Nudes and Pornography

[jbylake]

Walgreens will not print pornography.

I will not disagree with that but, in your previous post you talked of "nude, non-pornographic printing." Not quite the same thing.

I appreciate all of your input. Thank you. Just to answer one question, the girl in question is 26 or 27, not sure but around there. There were no, genitalia (spell?), exposed, just a low slung thong type underware with a little pubic hair exposed, but she had an open top that revealed mamalian protrubences, and nip's. That's it.

This thread has turned into a " legal issues" rather than a "what's your take on drawing the line between nude and porn" thread. But as one person put it, that was like asking "what's your favorite color"?

He/she was right, and this thread is going nowhere, and had I thought it through, a little, I should have had enough common sense to see that logic.

Thanks you all again, time to drop this one. My lack of foresight almost turned it into one of those "what's better, a Nikon or Canon" thread.

God, help me, if I see another of those, I think I'll blow chunks.:lmao:

But basically, through lack of forethought, that's exactly what I did. Sorry.

J.

 

[sownman]

Nudity on it's own = Art assuming there is some quality.
Sex Acts = Porn, even if artistic

I have nothing against artistic nudity or porn. Both can be great.

 

[xiangji]

over 600 hits... I'd have never have guessed...

 

[William Petruzzo]

I think that it's based on intention, and intention in intention. (phew)

There's no objective authority governing what poses, angles, techniques, whatever, constitute pornography. Pornography is simply images designed to sexually arouse the viewer. That means that the angles, poses and lighting of a particular nude form in pornography are that way because that is what will arouse the viewer. But, what sexually stimulates a viewer gradually changes continually. Just consider the victorian era (I believe that's the one), heavier men and women were considered beautiful, while thinner men and women were not so much. The inverse is generally true today.

At the same time, I don't think that something stimulating the viewer sexually necessarily invalidates it as artistic either. In fact, a great deal of art is created with the intention of stimulating something in the viewer--emotional or otherwise. So, in a sense, a photographer could approach his artistic subject with the intention of photographing him or her in such a way as to rouse the viewer sexually and therein is his art. In his ability to move the viewer in one way or another. Now, granted, sexually stimulating the viewer is, well, kind of weak. It's just not that hard to do.

But my point is that the product doesn't classify itself as 'artistic' based on any number of qualities, like light, posing, composure, etc. The artist's intentions classify his work as art by what he intends the art to be, or by what he intends for the art to intend to do. Blegh. That's a hard sentence to say.

 

[Big Mike]

I think that it's based on intention, and intention in intention. (phew)

There's no objective authority governing what poses, angles, techniques, whatever, constitute pornography. Pornography is simply images designed to sexually arouse the viewer. That means that the angles, poses and lighting of a particular nude form in pornography are that way because that is what will arouse the viewer. But, what sexually stimulates a viewer gradually changes continually. Just consider the victorian era (I believe that's the one), heavier men and women were considered beautiful, while thinner men and women were not so much. The inverse is generally true today.

At the same time, I don't think that something stimulating the viewer sexually necessarily invalidates it as artistic either. In fact, a great deal of art is created with the intention of stimulating something in the viewer--emotional or otherwise. So, in a sense, a photographer could approach his artistic subject with the intention of photographing him or her in such a way as to rouse the viewer sexually and therein is his art. In his ability to move the viewer in one way or another. Now, granted, sexually stimulating the viewer is, well, kind of weak. It's just not that hard to do.

But my point is that the product doesn't classify itself as 'artistic' based on any number of qualities, like light, posing, composure, etc. The artist's intentions classify his work as art by what he intends the art to be, or by what he intends for the art to intend to do. Blegh. That's a hard sentence to say.

I agree, it's the intention behind the work that might be the determining factor.
However, having said that...what about non-explicit images that are also meant to arouse? For example, a photo of just the curve of a woman's neck or back might be erotic and/or stimulating to the viewer...and that might be the artist's intention. But does that make it pornographic?

 

[PhotoXopher]

Whatever, I just want to see some examples

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I agree, it's the intention behind the work that might be the determining factor.
However, having said that...what about non-explicit images that are also meant to arouse? For example, a photo of just the curve of a woman's neck or back might be erotic and/or stimulating to the viewer...and that might be the artist's intention. But does that make it pornographic?

:thumbup: Big Mike, you are absolutely right. I use this dancing-around-the actual-problem in my political art work and it flies under the radar. However, that is still a way to censor speech and my most interesting work is only shown in Europe...

 

[William Petruzzo]

I think that it's based on intention, and intention in intention. (phew)

There's no objective authority governing what poses, angles, techniques, whatever, constitute pornography. Pornography is simply images designed to sexually arouse the viewer. That means that the angles, poses and lighting of a particular nude form in pornography are that way because that is what will arouse the viewer. But, what sexually stimulates a viewer gradually changes continually. Just consider the victorian era (I believe that's the one), heavier men and women were considered beautiful, while thinner men and women were not so much. The inverse is generally true today.

At the same time, I don't think that something stimulating the viewer sexually necessarily invalidates it as artistic either. In fact, a great deal of art is created with the intention of stimulating something in the viewer--emotional or otherwise. So, in a sense, a photographer could approach his artistic subject with the intention of photographing him or her in such a way as to rouse the viewer sexually and therein is his art. In his ability to move the viewer in one way or another. Now, granted, sexually stimulating the viewer is, well, kind of weak. It's just not that hard to do.

But my point is that the product doesn't classify itself as 'artistic' based on any number of qualities, like light, posing, composure, etc. The artist's intentions classify his work as art by what he intends the art to be, or by what he intends for the art to intend to do. Blegh. That's a hard sentence to say.

I agree, it's the intention behind the work that might be the determining factor.
However, having said that...what about non-explicit images that are also meant to arouse? For example, a photo of just the curve of a woman's neck or back might be erotic and/or stimulating to the viewer...and that might be the artist's intention. But does that make it pornographic?

I would say in a sense. But pornography isn't the only media that attempts to arouse the viewer. Advertising does it all the time. It would seem to me that the intention behind pornography which makes it unique against other types of images intended to arouse is that pornography aims to, *ahem*, bring the arousal to "completion". So to speak.

I think that is what makes it unique.

 

[Wolfgang8810]

Over a little "bush" his film was stolen but we kept one in office for 8 years!? Completly wrong but ALL processing places like walgreens and what not are required to pull any nude film. The best thing to do would be upp front about the content of the photos and if they wont do it go somewhere else. Another option is to find an Uncensored film processing place.

 

[Nikkor]

I know the disclaimer says that this isn't a place to voice your religious beliefs etc, and I'm not, but personally I can't stand pornography, lots of girls are like that, call us insecure if you will.

But I can appreciate the human figure when it's photographed. I think it's about taste. If you've got some sleezy bimbos all over each other then you're starting to cross the line into the 'too inappropriate to call it art' category.

But when it's something well photographed, and edited, and set up then it's meant to intrigue you and not to, as someone said before 'complete arousal', that's what I find to be tasteful naked art.

I hope this made some sense. I think of pornography as more of an act.

 

[Actor]

In the U.S. pornography is not a legal term. The legal term is obscenity. To be deemed obscene a work must pass (or fail?) three tests:

• It must appeal to prurient interests, meaning it must be sexually arousing.
• It must be considered as a whole. One part cannot be extracted from the whole and used to judge the entire work.
• It must have no redeeming social value. For example, a photo which might otherwise be offensive has redeeming social value if it is part of a medical textbook. If something can legitimately be considered art then it has redeeming social value.

The Supreme Court later added a fourth test

• It must be offensive to contemporary community standards, meaning what is obscene in Boston might not be obscene in Las Vegas.

 

[RMThompson]

Sometimes the line is directly linked to what the person is gaining from said photo. Let me tell you a story from early in my career.

I was interested in doing weddings, and contacted a local wedding photographer whose work I admired. He concetrated on highly religious stuff and in fact even used the term Christian photographer in his business name. Now, I don't mind that one bit, but I also had done some implied nudity, lingerie, swimwear work. So when I first talked to him and told him I wanted to shadow him, I asked him if it would be a problem and he said that they were all artstic and as long as I wasn't using these pictures for personal satisfaction it would be no problem. We even had a conversation about what makes something porno.

So we worked out a deal where he would build my website, something I was sorely lacking at the time, and I would work off the cost of this website by shadowing him during some weddings. It seemed like a win-win to me, I got the website AND some experience.

However, when he sent the contract over I noticed something strange. Even though it was October, he stated that if I was unable to complete my shadowing work by December 31st that year, I would owe him for the entire website; with NO discount for the stuff I had alreayd worked. It was distinctly written where if I owed him ten dollars at the end of the year, I owed him the ENTIRE amount. Keep in mind that I had no control over the AMOUNT of work he would give me, so he could very well intentionally keep me from working for him to pay it off.

When I confronted him about it, I figured there was a reasonable expectation, or at the very least, we could extend the contract or re-write it where I would only owe what I hadn't worked off. I emailed him but he was silent for a few days. I wrote back to ask if he had recieved my emailed, and here is what he said to me:

After praying on it, God has told me that I should not be in business with a pornographer like yourself. I pray for your soul that you reptent from this work and join me in serving the Lord Jesus Christ.

I was floored.

That's just ONE example how someone's views can change, and for what reason. I was artistic enough when he was going to swindle me, but a pornographer once he couldn't.

 

[KD5NRH]

Walgreens will not print pornography.

Ah, but will they process it without prints?

At least here, the photo guys seemed to like the last couple times I dropped off film: 1-hr process, no prints, no scans, no cut - just dev it, roll it back up and drop it back in the canister. I'm pretty sure they don't look at it either, because they know I won't in the store - it's not like I'm going to refuse to pay for one frame of the negs because it didn't turn out.

 

[jackieclayton]

for me, its definitely how its presented. there is sensuality, and then there is porn. is there a natural artistic feeling to it? or is there a suggestive, raunchy perverse feeling to it? A nude women looking up at the sky with a peaceful expression would carry a completely diferent label if that same woman were looking at the camera with a "come hither" expression. there was a thread once about how walmart called social services on a parent that developed a roll of film that had bathtime snaps of their baby. THAT is over the line, in my opinion, but if that is Walmart's rule (no nudity) then either I can abide by that or find another film developer.

In regards to merchants, they have to have a rule that encompasses all so that there is no room for interpretation like this. its all or nothing. whether we agree with it or not, its really to protect them from liability. While I may not agree with it at all, I have the choice of not using their services.

I wish people here would seriously think about the context of the photo rather than saying "oop, she's naked, its porn!!!" but because of close minded people like that we will have to always deal with that fine line between art and porn. Its a shame... we can build robots that fly to mars yet we have to get our panties in a wad when we see a naked woman....

 

[pcacj]

I would like to reveal the processor's name here, but am not relishing the fallout that might incur. J.

As long as you are only posting facts, I do not think they have a claim against you for identifying them. I encourage you to identify them because that is how consumers have power to influence that which we do not agree with. We are mature consumers and can reach our own conclusions regarding any desire to utilize the processor or not.