When does ART become PORN?

[SCone]

First off, I have no problem with nudes, the human body or porn.

But at what point does art cross the line?

I find Michael Angelo's work to be art, yet Robert Mapplethorpe is just way too bizarre for me & in most cases, even beyond porn.

Your thoughts?

[Angelo]

Who determines what is porn? The photographer or the person (s) viewing the image?
And who determines what is art?

I think porn and art are subjective.

[Daylon]

Personally I think it's subjective, but there are clear legal definitions:

http://www.protectkids.com/dangers/p...efinitions.htm

Someone viewing Maplethorpe might consider it porn and overtly sexual, others may find it just boring....

D.

Originally Posted by SCone

First off, I have no problem with nudes, the human body or porn.

But at what point does art cross the line?

I find Michael Angelo's work to be art, yet Robert Mapplethorpe is just way too bizarre for me & in most cases, even beyond porn.

Your thoughts?

[Titaniumblade]

I would like to make a quick statement for the record. This is an open discussion to explore the aspects of what makes Art (all) and Porn. This discussion is by no means to bash anyone for their views, but to have a friendly discussion / debate.

Onward!

When does ART (Nudity) become PORN or PORN become ART (Nudity)??

Quick examples:

Porn could be defined as something to excite one in a sexual manner. (Sex Videos, complete sexual acts exposed gentile, penetration, sex acts non human partners, hard core sex, children [if I ever catch anyone doing this god help them]) as a few.

Art (Nudity) could be defined as something to excite the mind in a non-sexual manner, to cause discussion, intriguing thoughts (Paintings, sculptures, non-explicit images, implied nudity, implied acts but not the actual act itself) as a few.

But to discuss the image in question, the touching of one human to another in a gentle way would not depict porn in my opinion. I would agree without question if the image depicted more intent such as more direct touching would be porn (we know what I mean here).

The image that was captured leads you down a path of your own imagination and causes you to have an intellectual reaction. If that is the case then it would be Art. If it leads you down a path of a sexual result then it would be porn. For me it was not a sexual result but more of how provocative this image was, and how the artist was able to capture this without the creep factor to provide the expression the client wanted. This image we were able to observe would be one I could see in a art book in any local barns and Noble describing the art of how to achieve this result without going the down the other path. Or some of the great photo-art of the 2000’s!

As to your statement about Robert Mapplethorpe, I agree with you! He is very bizarre but none the less he has created art as well as he was contracted and given grants to create bizarre images. I would say one of his methods was to SHOCK people more so here in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world, As the U.S. is easy to shock in my opinion since we are so conservative compared to the rest of the world.

These are my 2 cents nothing more, nothing less. just only not to see censorship in any manner other then when it does cross the line of those individuals who are not of adult status and cannot understand the difference or does not know any better.

[jonesphoto]

well said, and agreed.

[Murph]

Porn has a legal definition, but I think in any discussion, you have to add; "When it offends" as well. I forget the Supreme Court justice who described porn as "I know it when I see it", which is also a pretty good definition.

[johnastovall]

Consider the great art of Japanese "Pillow Books." Or how about the "Red Room" at Pompey?

There isn't any such thing as 'Porn' except as a very fleeting legal fiction for should I say fig leaf?

As for exciting one in a sexual manner? Isn't art supposed to excite? So why should we neuter one of the senses?

[dreemes]

If we consider anything that excites to be porn then I guess we would have to consider patio tables and bicycles to be porn considering hearing on the news of guys doing things with them.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by Murph

Porn has a legal definition, but I think in any discussion, you have to add; "When it offends" as well. I forget the Supreme Court justice who described porn as "I know it when I see it", which is also a pretty good definition.

"When it offends' by that definition 99% of the snapshops posed here are Porn as they offend the basic principles of art and photography.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by SCone

First off, I have no problem with nudes, the human body or porn.

But at what point does art cross the line?

I find Michael Angelo's work to be art, yet Robert Mapplethorpe is just way too bizarre for me & in most cases, even beyond porn.

Your thoughts?

Art should always be crossing the line. If not it dies....

[12stones]

To me the difference between art and porn is the intent with which each is created. Porn is created with a different intent than art. Porn is created strictly for sexual arousal. And, while sexual arousal may be the result of art, that's not the intent of its creation. The intent of art, even with erotic pictures such as those created by Robert Mapplethorpe, is to stimulate thought and discussion; leave a lasting impression. Art has the ability to please and challenge the senses and create discussions such as these.

As to the image in question, I think it's a beautiful image. To me it's art, because of the intent of its creation. The clients went to the photog with an idea for creation to make something beautiful and tender, albeit subjectively explicit. And well done it was. So, there... that's my $0.02.

[ST77]

This is a heavily debated topic on many websites and art forums and in many cases is really not up for debate at all. Porn is art, be it not a art form that will appeal to everyone but what form of art does appeal to everyone

Now on many art/photo sites the "what is porn and what is art" comes up for debate but it has a really simple answer. "if the owner of the website says its considered porn on their site than it is considered porn and not open for debate, discussion or any other action. It is also not censorship as many people will spout off. There is no such thing as censorship on a website, the first amendment does not apply. Take this site for instance Abel is supreme ruler if he says NO it means NO. Well thats my 2cents.

[Citex]

One comment, the image sparking this thread looks nothing like I have seen in a 2 cent dirty porn magazine, its totally art imho. Its pretty and shows a composition of two females (well maybe you never know) very close to each other, but for proof doesn't actually show any actual contact.

[alamoshutterbug]

I agree with your thoughts about the image in question Ryan (Citex), it is artfully done. I used to work in a used book store. The way we decided something needed to live in the locked display case, a.k.a. The Smut Hut, was if penetration of any sort was involved. I know this is a week definition, but it was a working one.

[Coelus]

"When it offends' by that definition 99% of the snapshops posed here are Porn as they offend the basic principles of art and photography.

So true, so painfully true.

I forget the Supreme Court justice who described porn as "I know it when I see it", which is also a pretty good definition.

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart
I think it's a horrible definition. Someone else, no matter how educated in the law, cannot tell me when I am offended and when I'm not. Sometimes I want to be offended. Sometimes I need to be offended.
I find burning the flag and spitting on veterans to be offensive. But I need to see it A). to reinforce my own convictions and beliefs; B). to remind me that no matter how foul, other people have the right to do this.
I do think that things that are done that are dangerous or harmful to the subjects fall into another category. This is wrong because you are causing harm to someone else, even more so if it's against their will. If I walk out on the street and randomly stab someone just to photograph the look on their face, would I be any less evil than a "pornographer"?
Is the Kama Sutra an ancient work of India's culture, or a smut book? Hamlet has incest. Renaissance paintings sprinkle naked babies around like they're going out of style. Do these fall under a different category because they aren't a photograph?