[skipper954]

A recent photo of mine in the critique section of a nude woman on the beach with clearly visable genitalia prompted a great deal of discussion about the artistic merit of the image.

Steve and crew came up with their guidelines for posting nude photos, which I believe are appropriate.

There are many definitions of pornography, and a judge in the US (i think) once said famously "I know pornography when I see it".

So, is there a line between porn and art, and if so, where is it?

skip

[IanHoughton]

Personally, I think if the genitalia area is made to be the focal point of the image then I would class this to be porn.

I wasn't particulally won over by your image in the critique section, but it was certainly not porn.

[fionaB]

I agree with Ian on this, i didint like your image, but it was more to do with unnatural posing and the wrong light than the subject. As long as the focal point of the image is the body or "form/shape" and not specific to the genitals then in my opinion it is not porn.

Fiona

[Dabhand16]

I have to agree with the others here. Explicit is not necessarily porn, and your image is in no way porn. Ian has summed it up well.

Sorry to say I also don't like the photo in question, but for the same reasons as everyone else. Pose - lighting/shadows.

I like your other images better.

[Gary Bagshawe]

Pornography.
The explicit depiction or exhibition
of sexual activity in literature, films
or photography that is intended to
stimulate erotic, rather than aesthetic
or emotional feelings.

[Angela]

That's all very well, Gary, but one man's art is another man's porn.

[fionaB]

so how would you define porn Angela? just out of interest to get another persons view point on it.

And hypothetically... if someone ( male or female) asked you to come along and take some artisitc nude shots of them........... would you do it and what kind of poses would you use?

Fi

[spxxxx]

In this day and age the picture IMHO was no way porn - just a naked model - nothing was evident to deem it such

This area of photography has always provoked stong views from all sides and will continue to do so.

As long as the photographer was trying to portray art then I think its OK - we only have to look at the greek statues of old to see that depiction of genitalia is part and parcel of the finished work - which we now class as masterpieces.

Just my opinion -

Fiona if someone male or female asked me to do the shots - I'd try to do something they would be pround of - showing as much or as little as they requested - after all they would be paying

[Angela]

Originally Posted by fionaB

so how would you define porn Angela? just out of interest to get another persons view point on it.

And hypothetically... if someone ( male or female) asked you to come along and take some artisitc nude shots of them........... would you do it and what kind of poses would you use?

Fi

I would define porn as others have above - poses that focus on the genitalia and/or have provocative poses. I'm not keen on seeing genitalia in photographs...it's not something I'm prudish about, it's just not something that particularly hits my buttons! I agree that, whatever other faults it might have had, Skipper's photo wasn't pornographic...although it could have been seen by some in that light.

And, hypothetically, I have no idea what poses I would use if someone asked me to do a nude shot......but it wouldn't include having genitalia on show!

[fionaB]

okies......... does womens breast fall into the category of genetalia? and if not do folk think its ok to have these in a photo. And if so what is the difference between showing a women with her breasts in view and a classically posed full frontal?

sorry im just getting interested in peoples discussion

i have a book on nudes which has a real heavy introduction..... on reading it i found a couple of lines which stood out .........
" To become "art" the nude photo must make one forget the sexuality of the subject by diverting the eye towards another refereance"
by this i read it to mean the pose or the whole image in entirety rather than just the model.

Fiona

[Angela]

Originally Posted by fionaB

okies......... does womens breast fall into the category of genetalia? and if not do folk think its ok to have these in a photo. And if so what is the difference between showing a women with her breasts in view and a classically posed full frontal?

Not in my opinion, no they don't fall into the category of genitalia.

" To become "art" the nude photo must make one forget the sexuality of the subject by diverting the eye towards another reference" by this i read it to mean the pose or the whole image in entirety rather than just the model.

I think that'a very good definition

[Rob Barron]

Just to avoid repeating what other people have said, I am going to present a slightly different viewpoint. I want to make it clear though that I do agree with what others have said and I did not find the picture to be porn.... though i did not like the picture myself.

I know my position might not be popular but hey, just an opinion so please allow me that. As I hold strong Christian beliefs, I tend to take a slightly different position on the definition of artistic nude and porn. I do believe the nude form can be artistically portrayed and am not offended by this when done well. However, as a Christian I guess I feel that there are parts of the human form that are not for others to see, that in my case are for my wife's eyes only and vice versa.

Therefore I do not personally feel that photos showing the genitalia are artistic and i do find them distasteful, bordering on offensive. The breasts are a different area all together as they were not even deemed to be part of the body that should be covered up even in Biblical times, they have been deemed sexual not because of their form but because of the way they are portrayed in some magazines etc. Physiologically, the genitalia are procreative whereas the breasts are nurturing. So for me, the female form that mainly involves naked breasts and delicate shots of the rear are ok but specifically shots of the genitalia, whether or not they form the main subject of the photo, are not appropriate.

As I said, this is my own personal view and I do not criticise or judge others on the basis of what they feel is acceptable however they differ from my own. Put simply, I will not allow another man to look at my wife's naked form. She is a beautiful woman, the most precious gift I have ever received and every day I am so thankful that she is mine. I do not personally feel I want to share the parts of her I hold most intimate with anyone else.

There you go. I am probably going to upset someone with such a strong view but I am not imposing it on anyone else. Just what I think :o)

Cheers,
Rob

[fionaB]

Doubt you would offend anyone with your views Rob, just as i dont think differing opinions would offend you.
It is interesting to get things from completely different view points, so as with all the rest , your opinions are not upsetting, but enlightening.
i am sure we all have our own mind set but are open minded enough to realise that although we may not necessarly agree with each other we do respect each others rights to hold their opinions.

I am on the completely opposite side of the fence as you, as i do not believe in God at all and would never call myself a christian....... however that does not have that much if any bearing on my opinion of porn or artistic nudity. nor do i think its necessarily because of your beliefs that you feel that way..... it may be something as simple as common decency!

And does it really matter? Photography as i see it is not to please others........ but ultimately if you are pleased with your image no matter WHAT the subject is then you have achieved what you set out to achieve in photography....and that is to attain the best result in your eyes that you can in any given situation....................
ok ok ok its late... im waffling....and i dont really know if I made much sense at all ............... but it did in my brain!

[Steve]

Originally Posted by fionaB

okies......... does womens breast fall into the category of genetalia? and if not do folk think its ok to have these in a photo. And if so what is the difference between showing a women with her breasts in view and a classically posed full frontal?
sorry im just getting interested in peoples discussion

Judging from the Oxford English Dictionary breasts are not considered as genitalia
genital
• adjective referring to the human or animal reproductive organs.
• noun (genitals) a person or animal’s external reproductive organs.
ORIGIN Latin genitalis, from gignere ‘beget’.

A classically posed full frontal would include genitalia in the shot.

I think the question is more aimed at when does a photograph change from being artistic to being pornography? Either can be offensive (depending on many things) but only one is allowed to be shown at Pixalo.

Originally Posted by fionaB

i have a book on nudes which has a real heavy introduction..... on reading it i found a couple of lines which stood out .........
" To become "art" the nude photo must make one forget the sexuality of the subject by diverting the eye towards another refereance"
by this i read it to mean the pose or the whole image in entirety rather than just the model.
Fiona

I find that quite interesting but I disagree, let me try to give you an example using a different subject…

When I look at a scenic shot I take in the whole ‘view’ and as such if there is a barn in the distance or a tree in the foreground I look at that and consider in the full context of the shot. They might be focal points in their own right but only work as part of the whole picture.

The same can be said when I view nudes, sure I look at the form, lighting and other technical aspects but if the shot includes genitalia or breasts I always their presence to the rest of the shot as a whole, you can have a artistic nude that draws your eyes towards the body or a specific area of the body without it becoming anything other than ‘art’ providing the emphasis, pose and technical aspects are balanced correctly.
Equally I believe that some non nude ‘artistic’ shots that portray children in certain ways are much more offensive and wrong. I have not viewed any here but I have witnessed lots of controversy over images of young children being photographed in ‘provocative poses’ eating fruit in a sensual manor.

Although technically there was nothing wrong with the shot, it was what it implied, and to me that’s another point in this discussion. What was the intended implication of the photographer and has (s)he achieved it, not what actually is visible in the end shot?

Originally Posted by Rob Barron

Snip…As I hold strong Christian beliefs, I tend to take a slightly different position on the definition of artistic nude and porn….as a Christian I guess I feel that there are parts of the human form that are not for others to see, that in my case are for my wife's eyes only and vice versa.

I have edited your text in the quotes Rob, not to change your meaning (I have tried to keep that full) but to make it more concise for quoting. Hope that’s ok?

I am not questioning your beliefs or moral ground at all but I would like to understand it more clearly. You obviously you hold your wife and your own privacy as being very sacred and important to you, and it may just be the way your worded your reply (or indeed my misinterpretation of it) but how does that stance relate to nude pictures of other people (who you may or may not know)? I fully understand that you wouldn’t take and share pictures of your wife or yourself but as a photographer (with some skill at a broad range of subjects) I was wondering have y