artistic nudity, or is it just porn?

I had a discussion with a class in a school about this topic (I am studying art and I want to teach art at least for a while)

I have to say, especially in modern and contemporary art, there is no line from where you can say on this side is porn, and on the other side is art. It's more like different shades. There is a lot of good made porn, as well as very bad, cheap porn out there (oh one thing to make clear, I am a woman), there are ways to get horny from artwork and so on. It depends on the contents, on the layers you can perceive. If the work is only produced to make people horny, it's porn. If there are other layers, like e.g social issues, the perception of beauty etc, it is art

 

I believe in artistic nudity.

I went to that site, and I felt it was porn. I have no problem with that, but I don't consider a bunch of surgically enhanced, air-brushed to death, "beautiful" women to be art. Their bodies are far too boring.

 

I think it is slightly exploitative...not a bad thing and if there is money to be made , why not..Taking black and white photos of undressed people looking pensive is quite funny realy..

And all that pontificating about its social content ... well its over intelectualising i think.

 

I agree, their is a such thing as artistic nudity. their are many artisits who either exclusively or at one time use/used nudity to inspire their art. Porn is, for the most part, more graphic and more geared toward stimulating people. nude art usually doesn't have anything to do with stimulation.

 

i dont think a drawing or a sculpture of a nude body would be considered vulgar because that takes an advanced skill. not everyone can jsut go and sculpt something beautiful. I do however see nude photography as nothing more than porn with a fancy lense. anyone can be told how to work a camera and take soem pics of naked people...

 

you can definitely have artistic nudity, the human body in itself is a work of art

 

While I won't say that there is no such thing as artistic nudity, THAT link is without-a-doubt pornography. Just because someone took the time to adjust the lighting and photoshop it to perfection doesn't make it anything other than "Pornography[n]: Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity..."

 

I agree with that, but my elementary school teachers would disagree with that. One time while I was in grade 4 or 5, the librarian put a poster up of the Venus in a Clam among other posters that promoted the arts and sciences. When one of the teachers saw it, they demanded she take it down because she thought it was pornographic and that parents would complain, which is stupid because there is no indecent acts in that picture.

 

I think that porn itself is an art form. A form of expressionism.

I really think it is in the eye of the beholder. What one sees as offensive isn't what someone else sees.

 

I wouldn't classify that site as porn, but there's a reason. I classify porn-keeping in mind this is only MY definition-as involving explicit sexual acts, and/or vulgar displays of genitalia. Ie., covered in bodily fluids or being stretched out a mile away from the body.

Just my 0.02

 

I agree, also I beleive that nudity in itself is not inherently sexual, so pictures of nudes (to me at least) would not be all in itself sexual, now if you were trying to deliberately accenuate the breasts or vagina then I could see it as possibly being porn though like kastenfrosh said it's all about perspective.

 

And everyone is allowed an opinion. But do you really think the decision between porn and art should be made based on the physical appearance of the model being exposed? (Ie., "airbrushed, unnatural, etc.") How do you know these women don't look that way naturally? So many people seem to take this route, but I know many women that look just as attractive, and endowed, and are 100% natural.

I understand your feeling that these women are boring. But again, different strokes...

 

The great French realist painter Gustave Courbet (1819-1877) executed many excellent nudes (including the notoriously explicit Origin of the World).

 

I like erotic art. I dislike pornography. Admittedly, the boundaries are indistinct. I would say that erotic art features photos of beautiful, nude females. The photos are artistic and in good taste, and they are taken with respect for the subjects. What is more, they are not explicitly sexual.

In soft core pornography, the subject implicitly invites the viewer to have sex with her, but she is not engaged in sex. In hard core pornography the subject is explicit about her invitation, she is having sex, or she being sexually humiliated or hurt.

Hustler presents high quality hard core pornography. Playboy presents high quality soft core pornography.

In my opinion, David Hamilton and Jock Sturgis set the standards for erotic art. However, because they usually feature underage models, some accuse them of producing child pornography. That highlights the subjective nature of the boundaries I mention. In the United States, the legal definition of child pornography is a minor having sex with an adult. Those photos are offensive to me.

 

http://www.eroticartists.org/
this is a site which I like. it's Erotic Art. I don't consider it porn at all.

 

what's wrong with porn? Porn is a form of art. Art is designed to provoke certain emotions, and that's what porn does — it's just that the emotions it provokes are a lot easier to toy with.

So yes, it's art, whether it's porn or not.

 

also... I <3 vagina.

 

Art is art, Porn is porn. I'm sure everyone has different opinions on which is which though. I think the human body, clothed or naked, is beautiful in any form.

 

both

 

who says porn isn't art? not all art has to be tasteful/acceptable in society, art's everywhere.