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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Can a photo of privates be fine art? ADULT CONTENT
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 100, (reverse)
AuthorThread
10/05/2007 12:52:27 AM · #1
Can a photo of privates be fine art?

OK, some disclaimers:

1) privates = vaginae, labia, penises, testicles, anuses, etc.
2) I personally believe fine art is a false distinction created by the aristocracy to differentiate what they like. But, let's pretend fine art is real :-)
3) Let's not push into religious beliefs... unless it's a universal human belief.
4) I'm going to throw an image up, which IMO is nowhere near fine art in quality, but used only as a reference. Be warned that this photo is near gynecological.

Adult content warning, NSFW, inner and outer labia.


Please keep the debate civil and on topic. :-)

5) If anyone wants to post examples, please do, but link and label your link with what we should expect to see.

Message edited by author 2007-10-05 01:27:26.
10/05/2007 12:56:43 AM · #2
1)I would say yes, but I draw the line at anuses. ACK!
2)Um, huh?
3)Agreed.
4)See 1.
10/05/2007 12:57:33 AM · #3
I think it can be, but for the most part I don't think most close up private parts shots are... most are just titalating shots to excite and nothing more, just my thoughts....

Jack
10/05/2007 01:13:36 AM · #4
i believe it can be.

I find the example posted is mediocre in regards to being classified as "good" art. I enjoy the abstraction, but the composition leaves much to be desired.

my first thought was "meh, i've seen better".
10/05/2007 01:26:25 AM · #5
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Can a photo of privates be fine art?

I suppose, but for the most part it's probably better classified as pornography. Whether or not "fine" art is real or imaginary, the type of images you've probably linked here (NSFW, and I'm @ work) are not meant to be enjoyed on a ephemeral/intellectual level, but on a carnal/visceral one. Which is fine, but not necessarily appropriate in most situations. Like at an art gallery, for instance. Ask yourself, would you like a 16x20 canvas print of a "nearly gynecological" image on your wall when your mother-in-law drops by for tea?

IMO, it'd be tough to have any discourse on an issue like this without touching on the role of religious beliefs...after all, repression of individual sexual expression has a long history as part of most religious dogmas.
10/05/2007 01:26:35 AM · #6
Is that the radial blur filter set to zoom?
10/05/2007 01:34:53 AM · #7
Originally posted by david_c:

Ask yourself, would you like a 16x20 canvas print of a "nearly gynecological" image on your wall when your mother-in-law drops by for tea?


Is it of her daughter? :-)

If Van Gogh had painted it?

I think I could rationalize having the right image on my wall. Not that I'm a big art collector.
10/05/2007 01:47:27 AM · #8
Oyster art - safe but suggestive

Something for though. Obvious intended to be suggestive. This was called fine art by its creator.

Another example of art for sale: Vagina painting

10/05/2007 03:28:35 AM · #9
Private parts are just another body part. A stylish pic of a penis can be just as well fine art as a similar pic of a finger. It is all in the mind. Everyone has sex, 90% of the people masturbate, but when you start to discuss or show the tools you use it is suddenly no art or has to be hidden....

I am at work I have no time to write it down better.


10/05/2007 06:48:43 AM · #10
Georgia O'Keefe made a profession of the painting thereof.
10/05/2007 07:32:04 AM · #11
I think that every shot have his dignity. the borderline between an artistic photo and a pornographic photo is often very thin and it depends from the observer and from the situation when it is showed. as personal opinion I haven't problems to see similar photograps but this is subjective.
10/05/2007 09:27:41 AM · #12

yes
10/05/2007 09:31:25 AM · #13
Originally posted by Gordon:

yes


COOL!
10/05/2007 09:51:28 AM · #14
Interesting == No females responding.
10/05/2007 10:06:06 AM · #15
IMO, both of those (the first photo and the painting) are UGLY. I have seen better work in Hustler.

I suppose, that if one were to really make it artistic and beautiful, it would be different.

A penis, in my humble opinion, is never beautiful. Men were cursed with that big ugly thing hanging off the front of their bodies. Women, on the other hand, were blessed. We have beautiful shapes and unless we are sitting down with our legs spread, we can still be modest. LOL

As far as art goes, 99% of what you see is subjective anyway. It is your OPINION as to whether or not it is art. If you choose to call it art and hang a giant photograph of a penis on your wall, then it is art TO YOU. When grandma comes in, blushes, screams, and faints when she sees it, it is pornography TO HER.

As far as the no females responding remark goes, you just had to give us time to find the thread LOL ;)
10/05/2007 10:13:54 AM · #16
This is of course and will almost always be a purely subjective argument. If we're going to debate whether or not photos of genitalia can indeed be classified as fine art, we must once again debate whether or not ANY nude photograph can be classified as art or if it is merely pornography. Or are we to accept that pornography is indeed a form of art? Is DuChamp's "The Fountain" a piece of brilliant fine art or a piece of trash?

I believe that any photograph, any painting, any work can be classified as art. Whether or not I personally find it tasteful is an entirely different matter. I don't care for any of the art that has been posted here, but I don't think we can entirely rule it out as art or as "fine" art.
10/05/2007 10:15:17 AM · #17
Leroy, did you bump your head?
10/05/2007 12:55:56 PM · #18
For the most part, people are sexual beings and therefor I believe sexuality is a valid topic for art. Along those lines, the physical aspects of our sexuality is certainly a valid topic for visual arts. If you can accept that, I believe the separation between an image of privates being art of port is a matter of context and intent. You can find far more nudity in french vogue than in maxim or stuff magazines, but you would rarely find a guy carrying french vogue into the bathroom as entertainment. Is the image of a woman's private part presented to highlight the beauty of form of the human body, does it explore the subject's sexuality in response to her more conservative surrounds or is it simply there to excite the male viewer. Fortunately, as a guy, I have a built in gauge that usually knows the difference.
10/05/2007 01:09:34 PM · #19
Originally posted by idnic:

Leroy, did you bump your head?


It's not his fault.

He was dropped.
10/05/2007 01:53:04 PM · #20
Originally posted by Spazmo99:



He was dropped.


My mother denies those allegations.
10/05/2007 01:56:43 PM · #21
1) Yes.
2) Agree.
3) Who cares... Each to their own.

I hear that the only difference between Artistic Nude & Porn is the lighting :-) Seriously, I just don't understand the hang-up. I also cannot understand why a pair of boobs makes a movie higher then PG whereas something killing people is fine.

Years ago I ran across a great (sadly also pretty accurate) definition of the movie classifications (don't even start me on the censorship thing)
G = The goodie gets the girl
PG = The baddie gets the girl
R = Everybody gets the girl

:-)
10/05/2007 02:34:34 PM · #22
Originally posted by robs:

Years ago I ran across a great (sadly also pretty accurate) definition of the movie classifications (don't even start me on the censorship thing)
G = The goodie gets the girl
PG = The baddie gets the girl
R = Everybody gets the girl

:-)


You forgot X = Everybody gets the girl and she wants more.
10/05/2007 02:37:28 PM · #23
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by robs:

Years ago I ran across a great (sadly also pretty accurate) definition of the movie classifications (don't even start me on the censorship thing)
G = The goodie gets the girl
PG = The baddie gets the girl
R = Everybody gets the girl

:-)


You forgot X = Everybody gets the girl and she wants more.


or X = Every body gets the girl at one time and in every possible position.
10/05/2007 02:42:18 PM · #24
Originally posted by TCGuru:

A penis, in my humble opinion, is never beautiful.


Well... I guess I won't post my artistic Leaning Tower of Penis shot, then.
10/05/2007 02:43:34 PM · #25
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by robs:

Years ago I ran across a great (sadly also pretty accurate) definition of the movie classifications (don't even start me on the censorship thing)
G = The goodie gets the girl
PG = The baddie gets the girl
R = Everybody gets the girl

:-)


You forgot X = Everybody gets the girl and she wants more.


or X = Every body gets the girl at one time and in every possible position.


...in every orifice and she still wants more
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 12:41:30 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 03/29/2024 12:41:30 AM EDT.