Free PORN...NUDE women and more

[Mrsforeman1]

If the model is willing to do it:
It's PORN
If she doesn't want to do it:
It's ART
At least that what you tell her.

 

[Harmony]

Hmmmm... We were asked to draw the line between nude work and porn?

Some would argue that there IS no line. Porn is meant to arouse lust. From what I am hearing, those who DO look at nude work look at lighting and etc. But that doesn't leave out the fact that there is a naked person as the subject of the picture. Many people don't agree with this because of either personal beliefs or religious convictions.

I do not look at nude work or porn, so I am unable to state what feelings are 'aroused' in me when I look at pics, because I don't.

To be honest, once I get married, I want to be pure for my spouse, and I want my spouse to be pure for me. I don't feel that plastering my nude body on pictures keeps me pure. I also don't feel that looking at nude bodies in pictures keeps me pure either.

My respectful 2 cents.

 

[Sideburns]

Hahahah I was too going to gloss over this but then I thought hangon Battou is common here isn't he?

Anyway a one sided relation ship is that x rated photos (photos showing actually sexual acts) are Porn. No they won't be art even in the wildest stretch.

R rated photos on the other hand (not showing actual sexual acts but instead just depicting the naked form) can be both. I guess the true art comes down to the same thoughts of snapshot vs proper model shots which also pay attention to some creative expansion of the "art" rather than just throwing a bunch of umbrellas and softboxes at a naked person. At the risk of sounding like a deviate myself: http://www.met-art.com/ (Definitely not safe for work!!!!!) is a fine example of art. When I see those photos the first thought is still related to the model, but you can't help but admire careful poses well thought out lighting and some wonderful camera work.

No offense, but met-art is high end snobby porn...ahahah

Hmmmm... We were asked to draw the line between nude work and porn?

Some would argue that there IS no line. Porn is meant to arouse lust. From what I am hearing, those who DO look at nude work look at lighting and etc. But that doesn't leave out the fact that there is a naked person as the subject of the picture. Many people don't agree with this because of either personal beliefs or religious convictions.

I do not look at nude work or porn, so I am unable to state what feelings are 'aroused' in me when I look at pics, because I don't.

To be honest, once I get married, I want to be pure for my spouse, and I want my spouse to be pure for me. I don't feel that plastering my nude body on pictures keeps me pure. I also don't feel that looking at nude bodies in pictures keeps me pure either.

My respectful 2 cents.

That is a very beautiful sentiment. I hope that it isn't lost on the rest of the world, and you can find someone like that.

 

[Big Bully]

Hey I think I am like the 3rd girl to respond to this thread... Alright!

Nude photography is mainly based on the lighting and shapes that the body makes.
(this site is not work safe!)
http://www.tommyedwards.com/gal_portfolio.htm
In this site, Tom Edwards mainly focuses his attentions on lighting and how the body is shaped. Even in the couples pictures, there is nothing truely sexual happening in the pictures. The focus is on the shapes of the body, and the abstract images the light creates. All in all his pictures are beautiful.
I personally think that porn has a WOW factor to it. That met-art site deffinately had the WOW factor going for it. I guess if a girl is showing her genitals full boar, in a position only her OBGYN and her partner should see.. then it is considered porn.
But like in Mapplethorps pictures, there is nothing wrong with those, even though some of the men had errect penis'. They didn't show the guy going wild or anything. The pictures didn't even show the whole entire guy, just part of the body, the hard/firm muscles and well to complete the image he was after, what better way to signify what he was getting at than to have the errect penis?! I think the way Mapplethorp portrayed those images was very tasteful.
But I also think that porn has to do with how a person is raised. I know that there are people in my family and my husbands family that would think that Tom Edwards pictures are inappropriate, crude, and porn. Where as I am on the artistic side and his images are pure art to me. So... I am going to have to agree with the general consensus here and say, it is in the eye of the beholder. No matter the intent of the artists, there is always going to be someone who is offended and calling it porn.

 

[Big Bully]

To further my point... I personally have been told that these images are pornographic, and should not be shown to public.... But they are images that one would see in a dance club or even at a swimming pool..

So my point which is Battou's point, is where is the line and who draws it. Oh and don't worry the pictures are work safe...

You as artists.. how about you decide....
BTW I know, the glare on the stomache is bright, and neon and the girl needs a tan... but that is beside the point.. lol

 

[BigRC]

By definition pornography is obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit. - By that definition, that would make half the movies put out by Hollywood, and over half the music put out by record labels pornography (by my opinion).

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pornography&x=0&y=0

Someone once told me that art is anything that grabs your attention for more that 15 seconds. I'm not sure about most people, but it usually takes me about 3 minutes to... umm... just kidding. On to the real answer.

I think there is a fine line between the two. Pornography has gained a mainstream acceptance in the last 25 or so years, mainly due to the accessibility and anonymity on the internet. It's our "dirty little secret".

The people behind the curtain want to keep nudity and sex "taboo" to the public because sex sells, and we (Americans) live in a capitalistic society. The dollar is worshipped more than God. Marketers know this, and they use the primal instinct of all animals (sexual intercourse) to entice people with their products. You see this in advertisements, soap operas, music videos, etc.

If we as a whole did not allow the government to regulate our sexuality as human beings, we wouldn't think so negatively about sexuality or sexual intercourse being used in pieces of artwork. As long as sex is "taboo", marketers and capitalists will exploit that fact, and degrade the act making it less "artful".

The fact that two human beings in the act of primal and natural behavior being photographed (even if you can see penetration) is automatically labeled as pornography is ridiculous. Love making is the most pure and natural act animals can engage in. I believe somewhere in the distant future, the full human body and/or sexual intercourse will be used to make wonderful works of art. After all, sexual intercourse is an art in itself....

 

[Josh66]

I believe somewhere in the distant future, the full human body and/or sexual intercourse will be used to make wonderful works of art. After all, sexual intercourse is an art in itself....

Isn't that true today? Nude art has been around for a very long time...

 

[Battou]

Isn't that true today? Nude art has been around for a very long time...

nude art yes, however the act of intercourse in imagery has always been very quickly dismissed into the relm of porn.

 

[Trenton Romulox]

I don't know if you could determine whether or not something is porn or art without knowing the creator's purpose for the shot. If there purpose was sexual stimulation, the shot is porn. Or is it? I mean, really, I don't think there is a clear cut answer for this, and there never will be. It's not only in the eye of the beholder, whether a shot is porn or art, but it's in the eye of the creator. I mean, there's no way to determine 100% either way, not to me at least. There's my two cents.

 

[Josh66]

nude art yes, however the act of intercourse in imagery has always been very quickly dismissed into the relm of porn.

Well, I don't know if you would consider it porn or art (doesn't really seem like porn to me), but there are depictions of intercourse that go pretty far back too. I think it's pretty safe to say that sex acts have been displayed as art recently too.

 

[BigRC]

Well, I don't know if you would consider it porn or art (doesn't really seem like porn to me), but there are depictions of intercourse that go pretty far back too. I think it's pretty safe to say that sex acts have been displayed as art recently too.

You are absolutely correct, but I meant accepted in the mainstream by the masses. Sorry, I should have worded that better.

 

[Battou]

Well, I don't know if you would consider it porn or art (doesn't really seem like porn to me), but there are depictions of intercourse that go pretty far back too. I think it's pretty safe to say that sex acts have been displayed as art recently too.

I personally would be taking a lot of individual facets into consideration, I love both types of the imagery and spend a lot of time viewing them, how ever my personnel preferences are not the wether I call it porn or nude art. I stand in a position where I may have to make a decision on society's point of view. Many times (though not always) such an image displayed as art is deemed porn by society.

 

[Josh66]

I personally would be taking a lot of individual facets into consideration, I love both types of the imagery and spend a lot of time viewing them, how ever my personnel preferences are not the wether I call it porn or nude art. I stand in a position where I may have to make a decision on society's point of view. Many times (though not always) such an image displayed as art is deemed porn by society.

I don't think it really matters what society's point of view is. Art has many faces, and not all will be liked by the masses.

 

[Battou]

I don't think it really matters what society's point of view is. Art has many faces, and not all will be liked by the masses.

Yes, but some one among those masses could quickly kill our funding, I started this thread to work on getting a general concensus as to how I could draw a line with out violating the tearms of agreement with sponcers but also at the same time allow all forms of creative works at the same time.

 

[BigRC]

Yes, but some one among those masses could quickly kill our funding, I started this thread to work on getting a general concensus as to how I could draw a line with out violating the tearms of agreement with sponcers but also at the same time allow all forms of creative works at the same time.

Well, if that's the case, I'd go with a cookie cutter regulation. No genitalia, and no blatant exploitation of the act of sexual intercourse (be sure to give examples, if you leave it up to assumption you're asking for trouble). Then if changes need to be made, so be it.