offended, I have created Art. If I have made you think, I have created Art. If I have caused you to ask 'why is this art?' then I have created Art. If there is controversy, there is Art." A great many things meet these criteria, yet few are actually considered Art. If one says "Everything I do is Art" I would counter with "Then nothing you do is Art."
 02/08/2011 10:45:24 PM · #87
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by PapaBob:
Originally posted by dvanwolvelaere:
As stated before by other members, I believe this is art (good or bad is for you to decide) because it has brought so much discussion. There is a shock value which makes the image memorable (whether we want to remember it or not) and that is something that all photographers strive for, a memorable image.


By your definition someone blowing their brains out on TV is art, I saw it happen, it was memorable but I certainly would not call it art just because it was memorable.


I came to this conclusion myself. Just "causing discussion" cannot be the sole definition for what makes "art".


Me too (the conclusion). If I post this site on a site frequented by the ladies in my class at the Sr. Center, they will call it porn, and there is no discussion.

I have seen "discussions" about Slippy's snot (and other things). Does that make it art?

My thoughts on this picture are more along the lines of "why." Why shoot *this* shot? Why make it look so casual? If she were sitting there with a pair of shorts on, would there be any discussion about it? Or would it be summarily dismissed?

02/08/2011 10:59:02 PM · #88
I'm guessing many artists reach for sexuality because it's an easy "conversation maker". They do not or cannot make the effort to stir conversation with something else. In other words, they are lazy. "Lazy art". We've got another name for it now....

Message edited by author 2011-02-08 22:59:11.
 02/08/2011 11:18:09 PM · #89
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm guessing many artists reach for sexuality because it's an easy "conversation maker". They do not or cannot make the effort to stir conversation with something else. In other words, they are lazy. "Lazy art". We've got another name for it now....


Hey now!
 02/08/2011 11:24:27 PM · #90
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm guessing many artists reach for sexuality because it's an easy "conversation maker". They do not or cannot make the effort to stir conversation with something else. In other words, they are lazy. "Lazy art". We've got another name for it now....

Some use sexuality in the same way as any other subject matter, as expression. My best work is erotica, some of it undoubtedly pornographic to some, but I would never post it here, though I would show it. Prurience is not the automatic motive for works involving the whole of human experience.
 02/08/2011 11:57:17 PM · #91
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm guessing many artists reach for sexuality because it's an easy "conversation maker". They do not or cannot make the effort to stir conversation with something else. In other words, they are lazy. "Lazy art". We've got another name for it now....

Some use sexuality in the same way as any other subject matter, as expression. My best work is erotica, some of it undoubtedly pornographic to some, but I would never post it here, though I would show it. Prurience is not the automatic motive for works involving the whole of human experience.


That's why I said "many" and not "all". I would argue strongly, for example, that Mapplethorpe's work is good art and not "lazy art".

Message edited by author 2011-02-08 23:59:09.
 02/09/2011 12:36:20 AM · #92
We've heard from some artists but where's the porn lovers? Do they ever leave the nude gallery?
02/09/2011 01:30:37 AM · #93
i have noticed that a controversial piece often wins competitions, certainly put Panayiotis on the map

(i googled art vs porn to contribute to this thread and came across this rather delightful image)
.......................
02/09/2011 01:49:41 AM · #94
Originally posted by alans_world:
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.


Indeed.
 02/09/2011 08:32:28 AM · #95
If the intent of the image is to stimulate sexual arousal, than its porn. Not if it stimulates, but if its only purpose is intended to stimulate.
 02/09/2011 12:44:32 PM · #96
If you think it is porn, then, it's porn.
If you think it is art, then, it's art.

I won't try and convince you otherwise. End of story!
 02/09/2011 12:50:26 PM · #97
Originally posted by LVicari:
If you think it is porn, then, it's porn.
If you think it is art, then, it's art.

I won't try and convince you otherwise. End of story!


Good answer!
 02/09/2011 01:07:11 PM · #98
Originally posted by LVicari:
If you think it is porn, then, it's porn.
If you think it is art, then, it's art.


Sorry Leo, I can't agree. It seems like a broad-minded statement, but it's not really. It's just sophistry, and does nothing to address the OP's question. I understand your intent, but I have seen an exhibition cancelled and the works actually confiscated by the police because a few determined people demanded that what they think must prevail for everybody. And they made enough of a stink that it did. The photograph in the OP is not porn, by definition. It is art, by definition. Imposing one's own interpretation or prejudices on it does not change that.

An individual of course has the right to call it as they personally see it (the essence of your post), but that does not change what it is or isn't in any categorical sense. Nor should it.

I should add that I personally think it's a photograph on no real consequence, and is notable only for its adolescent crudity (as art). I also thought that those works I saw confiscated by the police were indeed offensive and cringeworthy. But not as offensive as their confiscation was.
 02/09/2011 01:07:11 PM · #99
double, sorry

Message edited by author 2011-02-09 13:07:31.
 02/09/2011 01:11:54 PM · #100
Originally posted by ubique:
It is art, by definition.


That's a bit of a fuzzy statement as I doubt there is any "official" definition for art.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/18/2025 12:12:09 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 06/18/2025 12:12:09 PM EDT.