Why is too far, too far?

[Baaaark]

Say for example, sexiness. You want your photos to be sexy, but to be totally honest, I even find pornographic images sexy. There are a lot of things that can be considered hot, yet most photographers I know wouldn't want their model work to be considered pornographic.

I know there's a line of taste that is drawn, and I'm usually fairly good at finding it. But I still don't know what, why, and how this line gets drawn, and who determines that something is, "in bad taste."

Just looking for a photographic discussion. Personally, I don't even know if I'd have a problem being a photographer for something like Hustler. Its not exactly my dream job, but I could deal.

 

[Josh66]

I even find pornographic images sexy.

Isn't that the point?

I know there's a line of taste that is drawn, and I'm usually fairly good at finding it. But I still don't know what, why, and how this line gets drawn, and who determines that something is, "in bad taste."

I think it all depends on what the model wants and who the intended audience is.

 

[Baaaark]

I even find pornographic images sexy.

Isn't that the point?

I know there's a line of taste that is drawn, and I'm usually fairly good at finding it. But I still don't know what, why, and how this line gets drawn, and who determines that something is, "in bad taste."

I think it all depends on what the model wants and who the intended audience is.

Yeah, it is the point! But, at the same time, its super taboo, even today. That's why I wanted to know why so many people, especially professional photographers, would dislike a pornographic image.

For the record, this forum is NOT the place for porn (duh), but at the same time, does it not have its place in serious photography if it incites such strong emotions (lust) in people? Yet its still "tacky" and "distasteful."

Or an image that is too violent (Vietnam comes to mind) ends up getting marked as "over the line," even though its well done and has served its purpose very well.

I just don't get it.

 

[musicaleCA]

Photojournalism like I think you're referring to shouldn't ever be called "over-the-line", IMO. Ever. Never ever. You document what you saw, and sometimes what you saw was truly horrific.

As for pornography, it—like any other form of entertainment media—can benefit from the application of good photographic and cinematographic principles. I don't think it'd ever be considered "art". We have artistic nudes that are in good taste, and the goals of pornography and photography will likely always be very different. Maybe if we could all just accept that pornography is a form of entertainment, albeit for an adult audience...bah...nevermind.

 

[Baaaark]

Photojournalism like I think you're referring to shouldn't ever be called "over-the-line", IMO. Ever. Never ever. You document what you saw, and sometimes what you saw was truly horrific.

As for pornography, it—like any other form of entertainment media—can benefit from the application of good photographic and cinematographic principles. I don't think it'd ever be considered "art". We have artistic nudes that are in good taste, and the goals of pornography and photography will likely always be very different. Maybe if we could all just accept that pornography is a form of entertainment, albeit for an adult audience...bah...nevermind.

This is an awesome answer. But, I want to know what the difference in goals is between a sports illustrated bikini shoot and pornography? Really, aren't they both trying to do the same thing? One could be considered artistic, and the other will never be.

 

[craig]

Not sure what you are getting at. In the world of modeling/fashion lines are not drawn. More like certain elements of the work dictate it's placement into a genre. There is porn, glam, high fashion, pinup, bondage... the list goes on and on. Not like one is less tasteful or bad.

Love & Bass

 

[musicaleCA]

Very good point craig, and I agree. Lines aren't really clear, but then again, that tends to be the case in all artforms, especially now when so many of us are creating art of a reasonable quality.

As for your question Baaaark, I can't figure-out a way to answer that without using crude language (perhaps an indicator of the gaps in my lexicon), so er...I'll just say this: I really did mean "will likely always be", rather than saying "always" or "never". There may come a point in time where our society accepts pornography without reservation, and there may even come a time that it is considered to be an artform with its own merits, but I can't see how that would occur now.

Then again, what is considered "art" in a culture is often just a reflection of the predominant biases of that culture toward certain generes of creative expression. So, in simple terms, "art" is entirely subjective and whether or not something is art is entirely dependant on the culture you were raised in and are currently surrounded by. Or more simply, it's a moot point, but it's fun to debate the intricacies of the issue sometimes.

 

[Garbz]

This is an awesome answer. But, I want to know what the difference in goals is between a sports illustrated bikini shoot and pornography? Really, aren't they both trying to do the same thing? One could be considered artistic, and the other will never be.

Why not? Just because you don't consider it to be artistic doesn't mean it's not art. Unfortunately you have combined two often discussed topics.
1) Does throwing up on a canvas automatically make it art.
2) Does photographing a naked woman automatically make it porn.

So the question is what is stopping people combining the two?
An example of something that will really blur the lines is Met-Art : MET-ART LAST UPDATE: JUNE 10th 2009 - The Standard for erotic nude art photography NOT SAFE FOR WORK

Some of the images in these magazine while often pornographic can most definitely be considered art in many eyes.

 

[Josh220]

I definitely see what you mean by border-line with that magazine.

Subscribed for interesting discussion.

 

[JerryPH]

My answer is do what you want, label your work as you wish and if others buy it in the manner that you intended it to be sold as, you did your job. If you are marketing it as art, and your only client ever is a major porno ring in California, you've pretty much missed your mark... lol

 

[blash]

The general difference between pornography and art is in how the subject is photographed. You can take full-frontal nude photos of either sex and not have it interpreted as pornography by 99% of the non-Christian-conservative population. At the same time, if you take a photo where the genitals cover over 50& of the frame, especially if they are in excited posture... pornography is also mainly suggested by the suggestiveness of the subject, i.e. is the facial expression of the subject one of ecstasy, or is the body position teasing the viewer? Nude artistic photography seeks not to excite the carnal part of the brain but rather to make a general statement in much the same way that other artistic photography does - the nudity is there merely to enhance the message, i.e. to lend a better impression on the part of the subject of desperation, depravity, etc.

 

[Garbz]

Check out this found on google image search http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/...039s-039black-dreams039-antiporn-nation.html:

An erect penis next to a spread vagina. Now this isn't porn, it couldn't be it's a man made sculpture. But now if it were photographed it would be porn, but could it still be art?

What I am saying is there is no difference BETWEEN porn and art. Something can be porn, can be art, and more importantly it can be both as well. It all depends on the viewer's perceptions.

Maybe I'm just a deviant.

 

[inTempus]

It's subjective, obviously. One persons "porn" is another persons "art". Everyone defines it differently.

This is similar to a thread I started about defining offensive and included a pic I recently took. The opinions spanned quite a broad range.

 

[Josh66]

Like I said in another thread - it all depends on the intended audience...

 

[Baaaark]

Nude artistic photography seeks not to excite the carnal part of the brain but rather to make a general statement in much the same way that other artistic photography does - the nudity is there merely to enhance the message, i.e. to lend a better impression on the part of the subject of desperation, depravity, etc.

Why is this the case? Why is it that we would intentionally tone down the emotional response (in this case lust) of a photo in order to make it more artistic? In all other venues, its preferable to try and incite as much emotion as possible.

Why do we treat our lust desire any different than love, hate, fury, etc? All these other emotions are much more socially accepted to portray in photography... why?