[Damage]

I gotta agree, very nice defense of a personal viewpoint without a personal attack on me for mine, something that happens quite a bit.

Quote

Nudes used in art tend to be posed in positions and the scenes are composed to be that where the nudity is really isn't the story. The model just happens to be nude. It's meant to be provocative, to draw the eye into the rest of story

don't you think that that is a lazy man's way out? It's like "hell i've got a really great picture here now how do i get people to look at it? Oh I know, tits and ass", instead of finding a more meaningful way of getting attention.

k, how about this,seeing as how we can't post examples(for obvious reasons) follow this link and look at the picture, nowhere else and tell me -art or porn

http://pelicanh.devi...e6637-101199398 (Admin Edit: Extremely NSFW, but must be registered Deviantart Member to see)

[bluesnowangel]

Damage, on 26 Oct, 2008 - 06:51 PM, said:

don't you think that that is a lazy man's way out? It's like "hell i've got a really great picture here now how do i get people to look at it? Oh I know, tits and ass", instead of finding a more meaningful way of getting attention.

I'm sure as there are little yellow duckies that's the motive for some, however, it isn't the motive for all. It's hard to create blanket statements when it comes to what is considered art and what is considered porn and what is considered drek. Sometimes something can get lost in the translation. Throwing in nudity for the sake of nudity isn't very exciting or original. Now if someone was composing an artistic shot of... say... the punishment of St. Sebastian, and was to comprise him in the nude, it would go more to demonstrate the vulnerability of the character, the man is being slain with arrows in the buff, how much more vulnerable can you get? The general public wouldn't regard that as erotic.

Now, looking at Mr. Pelicanh's work there, he seems to have quite a bit of fetish in his portfolio. He made interesting use of his light, but the general feel of his work is that of the erotic. You can have tasteful nudes and still be erotic. It doesn't all have to be lesbian and dildo action. However, as well placed as his compositions are, I wouldn't hang them on my wall.

[absynthe]

Damage, on 26 Oct, 2008 - 05:26 PM, said:

I just resent the fact that someone can take their clothes off and have a picture taken and bang, its art. Whereas other art forms(well good ones) require a lot of skill and hard work to become art.

so i guess it's a moral objection.

Quote

A woman reclining naked without her ho hah showing [such as in most art galleries] is generally considered to be artsy, whereas as i mentioned earlier the other depictions aren't. [however, who's to say some people don't find that art?]

but that is just limiting it to women. There's plenty of "art" where male genitalia(kinda hard to hide those suckers without looking odd ) are on full display.

I dunno, am i alone in this or is it just one of those topics that no-one really thinks about

fooboo, on 26 Oct, 2008 - 05:24 PM, said:

I'm doing many image searches to study this subject now.

maybe absynthe can give you a hand

I only do porn

This post has been edited by absynthe: 26 October 2008 - 07:15 PM

[GWatt]

Just to be a bitch for technicalities: How sure are you that porn isn't art?

Now to answer your question, I don't think it's porn because the the subject isn't in a lascivious pose.

I also don't think the piece shows much in the way of artistry either. The lighting is moderately interesting. Maybe one of the more avid photographers can comment. There might be some really nice things from a technical or effects standpoint.

[edit]
is that you, absynthe?

This post has been edited by GWatt: 26 October 2008 - 07:16 PM

[absynthe]

GWatt, on 26 Oct, 2008 - 07:15 PM, said:

Just to be a bitch for technicalities: How sure are you that porn isn't art?

Now to answer your question, I don't think it's porn because the the subject isn't in a lascivious pose.

I also don't think the piece shows much in the way of artistry either. The lighting is moderately interesting. Maybe one of the more avid photographers can comment. There might be some really nice things from a technical or effects standpoint.

[edit]
is that you, absynthe?

[Damage]

Quote

The lighting is moderately interesting. Maybe one of the more avid photographers can comment. There might be some really nice things from a technical or effects standpoint.

but the model doesn't have to be naked to showcase that

and
@absynthe

thats a beautiful woman but personally i wouldn't call that art

this was supposed to be a separate post cause it kinda casts doubt upon that last statement in my "previous" post

I think GWatts got a point.

Maybe i'm looking at this wrong. Maybe porn can be construed as art in it's own right.

This post has been edited by Damage: 26 October 2008 - 07:21 PM

[absynthe]

Damage, on 26 Oct, 2008 - 07:18 PM, said:

Quote

The lighting is moderately interesting. Maybe one of the more avid photographers can comment. There might be some really nice things from a technical or effects standpoint.

but the model doesn't have to be naked to showcase that

and
@absynthe

thats a beautiful woman but personally i wouldn't call that art

It's nothing but artistic! There is no exploitation in the pose, just showcasing enchantment. Its not a whack piece, black and white...I wished I could leave it up for other opinions but I know what kind of shit I would be in if I did..

This post has been edited by absynthe: 26 October 2008 - 07:27 PM

[bluesnowangel]

absynthe, on 26 Oct, 2008 - 07:23 PM, said:

It's nothing but artistic! There is no exploitation in the pose, just showcasing enchantment. Its not a whack piece, black and white...I wished I could leave it up for other opinions but I know what kind of shit I would be in if I did..
my profile pic is worse!

It was a nice piece, but it looked to me more like a lighting study. Nice deep shadows and posing to create more shadows. And I wouldn't really call it porn either. Porn is something that's created for the sole purpose of sexually exciting the observer. Maybe it could be on the verge of light eroticia, but it just didn't have that bow-chicka-wow-ow factor.

[absynthe]

Exactly, not a whack piece!

Oh, and nice to meet you!! Love smart girls!

This post has been edited by absynthe: 26 October 2008 - 07:40 PM

[bluesnowangel]

absynthe, on 26 Oct, 2008 - 07:33 PM, said:

Exactly, not a whack piece!

Oh, and nice to meet you!! Love smart girls!

lol Nice to meet you too.

[Damage]

Quote

Erotica (from the Greek Eros—"desire") or "curiosa," works of art, including literature, photography, film, sculpture and painting, that deal substantively with erotically stimulating or sexually arousing descriptions

Quote

Porn is something that's created for the sole purpose of sexually exciting the observer

same thing.

Quote

It was a nice piece, but it looked to me more like a lighting study. Nice deep shadows and posing to create more shadows.

for something like that why do you need a nude model? Couldn't you use a fully clothed model or no model at all?

[absynthe]

Jesus Christ we just invaded Syria...ugh...


I think you would have to have a model. Lighting studies are one thing but the pic I had up showed the beauty of a womans body. Its not meant to be erotic at all.


What spirit is so empty and blind, that cannot recognize the fact that the foot is more noble than the shoe, and the skin more beautiful that the garment with which it is clothed?" (Michael Angelo dixit)

This post has been edited by absynthe: 26 October 2008 - 08:02 PM

[bluesnowangel]

Light erotica, aka softcore porn, like Red Shoes Diary or Boudoir photography. Porn is more like that Hustler stuff. Erotica is basically the umbrella term, but also a more.... polite (does that work?) word for the not so hardcore but a little more heavy than the lighter version.

Damage, on 26 Oct, 2008 - 07:47 PM, said:

for something like that why do you need a nude model? Couldn't you use a fully clothed model or no model at all?

Simple... fabric absorbs light and doesn't provide as nice of an even tone as bare flesh. There are deep wrinkles in fabric that can drastically alter the lighting effects. Bare skin is a much easier canvas to work with in a lighting study than a fully clothed subject.

[Damage]

absynthe, on 26 Oct, 2008 - 07:48 PM, said:

Jesus Christ we just invaded Syria...ugh...

Quote

A US military spokesman was unable to confirm or deny the reports, saying it was a "developing situation".

not just yet


well that explains lighting studies(although not why you can't use and object as opposed to a model) but i remain unconvinced that the majority of pictures I see out there(as per deviantArt) do not fall under "erotica" (aka light porn )

This post has been edited by Damage: 26 October 2008 - 08:08 PM