| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/01/2007 12:46:03 PM · #1 |
I have just been assigned in my ethics class to start a debate over the difference between art and pornography, and where the line is (if it can be) drawn between the two. I thought that I would try something different and make a post online in hopes that I would get a more practical answer from those in the photography industry. Please let me know where you stand on the issue, and of any real world experience you may have had with it. Thanks for the help.
-Bryan
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 12:48:05 PM · #2 |
Have you looked at the images in the Nude challenge going on?
I believe that is art. And I heard once that the difference between Fine Art and Porn is lighting.
Message edited by author 2007-02-01 12:49:14. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 12:54:11 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
And I heard once that the difference between Fine Art and Porn is lighting. |
Not sure I agree, but sounds like a good place to start :-)
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 12:55:45 PM · #4 |
Personally I believe the difference between art and porn is the artists intended response from the viewer. What I mean is that if the artists intent is to stimulate the viewer in a sexual manner, then it is porn. If the artists intent is to show the beauty, form, grace, of the human form in such a way that it (for lack of a better term) "is what it is", then it becomes art.
This is where the trouble lies. What one person may feel is a totally innocent depiction of human form may turn another person on. Does this make it porn? Well, what did the artist intend? Individual likes and dislikes vary to such a tremendous degree, it is impossible to define art vs. porn using a set of rules.
Message edited by author 2007-02-01 12:56:22. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 12:56:07 PM · #5 |
I suppose you want us to post examples? LOL
Seriously, though. I stay as far away from pornography as I can - even discussions about it. I'm not THAT kind of photographer.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 12:58:57 PM · #6 |
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If a nude in the nude challenge is pornography to you then it is pornography, if it is art then it is art. You decide.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 01:00:36 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
Personally I believe the difference between art and porn is the artists intended response from the viewer. What I mean is that if the artists intent is to stimulate the viewer in a sexual manner, then it is porn. |
I'd have to disagree on that point too, that description also describes Erotica. Erotica, however, is generally considered more "high-art" than porn. But, they do share the same "intent".
Stephen Gilbert, painter and sculptor, once remarked "The difference between erotica and pornography is simple. Erotica is what I like. Pornography is what you like, you pervert!"
Message edited by author 2007-02-01 13:03:07.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 01:01:52 PM · #8 |
I tend to think of porn as an action, meaning that someone is doing something to their (or someone else's) body in a manner which elicits a sexual response (typically, raw and uninhibited). This isn't an absolute definition for me, but the best I can think of at the moment.
Art, on the other hand, is a funny little guy with killer skillz in PhotoShop - ( Art Roflmao
(I think of art as being more sensual, or simply an appreciation of beauty.)
...okay, that was just mean, cuz all i can think of now are the various exceptions to what i just wrote! good thread & i hope it isn't too quickly politicized or made completely adolescent - placing this one on 'watch'
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 01:03:06 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
And I heard once that the difference between Fine Art and Porn is lighting. |
Not sure I agree, but sounds like a good place to start :-) |
Just kind of a joke. :-P |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 01:05:12 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by idnic:
I suppose you want us to post examples? LOL
Seriously, though. I stay as far away from pornography as I can - even discussions about it. I'm not THAT kind of photographer. |
...care to elaborate? (as in, what is it that you stay away from, and how do you differentiate between them). Not trying to 'call you out' or anything - just trying to consider as many viewpoints as possible... broadening the mind, & all that crap ;)
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 01:05:13 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
Personally I believe the difference between art and porn is the artists intended response from the viewer. What I mean is that if the artists intent is to stimulate the viewer in a sexual manner, then it is porn. |
Actually, I'd disagree with that. I think it's possible for a photograph to be both sexually stimulating and emotive at the same time. That is, the photographer's intent may be to excite, but it may be more than that as well, or it may carry layers of meaning for other people that go beyond simple titillation.
Perhaps this is the reason for the blurriness of the line to begin with. Most of us "know" porn when we see it, when it's the stuff produced by the porn industry, but it's the aforementioned material that causes the ethical debate. For example, is the later work of Jan Saudek pornographic? I don't think it is, but I'd bet there's plenty of people who disagree. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 01:10:44 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
And I heard once that the difference between Fine Art and Porn is lighting. |
haha...well thats kinda true.
i think that it comes closest to this- Artistic nude images try to show the beauty of the human form. the key is form, its based around sculpture the capture of form.
porn i would say is more or less an exact representation of the ones body but the intent is not to focus on form and shape so much as to create a copy.
its the intent and with that the care taken in making the person more than just a recration of flesh.
i think Edward Weston among other did artistic nude the best and often there was nothing explisite shown but one cound see the human form and beauty in his images-
 -i think this is really one of the best examples that can be show in favor of a clear difference between the two.
 -its been darkened alot but its the best example i could find of this shot (suffers from a poor color space)
so yeah for whatever its worth....that my opinion and i'll hold to it (the statue od David is not pron...its art......right?...then there is a difference here as well
(note for example of pron.....give a gess its the web)
_brando_
Message edited by author 2007-02-01 13:14:28.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 01:13:46 PM · #13 |
This is an easy subject to debate because our views vary on the definitions of pornography. Some people consider any form of nude art to be pornographic in nature. Some viewers will never accept the nude form as art. It will always be pornography.
Your debate can't really exist when terms can't be defined and agreed upon by both sides. Debating moral issues is fruitless.
With that being said...
I draw my own line between artistic nudity and pornography by defining the terms as follows:
Artistic Nudity: A celebration of the human form through visual representations without sexual overtones.
Pornography: A celebration of sexual stimulation through visual representation of the human form.
Getting two people to agree on my definition would probably be a painful process. Sexual stimulation could come from artistic nudity, but that's not its intent. You would have to establish your own definitions of the term and then provide examples to backup your statement. You may also wish to find examples of 'borderline' situations where the line between the definitions becomes gray...
Just some food for thought...
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 01:16:03 PM · #14 |
| I stumbled on this quote about art vs. pornography sometime ago.. it says something like this "art is when you use only the feather, ponography is when you use the whole chicken" |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 01:18:13 PM · #15 |
Damn John...well put....with bold and all.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 01:19:48 PM · #16 |
Here's my point of view:
A picture that shows the beauty of the human form or body, I consider art.
Met-Art which boasts: "Welcome to MET ART! As you probably already know we offer the largest, freshest, classiest collection of teen nude art and fine photography in the world" I consider porn, simply because of the suggestive way the models are photographed.
I think there is an extremely thin line between art and porn. That line will be defined by each person's personal point of view of what is art and what is porn. I tend to be more conservative in my views, so I'll much sooner see something as porn as the next guy. A couple of the images in the current nude challenge I consider to be porn. (Now put those pitch forks down, I voted objectively, I know the intention was not porn)
Jan.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 01:22:58 PM · #17 |
I would say that porn is a sub set of art. Basicaly that porn is an artistic endevor to create sexual arousal but because of the controversial nature of such actions some people would not choose to label it as such. To me it is no diffrent than video, photo or even music. You have actors/models, poses, and scripts (all be it usually lousy ones) and corography(sp?) much like in martial arts movies or Dance. So it is using artistic mediums and skill/techniques to make a specific emotion. Much like a song can be sad a picture can be sad, a song can be sexy (and will usually hit the top 10 list) so can photography and video. Diffrence is using inuendo via music or the rythm and tones of a song are not considered vulger by as many people as seeing a naked body or *gasp* 2 naked bodies in a sex act.
I will also say that most likely most porn has little artistic effort or value beyond arousal because thats what makes it sell and makes the money so why put in more effort than you need to make a quick buck.
But as in every form of art there are distaseful and very wrong applications such as the involvment of minors, or animals and to most opinions(including my own) acts of sexual violence such as rape or in any way causing physical harm in the acts.
The biggest problems come from control of these materials as most including myself think that these materials aren otsutibalefor viewing by children (although I would say artistic nudes used to show off the beauty of the human form are ok as they are great expessive tools and be comfortable with the human body from and function)
*edit* someone beat me to the Erotica concept but to me erotica is simply the more artistic and serious endevors. So maybe Erotica is the serious and porn is the quick and dirty to make a buck would be a better discription of the above
Message edited by author 2007-02-01 13:29:33. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 01:24:52 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If a nude in the nude challenge is pornography to you then it is pornography, if it is art then it is art. You decide. |
"I know it if I see it" - the often quoted Potter Stewart, Supreme Court Justice.
The statement allows for many definitions as it should be, but unfortunate if the idea would be made law and one person makes the determination.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 01:28:41 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
Personally I believe the difference between art and porn is the artists intended response from the viewer. |
Bingo. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 01:31:02 PM · #20 |
Here's my answer and I'm sticking to it:
Art is produced to be art. Erotic, sensual, or no.
Pornography is produced to be sold as pornography. It is more similar to fashion photography than art nudes in that it is a commercial venture.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 01:32:16 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
This is an easy subject to debate because our views vary on the definitions of pornography. Some people consider any form of nude art to be pornographic in nature. Some viewers will never accept the nude form as art. It will always be pornography.
Your debate can't really exist when terms can't be defined and agreed upon by both sides. Debating moral issues is fruitless.
With that being said...
I draw my own line between artistic nudity and pornography by defining the terms as follows:
Artistic Nudity: A celebration of the human form through visual representations without sexual overtones.
Pornography: A celebration of sexual stimulation through visual representation of the human form.
Getting two people to agree on my definition would probably be a painful process. Sexual stimulation could come from artistic nudity, but that's not its intent. You would have to establish your own definitions of the term and then provide examples to backup your statement. You may also wish to find examples of 'borderline' situations where the line between the definitions becomes gray...
Just some food for thought... |
Exactly what I was trying to say!!! |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 01:52:19 PM · #22 |
I think that the question is miscast. Porn is probably a subset of art: it is art that is pornographic. It is therefore impossible to identify a boundary at which something ceases to be art. I cannot think of any porn that could not be considered artistic in some fashion (even if you might consider it bad, tasteless or unskilful art: like a 3 year old's drawing, it remains art).
The boundary at which art becomes pornographic, rather than unpornographic, is entirely subjective. From a legal point of view, it is very difficult to enforce legal obligations that refer to "pornography" rather than something more specific (eg employee codes of conduct on access to the net). Pictures of a suggestive but clothed cheerleader could be pornography to some, while others might not blanche at topless girls in the newspaper or on calendars hung in the workplace (whether Pirelli or not!).
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 01:52:40 PM · #23 |
It is possible to get this stuff for free, however ;]
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Here's my answer and I'm sticking to it:
Art is produced to be art. Erotic, sensual, or no.
Pornography is produced to be sold as pornography. It is more similar to fashion photography than art nudes in that it is a commercial venture. |
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 01:54:15 PM · #24 |
This is a very good point. So you're saying it's a trick question -- I love that.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I think that the question is miscast. Porn is probably a subset of art: it is art that is pornographic. It is therefore impossible to identify a boundary at which something ceases to be art. I cannot think of any porn that could not be considered artistic in some fashion (even if you might consider it bad, tasteless or unskilful art: like a 3 year old's drawing, it remains art). |
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 02:02:46 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by metatate:
It is possible to get this stuff for free, however ;]
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Here's my answer and I'm sticking to it:
Art is produced to be art. Erotic, sensual, or no.
Pornography is produced to be sold as pornography. It is more similar to fashion photography than art nudes in that it is a commercial venture. |
|
Ehem, I have no idea what you are talking about ;-) [/hijack]
But, even if we can find the samples online, pornography has always been produced as commercial photography. However, where the lines are a bit blurred is that now consumers have digital cameras and can put photos of their wives/gf's online for the world to see or snapshots of their wieners. I find this too to be mostly pornography as it is the intent of the shutter clicker (sorry can't use photographer here) to mimic commercial pornography.
|
|
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: 04/24/2024 10:09:39 PM EDT.
-i think this is really one of the best examples that can be show in favor of a clear difference between the two.
-its been darkened alot but its the best example i could find of this shot (suffers from a poor color space)
