Artistic nude vs. pornography?

porn is about stimulating people.

nudity has been used in art for hundreds of years, it's not always bad.

For teenage boys the difference is basically non-existant LOL

wow thanks for taking the time to explain this to me. With all the things people are posting up on the web these days I was starting to get a little confused.

Thanks Arkangel7x3 for your wonderfully descriptive reply. The photo you described I believe I have seen before. So I see what your talking about there.

Also unrelated to this topic, I realized I never made a my introduction. I believe I will go do that now in another tread.

chasrich wrote:

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

yes sir I do.

littlebirdie wrote:

chasrich wrote:

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

yes sir I do.[/quot

Oh no you called Charles sir, now he is going to drive us mad at his new title

Is this something I should have not done?

littlebirdie wrote: Is this something I should have not done?

No. We just love to tease him a bit.

RogerS wrote: 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..

I have several artistic nudes of myself which I shot when I had no models to pose for me. I consider them artistic nudes but when I really think about it, they're really more about lighting because of the way they're lit and also because there is no full frontal or rear nudity. I have no shame about them and have shown them to many people, friends and family.

I suppose you could say that's one difference between artistic nude and pornography.

Griff there was someone else (a relatively young man) who posted some nude self portraits on here that were beautifully done; I guess having taken art classes it isn't that big a deal to me. I remember taking art in college and there were always models walking around in bathrobes in between posing sessions, and I had a friend who did some modeling in college. I think as an artist you're looking at the human body more objectively esp. when you're trying to get the perspective correct etc.

Arkangel your post to me sounds more like a description of what the difference is between soft and hard core porn, not what I'd consider to be art. It doesn't matter if the image is in B&W or color, if it's a side shot or from the front, complete or partial nudity, close up or at a distance. I think it's more a matter of the purpose. And it is hard to explain why something is art. Sometimes there's art that pushes the limit or at times may cross the line from it being art to something else - but for the most part we know porn when we see it (and we know why Hef publishes Playboy).

If people really don't know the difference or how nudity is portrayed in art then maybe it would be worth a trip to the library and have the librarian head you in the direction of the art books. Looking at art and learning more about it might help someone's photography - maybe it could help a person understand how artists see things and how they portray/interpret what they see. To the OP maybe as someone mentioned there's more to the situation, perhaps there's some other underlying concern but it's being expressed thru the girlfriend's objections. Or it's a difference in perception, moral values or the way she was raised etc.

icepics wrote: Griff there was someone else (a relatively young man) who posted some nude self portraits on here that were beautifully done; I guess having taken art classes it isn't that big a deal to me. I remember taking art in college and there were always models walking around in bathrobes in between posing sessions, and I had a friend who did some modeling in college. I think as an artist you're looking at the human body more objectively esp. when you're trying to get the perspective correct etc.

Thank you icepics

This topic was discussed by the Supreme Court of the US some years back and if I'm remembering correctly one of the Justices said something to the effect that he knows pornography when he sees it.

I agree with those who have said it is in the eye of the beholder. I also agree with those who have said it depends on the intention of the photograph.

I've never had the opportunity nor real desire to shoot nudes, but the ones I've seen that I like the best seem to view the human body as a sort of landscape. The texture, form, curves, shadows and all.


Meri

MKRHamden wrote: This topic was discussed by the Supreme Court of the US some years back and if I'm remembering correctly one of the Justices said something to the effect that he knows pornography when he sees it.

I agree with those who have said it is in the eye of the beholder. I also agree with those who have said it depends on the intention of the photograph.

I've never had the opportunity nor real desire to shoot nudes, but the ones I've seen that I like the best seem to view the human body as a sort of landscape. The texture, form, curves, shadows and all.


Meri

Yeah I remember reading about that a while back., and I totally I agree with the whole eye of the beholder thing. This is a topic the will be argued until the end of man (and women) . but I still like to talk to other about it and hear their thoughts on the subject.

MKRHamden wrote: This topic was discussed by the Supreme Court of the US some years back and if I'm remembering correctly one of the Justices said something to the effect that he knows pornography when he sees it.

I agree with those who have said it is in the eye of the beholder. I also agree with those who have said it depends on the intention of the photograph.

I've never had the opportunity nor real desire to shoot nudes, but the ones I've seen that I like the best seem to view the human body as a sort of landscape. The texture, form, curves, shadows and all.


Meri

And. as someone on PT said recently, a landscape is a portrait of our world. Guess it does both ways. We can use it or abuse it.

littlebirdie wrote: wow thanks for taking the time to explain this to me. With all the things people are posting up on the web these days I was starting to get a little confused.

Thanks Arkangel7x3 for your wonderfully descriptive reply. The photo you described I believe I have seen before. So I see what your talking about there.

Also unrelated to this topic, I realized I never made a my introduction. I believe I will go do that now in another tread.

Your very welcome I talked about this subject this past weekend with my friend whoes a model for this and she did give me a good point i think is worth posting. Artistic nude vs porn depends on the person seeing the photo and what time period is the pic done and what time period are the people who are viewing the photo are living in and the moral codes of the day. I.E there is a famous old photo of a womean dressed in a half open corset with a gentelman with a top hat approching her now that at the time wasn't considered the eroticness of the photo. What made it erotic to the eyes of that time was that the corset was blue. An at the time only high end prostitiues afforded and choose to have there coresets made with bright colors a common womean would have a simple white or tan colored undergarment. But her haveing blue showed that she was a high end lady of the night and that becasue it was a gentelman a man of postion persueing her it ment infedlity in his marraige becasue the culture at the time were all man were married. SOOOOoO long story short what we may consider normal today may have been severly errotic in days pass and what we consider erotic today may be common placed a generation from now. "What you look for you will find"

RogerS wrote: 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..

I like those images female or male a lot better.

C05Mo wrote: 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.

Agree...