Art or Porn?

[borninblood]

When does art stop and porn begin when it comes to the female form?

I run a website - http://www.simplytied.com - and it gets pretty mixed reactions.

Some people want to buy prints to put on their wall, saying its the most beautiful photography they have ever seen, and other people call me a smut peddler.

I suppose this would suggest that it is down to personal choice, but in a world where personal choice is really just what society tells you it is, where is the line?

 

[Norsemaiden]

It all depends on what the intention is behind it. The 2 pictures I saw were apparantly to do with some "damsel in distress" idea, and that is not porn. It would be if it was purely to do with causing arousal and not to do with either aesthetics or causing some other whimsical emotion.

 

[Jrgen]

Porn? I can't even find any nudity.

(test)

 

[Anvil]

Is there any porn on the website to begin with? From what I've seen, it looks to me to be a completely art-based website.

Is the Member's Page have nudity at all? And even if so, that doesn't necessarily make it pornography. If the intentions of the website are to make revenue off of selling pornography, then yes, then its a porn site. If the intentions are to make revenue off of selling your art, then no, of course thats not a porn site.

 

[derek]

The form of the human body has been admired for a millenia. The Ancient Greeks crafted their bodies and enjoyed the countours of a finely honed physique. It seems innate within people to enjoy the form.

To me, porn is bastardising that innate appreciation.

 

[OldScratch]

The form of the human body has been admired for a millenia. The Ancient Greeks crafted their bodies and enjoyed the countours of a finely honed physique. It seems innate within people to enjoy the form.

To me, porn is bastardising that innate appreciation.

Most pornography probably does just that - erotic art, however, can present the human form in a profoundly pleasing manner, without degrading the subject matter. But is that then just a more aesthetically developed version of porn?

 

[Norsemaiden]

I'd say erotica is a category within the larger category of porn - but it is defined by being legal and not unhealthy. Does that sound about right?

 

[borninblood]

Is there any porn on the website to begin with? From what I've seen, it looks to me to be a completely art-based website.

Is the Member's Page have nudity at all? And even if so, that doesn't necessarily make it pornography. If the intentions of the website are to make revenue off of selling pornography, then yes, then its a porn site. If the intentions are to make revenue off of selling your art, then no, of course thats not a porn site.

No there is no nudity on the site at all, but in my mind, some fully clothed images I have seen, are deffinatly pornographic in nature.

 

[judas69]

I think a lot of it depends on the numbers, not to say it's strongly based or anything, as facial expression etc all play a part.

For example, if you had 2 photos of women tied up, nude or not, you'd much more easily consider these images "artsy". If you had a 100 photos or more, it would be considered, more likely than not, some fetish site.

Personally, it looks like a fetish site to me as a whole ..but hey, who cares.

 

[borninblood]

I don't get what you are trying to say.

I don't see how quantity of anything changes what something looks like.

 

[The Bringer]

I think the photos are beautiful. I think porn crosses the "art" line when it is no longer for appreciation but for the shear attention of sexual desire.

 

[judas69]

There is nothing intrinsic to a work that makes it art or not, not even intention, for intention is undeterminable by the work and even the artist himself. So, I could easily see a person in ropes as being a deep, aesthetic work ..however, if I'm at a pay site viewing thousands of images, it degrades the intention and makes it less likely to be geniune.

It's a subtle point, think about it.

 

[hibernal_dream]

So you're saying that only the quantity of works can shed light on the artist's intention, as against the content of the works, right? Then you say that intention cannot lead us to define whether a work is actually art or not. Fine, but then you say that it is precisely the creator's degraded intention (as inferred from the sheer quantity of pictures) that makes the pictures non-artistic. Slightly strange reasoning there. But maybe if you separated the concept of intention from quantity, i'd agree with you. By saying that the quantity of pics degrades the intention of the artist you're really saying that quantity is intrinsic to the work, which I don't think you meant to say.

 

[judas69]

Well, keep the very first line clearest in mind .. "There is nothing intrinsic to a work that makes it art or not, not even intention..". That said, we can never be completely sure of intention, not even based on quantity. However valid or not, an audience may well use quantity, consciously or not, as an aid in determining the artists genuine intention, especially when there is some uncertainty, along side other indicators like the facial expressions of the models, general presentation of the image and filters used, and even things as superficial and unrelated to the work as the artists age, gender, ethnicity, education, etc.

 

[hibernal_dream]

That's why I think a subjective definition focusing on the observer is much more accurate. Obviously, what some think of as art is porn to others. Narrowed down to "I think this is art, therefore it is", you're removing from the judgment the objective fact of content and intention (extrinsic) but shifting its focus to their projection on the audience. Problem is, this definition is completely useless:

-"Is this photo of a nude woman art?"
-"If your audience thinks it is!"

 

[judas69]

What's Art to you?

 

[hibernal_dream]

I don't know if you're after a descriptive or normative answer so i'll give both.

As I said, I think art is what exists in the mind of the observer, independent of its creator (if there is one). People have the virtue of being able to see value in things that others cannot. So a pile of mud is capable of being art.

Art should have qualities which people can at least appreciate, even if they don't value it. But still, this is pretty much anything, for as long as the creator sees it as worthwile then others are capable of doing the same.

 

[fah-q]

"Art" like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. If you look at those pictures and appreciate them and try to interpret them, you view it as art. If you look at it and get a boner, I don't think you see it as art. I don't however think it is pronography.

 

[judas69]

Maybe we should split this up into levels, since our definition is variable and contradictory when subjective, and all encompassing when objective.

Maybe we could say everyone is an artist, and everywork is art, but not everyone is an Artist, and not every work is Art. This way we need not deny a piece completely, and still have group agreement based on a consensus of critical opinions.

 

[The Bringer]

"Art" like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. If you look at those pictures and appreciate them and try to interpret them, you view it as art. If you look at it and get a boner, I don't think you see it as art. I don't however think it is pronography.

I think part of it has to do with how the "artist" wants to see it as well. There are suddle changes that can be made in a photoshoot that will completely change the prospective viewers will get of the photo. What the artist gets from the photo has to reflect what he wants his viewers to get as well. I could never see an "artist" make a completely hardcore porno and say "WOW! THAT'S ART!" after the final moneyshot.