Artistic nude vs. pornography?

I'm just wondering what is the difference? I'm a photography major and I have always loved taking photographs of people. But the one thing that always bothered me is where to draw the line when it comes to a "artistic nude" photo. My girl friend and I always get into arguments over the subject. She says that anything where a person is without their clothing is automatically pornography. I disagree.

What are your thoughts on this?

A nude is an idealized human form and naked is someone without clothes on.

Wow, your girlfriend has some learning to do. Show her a porn site and give her an actual artistic nude photo book and see if she can tell the difference. If she can't, her mind is wired wrong and just ignore her altogether.

Artistic nude is photography showing the form, the shape of the human body. It's normally done in B&W, but can be shot in color. It does not show any "important" parts as a whole. It's about lighting. And done right, it can be beautiful.

Pornography, well we all know what that is about.

The human form can be photographed in a very tasteful, respectful manner.
Porn is just that, in your face, nothing left to the imagination. Big difference.

Dori wrote: The human form can be photographed in a very tasteful, respectful manner.
Porn is just that, in your face, nothing left to the imagination. Big difference.

Huge difference. Anyone is understands photography, understands artistic nude.

your girlfriend has a few hangups about the female form once she has sorted those out then she will see the true difference

Why assume she has an "issue"? It's a good question that many have asked before.

The nude has been used in all art mediums. Not just photography. There's Michelangelo's David, and Venus de Milo.

It needn't be in black and white only.

The difference is varied based on the upbringing, ethic background, and personal taste of the individual. If you are proposing that she serve as a model, she has every right to object.
If your point of view on the subject is so vast, perhaps you are not compatible as a couple on other levels. May be time to examine that relationship. Just saying since this is your first post and we don't know you yet.

I think you like to hit the ground running...

For someone who has female friends who do the nude arts the main thing your focuseing on the body as a whole and usuaelly from a distance or angel were the erotic parts are not the center of attention also the poses done are not with the intention for sexual arrousel it is to show the beauty of the body. Tradtionaly yes people tend to shoot in black and white but it is by no means the only median in which it can be done. Scene and setting play a much higher roll int his style of photography as well becasue you want to have things that would semi tell a story/ distract attention from just the sexualy exposed parts. One tradtional pose is the spreed leg stance from a distance with a cowboy hat or other prop covering the genitalia with a wide shot showing perhapse the backround of a barn or tractor etc. Another is the leaning pose usueally done profile with the subject leaned back against an item in some what of a glamour style. One other thing that even thoe it is not required but is a distinguishing feature is that for females in nude photos they will not have there lower regions shaved so as to give some privacy control and to add to the natural Adam and Eve look that most nude photographers go for thoe this too is subject to opinion and photo shoot. I.E one photo that i saw that might be considered border line was a women spreed legged shaved nude but her center was photoshoped with a zipper not just open and bare and was done at a angel shot from bootm up wards were the head was leand back out of the photo and the breast had a shadow on them so that you could see the outline but no real deatil of the nippels

Arkangel7x3 wrote: For someone who has female friends who do the nude arts the main thing your focuseing on the body as a whole and usuaelly from a distance or angel were the erotic parts are not the center of attention also the poses done are not with the intention for sexual arrousel it is to show the beauty of the body. Tradtionaly yes people tend to shoot in black and white but it is by no means the only median in which it can be done. Scene and setting play a much higher roll int his style of photography as well becasue you want to have things that would semi tell a story/ distract attention from just the sexualy exposed parts. One tradtional pose is the spreed leg stance from a distance with a cowboy hat or other prop covering the genitalia with a wide shot showing perhapse the backround of a barn or tractor etc. Another is the leaning pose usueally done profile with the subject leaned back against an item in some what of a glamour style. One other thing that even thoe it is not required but is a distinguishing feature is that for females in nude photos they will not have there lower regions shaved so as to give some privacy control and to add to the natural Adam and Eve look that most nude photographers go for thoe this too is subject to opinion and photo shoot. I.E one photo that i saw that might be considered border line was a women spreed legged shaved nude but her center was photoshoped with a zipper not just open and bare and was done at a angel shot from bootm up wards were the head was leand back out of the photo and the breast had a shadow on them so that you could see the outline but no real deatil of the nippels

Well put

welcome

Arkangel7x3 wrote: For someone who has female friends who do the nude arts the main thing your focuseing on the body as a whole and usuaelly from a distance or angel were the erotic parts are not the center of attention also the poses done are not with the intention for sexual arrousel it is to show the beauty of the body. Tradtionaly yes people tend to shoot in black and white but it is by no means the only median in which it can be done. Scene and setting play a much higher roll int his style of photography as well becasue you want to have things that would semi tell a story/ distract attention from just the sexualy exposed parts. One tradtional pose is the spreed leg stance from a distance with a cowboy hat or other prop covering the genitalia with a wide shot showing perhapse the backround of a barn or tractor etc. Another is the leaning pose usueally done profile with the subject leaned back against an item in some what of a glamour style. One other thing that even thoe it is not required but is a distinguishing feature is that for females in nude photos they will not have there lower regions shaved so as to give some privacy control and to add to the natural Adam and Eve look that most nude photographers go for thoe this too is subject to opinion and photo shoot. I.E one photo that i saw that might be considered border line was a women spreed legged shaved nude but her center was photoshoped with a zipper not just open and bare and was done at a angel shot from bootm up wards were the head was leand back out of the photo and the breast had a shadow on them so that you could see the outline but no real deatil of the nippels

I agree, very well said.

If the image is intended to be sexually arousing, it's porn. If the image is intended to display the beautiful human form in all it's glory without unduly focusing on genitalia primarily, it's artistic. A nude can be shot without full frontal, and those are actually more pleasing images to the eye..