Isolated [Warning nude]

Roger · Apr 30, 2008

robitussin217 said:
For the sake of argument:

It seems like you are saying that if a picture features bodily arousal it is automatically pornography and can't be art. That doesn't seem true. It seems like these photos (that used to be there) are conceded as technically pretty good. Probably shouldn't take shots where the purpose is to show off your stuff. People resent it. And, this is the net. Gotta make sure you're ready for the pics to be around forever. At any rate, this thread is interesting.

I think if you looked up some fine art sites you would find erect and semi-erect genitalia are not considered appropriate....I have also seen some artistic pornography, very good quality but still classified as porn. I didn't resent the pics at all, just expressed my opinion on the content and the technical aspects. A shame the OP didn't engage in some discussion.

robitussin217 · Apr 30, 2008

Hmm, it seems like that is a change from the history of ancient greece and Indian sex art. For instance, there is the Herma fertility statue. And, would you consider kama sutra to be art? It seems silly to label anything that depicts a state of arousal pornography and not art. I think it would be kind of a shame that an artist wouldn't be free to depict an erection or sexual situation.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.theoi.com/image/K11.12Herma.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.theoi.com/Gallery/K11.12.html&h=326&w=185&sz=13&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=4Ix7Ifl8TvMtIM:&tbnh=118&tbnw=67&prev=/images%3Fq%3DHerma%2Bstatue%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US

fficial%26sa%3DN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mercury_god.jpg

The Losing Kind · Apr 30, 2008

Roger said:
I think if you looked up some fine art sites you would find erect and semi-erect genitalia are not considered appropriate....I have also seen some artistic pornography, very good quality but still classified as porn. I didn't resent the pics at all, just expressed my opinion on the content and the technical aspects. A shame the OP didn't engage in some discussion.

Things change. The whole point of art is that, yes, there are some rules, but you can break them because it is art and your creation. Plus, as Robitussin217 said, many many cultures have been creating images containing aroused figures forever; it just so happens that Western/European cultures frowned upon that sort of thing and thus kind of ignored it in their art. But again, things are changing these days because people no longer "fear" nudity and the human body. Art is not rigid.

I do understand where you're coming from- I didn't consider this particular set to be artistic (just didn't seem to have a point), but in the same breath, I do think that a state of arousal does not necessarily automatically slap something into the "pornographic" arena. I respect your opinion, and there's mine

robitussin217 · Apr 30, 2008

^^^ Hahaha! What!? Why do you want to know that? Sounds like question derived from gossip. But, no I don't think it was called "wang." It's funny how introducing the term "wang" into a discussion on art history and evolution changes the intellectual air of the conversation. "Well european yada, ancient greece, yada, high art!...wang!"

back on topic

I'm kind of fascinated by this thread. Even though I didn't really respect the kind of art that these shots were, at least they promoted discussion. And, it's interesting to see the spectrum of reactions that they got.