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.