The human body is a mysterious and beautiful thing, as is sex, and yet we treat it like it's dirty or disgusting. Nudity in art captures the essence of sex and the human form for what it truly is--beautiful. I deviant-watch this one artist on here who takes photos of couples making love and you can tell that the photos do not capture images of lust (hence why I used the term "making love" here), hence I do not consider it pornography. Pornography is meant to just "get people off", for lack of a better term. Our attitudes toward nudity and sexuality have been tainted by marketing and commercialism, which use sex and fleeting lust to advertise their products, which I don't think is right. Some of the greatest works of art in history have included nudity (Michelangelo's statue of David, for instance) and it hurts me to see people make such a fuss over the nudity instead of appreciating the art.
and another thing that really bugs me is most of the people that have commented on this are true hypocrites how can you say nudity is ok because its natural and then say interpreting a sexual relationship is NOT ok and is porn, that is JUST as natural as nudity as i said its ALL about what the artist intends you to see the piece as if an artist simply wants to draw a man and woman having crazy kinky sex to get you off then they meant for it to be pornographic but what if the artist wanted to draw a womans first experience with sex almost as a right of passage concept with the detail of the nervous and intimidated look on her face would you consider that pornography? even though there is a message behind it?
i've only seen a few of your nudes but no honestly i feel most nudist art work should not be considered pornography yes you might be witnessing the act but its not a full length movie and the idea or concept behind the art wasn't meant for someone to bring it home and masturbate to a body is a form and sex is a representation of life that's all yours are no where near as profoundly sexual as some and even those are not considered pornographic in my eyes unless the artist meant for it to be such then it is not such the artist creates the work not the people viewing it
No because you express things poetically; porn isn't supposed to be artistic; rather, purely lustful, not about enjoying the beauty of something but trying to catch an orgasm through sight. That is unsatisfactory, may I add.
it really depends on how provocative the positioning is.. i mean there's a way to generate awe and respect for the beauty of the body_ it truly is a work of art in itself. but then there's just being a plain visual prostitute... that's when the value of the body is completely lost.
I think that it depends on the way the artist portrays the figure. For example, you have Playboy on one hand and on the other Picasso. In Playboy's work, the idea is to show off the physical body and nothing else, compared to Picasso which shows a form of expression using the body. So, I suppose it depends on your artistic point of view.
Pornography fosters an attitude about sex that fulfills a biological desire, nothing more. Nudity is a natural, everyday occurrence. To turn it into art is more about the appreciation of natural beauty. It touches on our basest instinct, that of sexual desire, and shows us how it can be a beautiful emotion.
Personally, I do not think your nude art is porn, although some artists continue to push a line that is consistently changes from person to person.
I think this question really comes down to personal morals/beliefs & the intent of the artist, therefore it doesn't have a definite answer. For example, a person may consider any nude art pornographic because just the sight of a nude body causes arousal, whereas another person sees it simply as the architecture of a human body; however, the interpretation depends on sexual perspective. Pornography is all about sexual preference, just as art is all about personal taste. Someone with a foot fetish could consider a painting of a nameless woman's feet more pornographic than a full frontal shot of a porn star, no matter the artists intent.
The porn only has the objective to excite. Even a scene of sex can be performed as an artwork and not porn.
I never heard about someone masturbating to the Indu statues of the gods making sex. There are a lot of them. The Indu religion think about sex as a natural activity. They do not see that with malicious eyes. And for me that Idols are fine works of art.
Even the sex can be used to transmit some poetry. Of course there´s a large diference beetween sex and porn.
There´s no art in porn. As we say in my country, porn is just Putaria.
Anyone with common sense understands sex in the proper perspective. It's a part of life. Sex isn't malicious or seen as so, but because people have a tendency to want it in a wrong way (to the degree that using people to get close to sex instead of using sex to get close to a person), it's treated privately.
Clothes are a social convention, a bond, a limitation. We don´t need clothes, the old greek doesn´t use clothes to hide their genitals. But the Cristian culture along the centuries made the people think about an unatural skin as a need.
Of course i´m not a nudist. I don´t walk around naked on the streets. But I understand the nude art. It´s a rescue of the original nature of the body. Thinking about the nudity only under the aspect of sex is some sort of alienation. We are birth with the genital organs, We don´t have to decepate them to be accepted. In Michelangelo was used to paint saint figures totally nude. Everybody is naked in Sistin Capel. Is that porn?
I almost can´t believe that there´s people with this kind of prejudice.
Christianity isn't to blame. Yeah, I am a Christian. Clothes are put on for decency as well as protection, especially since in this time and age people tend not to respect the human body plus things aren't sanitary.
Sitting in the same spot that someone else put their bare ass isn't what I call ideal.
It depends on the way you choose to address the body as you work. Your art does not strike me as pornographic but rather as a simple observation of the human body. The women in your paintings do not look objectified to me, however, some people might think otherwise.
Only if it is distastefully presented. And who's taste then do we go by? Good topic for discussion since we are all in varying degrees of openness/phobia.
Let's bring up abuse and one that has been abused and even attempting to overcome the past still is deeply wounded and needs more healing. To say that it is not porn if it takes that person's mind to the 'sex act' then I would put it in that catagory. But what may upset me may be quite fine with another. What arouses me may not arouse the next person. Therefore I believe there is a fine line and it is not clear where it sits. In order to protect some people that come to view art and are asked to open a frame that may be subjectively controversial, ie: pornographic possibilities makes sense to me. They then make the personal decision to open it and it is then not the site's responsibility, but leaves the decision to the discretion of the viewer. Bottom line....... it is not clearly defined since what takes each person's mind down that road differs greatly depending on culture, upbringing, background history, and personality traits.. I don't know if this did anything but add confusion to addressing this topic ? It is really not a yes or no answer..... but a depending on isn't it?
That is one important thing. But the issue is not only from the viewpoint of the sender. It is also important from the viewpoint of the receiver. One is dishonorable without consideration of the other in the media of displaying to the public. If it is to self gratify then hey do what offends risk to no one. (?)
Hm, well, there may be some fear in some people. In my personal life, the people around me appreciated nude stuff but the fine line would be set @ no porn because of the desire to stay pure; to refrain from the infiltration of the enjoyment of the human body in a healthy, respectful way.