Free PORN...NUDE women and more

[Big Bully]

Hi,

I have this exact dilema - I am a female photographer, and my main business lies with erotic photography.

I have had more than 100 shoots, and only one of them would I consider "porn" ( it was a couples shoot and they requested more intimate pictures)

Most women come to me wanting to feel beautiful, sensual and mysterious. Not one woman has ever asked me to make her look like a porn star.

I do take photgraphs including genitalia ( mostly male) but I just consider it nude, not porn?

I find the naked body amazing and beautiful. It is interesting to light and fun to do.

One thing I find restricting is the inability to go outdoors as often as I would like ( due to client shiness or nudity laws)

I think that the difference in porn verses art is technique, lighting, and the goal behind the photo. I want you drawn to the photo, not instantly turned on by it.

In any case, it is VERY hard to share you work for CC on the net without coming across as some kind of pervert. I'd LOVE a forum for nude/erotic photography, but I am afraid of the weirdo's it would also attract.

I like conversing with intelligent professional photographers with a great eye for art, not some old lonely man getting his jollies from my photos



Ainslie

I completely agree. And you don't want to immediatly turn off/away the viewer from the photo either. I think there is a fine line, and most photographers can pull it off too.

 

[Mesoam]

listen point blank..

porn you want to yank your crank to

nude photography something you don't

 

[Big Bully]

listen point blank..

porn you want to yank your crank to

nude photography something you don't

Wow! That is blunt.. But you have a point.

 

[brileyphotog]

In regards to the difference between art and porn, I defer to Justice Potter Stewart, who once so eloquently and succinctly put it: "I know it when I see it."

I can't remember which thread it was, but someone posted two of the most erotic images I have ever seen, and his model was fully clothed. So eroticism alone definitely can't make it not art. $.02

 

[panocho]

Didn't have patience enough to read all posts; only about half of them. So excuse me if I'm a bit lost here.

I tend to agree with those who say it's in the eyes of the one who watches. In itself, an image is just an image. Only afterwards someone "classifies" it one way or another.

About the so-called distance between art and pornography, what shall one do with the work of, say, Jeef Koons? The most explicit sexual images of himself and his wife (a well-known porn actress, no less) explicitly done and shown as works of art (or, at least, of an artist). I guess one could easily say that is pornography AND art, why not?

 

[CanadianMe]

I was the Curator of an Erotic Art Gallery in Toronto several years ago. That very question was what ended my relationship with the Gallery owner. I then ran a small gallery of my own with my wife and featured some local photographers and two from the Chicago area. This question was why I finally gave up. First try finding a host that doesn't give you a hard time or cost a lot of money to host anything with nudity in it. It was all porn to them, some refused to host and some wanted a lot of money. Then there were the constant fight with local residents calling the art porn. Then during one exhibition I had held, it was raided and then a fight with the cops, then the politicians. A very good friend from the States had moved here and ran a magazine of B&W photographic erotic alt sex. Work in it was just beautiful, but same fights as me. but he also had other issues with sending them across the border and having shipments seized as pornographic, he fought and eventually won but it ruined the magazine financially. I fought tooth and nail to keep my gallery afloat but at some point it was costing way to much, because no matter how many fights I won there was always another. My point is most people cannot discern between the two and rarely try. Penthouse is porn, Man Ray is art. Playboy is soft porn, Eric Kroll's Fetish Girls is hard core art. It is not an answerable question as much it is all a matter of perspective. And with the ignorance of the masses, ignorance always wins out. I have nothing against porn but I just don't see the eroticism in it, in Erotic art I see the eroticism in it. Only stipulation is the models are of consenting age and they have a choice to consent.

 

[panocho]

It is not an answerable question as much it is all a matter of perspective. And with the ignorance of the masses, ignorance always wins out. I have nothing against porn but I just don't see the eroticism in it, in Erotic art I see the eroticism in it. Only stipulation is the models are of consenting age and they have a choice to consent.

You're right about the perspective issue. And I guess that's what makes the problem impossible to solve.

I think the only line that can be drawn with consensus is that between erotism and pornography, and that line is basically the difference between explicit and implicit. But no lines can be draw to separate what is and what is not art. Anything can be art, pornography as well.

 

[kidchill]

Ok, this may make total sense, or none at all. My 10th grade English teacher (yah it was a while back, but he truly was an artist...ya-know the whole alcoholic sob story deal and all that) used to say that the difference b/n pornography and art of that form is victimization. There IS a victim in porn and there IS NOT in art. It makes sense, but how you would apply that kind of abstract thinking to regulation on an art site is totally beyond me. With all of the discussion about it, I would say just keep the genitalia out and don't worry about it. I seriously doubt anyone will be bouncing around the forum just looking for porn and on the flip side I doubt anyone wanting to see art will really allow porn to sit on the forum that long. Of course, then again, most of us came into this thread because of the title......We're all a bunch of perverts. HeHe

 

[Battou]

CanadianMe, You sound like the kind of person I would like to have handy. I am curious as to your thoughts on this post

 

[THORHAMMER]

if shes hot, then its porn and I can afford to have it framed !!!

if shes like 10 feet tall and too skinny with less breasts then sigourney weaver on a diet, then its something I definitely cant afford anyway, call it art...


So, back to the subject, where are the fake art gallery links !!

:lmao:

 

[Battou]

if shes hot, then its porn and I can afford to have it framed !!!

if shes like 10 feet tall and too skinny with less breasts then sigourney weaver on a diet, then its something I definitely cant afford anyway, call it art...


So, back to the subject, where are the fake art gallery links !!

:lmao:

There are actually a couple in here. (to the best of my knowledge)

 

[Scurra]

My take on all this centres around gratuitousness.

When you look at a nude or pornographic image does the presence of the nudity strike you as unnecessary, or does it add something to the image.

I know that for pornography to achieve its goal nudity for the most part is necessary, but thats not really what i'm trying to get at here.

While obviously this is always going to be about personal opinion of the subject matter, I think I would be confident in saying that for myself the difference between nude as art and nude as pornography is the point at which it becomes less about beauty and more about titillation.

And I think this can be reinforced by saying that I am a straight guy, and I can appreciate both male and female nudes as art. Whether it be the curves of a woman or the more angular musculature of a man, they can both be beautiful. However when the line is crossed into pornography the concept of looking at a naked man repulses me. I think probably because of the more explicit nature of the imagery, the loss of beauty and the focus more on the act rather than the form.

I guess thats all I have to say on the matter,

P.S. I have nothing against gay guys, or girls for that matter, just thought i'd say that!