What's the diffrence-and how to tell.

[Kazooie]

What is the difference between nudity in art, and just plain pornography? Would you consider something like 'Mondo Cane' to be adult? Or art? At what point is it too extreme to show in the public and needs to be confined to private-whether intended for "it" or not?

I'm asking because I'm genuinely curios about what is socially acceptable. But to get away from nudity, what else would be acceptable? Would a professional photographer get in loads of trouble for taking photos of an autopsy if no laws were broken? Or how about a vicious fight? At what point would to get away from art and become "disgusting"?

-A late night questioner
​

 

[Josh220]

It's all personal opinion. From what I have seen, among other factors, this is largely dependent on the age generation of the viewer. Some consider breasts to be "pornography" whereas others draw the line at the vagina or cl*toral area being exposed, or when there is genital contact between two subjects.

I am not sure where the line would be drawn for male subjects... I suppose it would be dependent on the pose, whether he was erect or not, etc.

Again, though, it is solely based on the discretion of each individual viewer. You will never please everyone.

 

[Alex_B]

Some consider breasts to be "pornography" whereas others draw the line at the vagina or cl*toral area being exposed, or when there is genital contact between two subjects.

This is the lines drawn more by the laws in some countries.

I would draw it not in what is depicted, but how.

To illustrate:

I do like beer.

- A plain photograph of a bottle of beer (as used in advertising for example) might give me a positive feeling because I remember the taste and because I want to have it. This is pornography.

- If the bottle however is photographed in a way, that there is more to it, that it generates more than those plain feelings, either in beauty, or in an abstract way, or an unusual creative way, or even carries a message which is disjunct from the beer itself, then I consider this photographic art.

The law might see this in a totally different way. But to me pornography aims at generating plain lust. Everything else is not necessarily pornography even if it shows everything.

Since laws on this are totally different in different countries, you can see that there is no genuine natural definition which comes from within, but it is just traditions in different societies.

 

[Dao]

It is hard to define. As least it is what I believe.

Thoughts about a photo. Different person think differently. I feel it is art, while other may say it is porn. Thought process sometimes affected by environment. A photo display on a gallery where people need to pay $50 for admission may have impact on how people interpret a photo.

Of course, some of the extreme one, you can tell it is porn.

 

[KenC]

There is no answer to this. Even talking about what the photo is intended to do is pointless because all photos (at least all good ones) elicit more than one emotional or intellectual response. This is why laws on pornography have never made any sense and have been selectively enforced - see the case of Jock Sturges some years ago.

 

[Joey_Ricard]

There is no answer to this. Even talking about what the photo is intended to do is pointless because all photos (at least all good ones) elicit more than one emotional or intellectual response. This is why laws on pornography have never made any sense and have been selectively enforced - see the case of Jock Sturges some years ago.

Agreed, there is no answer to this as "art is subjective". One mans trash is another mans treasure and so on.

Although less obscure, in general, average, everyday definations, there is a difference between "nudity" and "pornography"
Or at least, the meaning of "pornography" to us average folk, means the "act of"

 

[jonathon94]

This reminds me of a discussion that we were having in AP Euro over the painting "The Luncheon on the Grass" by Manet. During his times his paintings were seen as porn and was scoffed at but today it is considered Art and sits proudly in the Louvre.

 

[480sparky]

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. [Emphasis added.]

........................—Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964), regarding possible obscenity in The Lovers.

​

 

[Trever1t]

samples please

 

[KmH]

I'm asking because I'm genuinely curios about what is socially acceptable?

On what part of planet Earth? :lmao:

The Internet is global. TPF has members from all parts of the globe.

 

[Derrel]

Photos the British have on page 3 of their newspapers could get a Saudia Arabia citizen a jail sentence...if I am not mistaken...

Here's the start of a Wikipedia article: "The phrase "I know it when I see it" is a colloquial expression within the United States by which a speaker attempts to categorize an observable fact or event, although the category is subjective or lacks clearly defined parameters. The phrase was famously used by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for pornography in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964). Obscenity is not protected speech under the Miller test, and can therefore be censored.

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. [Emphasis added.]

—Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964), regarding possible obscenity in The Lovers."​

 

[Big Mike]

This subject/debate shows up, maybe once each year, around here. As it well should. It's a valid debate that doesn't really have an answer or consensus.

To me, whether or not something is considered 'porn' comes down to intentions and interpretations.
If someone, when creating the photos/artwork has the intention to create something (primarily) for the sexual titillation of the viewer...then it's more likely to be porn. You might also add the intention of generating money, especially when it trumps artistic intentions and/or the welfare of those involved.
Yet there are very explicit and/or erotic photos/artwork that I would not consider to be porn at all...because the intentions of the artist were different.

On the other side of it, some people will interpret any or all nudity as what they consider to be porn. Some of those will think/say that any visible form of nudity will incite sexual licentiousness. "If my husband/son sees naked breasts, he will be driven to have intercourse with anyone or anything".
I have to wonder where that point of view comes from...because if that nudity didn't not incite feelings within themselves, why would they assume it does of everyone else?
Of course, a lot of it is societal standards, beliefs, religion etc. As unfair as it is to make generalizations, I'd guess that you could estimate a communities views on this, bases on their location. The American mid-west vs Sweden, for example.

I think one of the main issues, is the ability (or willingness) to separate nudity from sex. Some believe that all nudity must lead to sexual thoughts or actions...while for others, the two can be completely separate.

 

[jaksontycoon]

NUDE = non sexual, artistic
PORN = sexual, deviant
More on this: Non-nude photos of real children in sexually suggestive poses, involving some clothing-covered but nonetheless salacious images, is illegal child porno. Example: the so-called "preteen models" in a bikini or underwear, in sexually suggestive poses (like spread legs for no reason).
Contrary to this, photography of nudism and naturism, even involving children, is NOT illegal.

No i donot think mondo cane is adult

 

[Bossy]

I think it depends on the context of the image. It can also be very subjective, but some things are overtly sexual and others are just nudity for the sake of nudity.

​

 

[table1349]

If you have to ask, you don't need to know.