"Artistic Pornography"

[bjorke]

Then both sides show the concrete studies that support each claim. I'm with Mark on this one. I don't agree with either side that have posted.

I can see you skipped-past the various links in my previous posts

I'm increasingly convinced, however, that 'porn art' is a sales slogan, used to drum up the market for what is ultimately pretentious and dull 'erotica.'

One assumes a grand party was had all 'round at the studio while making it, I guess.

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

Ahem... (not to be confused with "amen")... can I change the subject?... I mean, get back to the subject? Has anybody here ever heard of Jock Sturges?

[Note: This is my second attempt to kick-start the original thread ... and yes, excuse my hypocrisy 'cause I'm among those who participated in putting it off track .. but will someone pleeeease throw-in their opinion of Sturges? ]

 

[Peter De Smidt]

Ahem... (not to be confused with "amen")... can I change the subject?... I mean, get back to the subject? Has anybody here ever heard of Jock Sturges?

He does terrific environmental portraiture.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Ahem... (not to be confused with "amen")... can I change the subject?... I mean, get back to the subject? Has anybody here ever heard of Jock Sturges?

[Note: This is my second attempt to kick-start the original thread ... and yes, excuse my hypocrisy 'cause I'm among those who participated in putting it off track .. but will someone pleeeease throw-in their opinion of Sturges? ]

Great photographer of pubescent girls -- but his best pictures are often the ones where they have their clothes on, rather than off. If we're going to have a 'porn divide' I'd put Hamilton fractionally on the porn side and Sturges fractionally on the not-porn side. Quite honestly, though, I'd hesitate to call that a ringing condemnation of Hamilton or a ringing endorsement of Sturgess.

At photokina on one of the book stands there was a photographically illustrated version of The Story Of O. Almost certainly porn, but beautifully executed: lush, one might say. Why didn't I buy it? Was it because it didn't turn me on or because it didn't tell me much about photography? Who cares? I didn't buy it. I wish every happiness to those who did.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

Ok.. I see that so far Jock Sturges isn't exactly considered close enough to porn to create a discussion. So now, ladies and gentlemen, to put a little fun into the subject, here's a little quiz:

http://film.guardian.co.uk/quiz/questions/0,,1196044,00.html

 

[blansky]

Jock Sturges. I'm kinda torn.

It seems kind of like voyeurism to me. I certainly haven't been moved (now stop that) by anything I've seen of his.

It sort of seems like a guy pushing the envelope and engaging our irrational fear of nudity and shame, that we in this country have about pictures of naked people including children. This of course brings us back to the influence that religion namely christianity, has had on our feelings about nudity in this country.

Nudity has for me always been about dropping barriers and "uniforms" and an attempt to reveal the real person, or at least the real persons body. To see a sort of bland who cares kind of nudity which I think is his context, in my opinion, doesn't really do too much for me, pro or con.

Michael

 

[blansky]

Great photographer of pubescent girls -- but his best pictures are often the ones where they have their clothes on, rather than off. If we're going to have a 'porn divide' I'd put Hamilton fractionally on the porn side and Sturges fractionally on the not-porn side.

Cheers,

R.

I find Hamilton is beautiful coming of age, in color, in a French cottage kind of thing and Sturges, coming of age in black and white, at the beach.

Neither porn.


Michael

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'm more partial to Sally Mann than Jock Sturges. If we're talking about budding youth in general, how about some of Bruce Weber's work he did for the Abercrombie & Fitch campaigns? it may not be technically pornographic, but to me it is more suggestive and intended to titillate than Jock's work. Or for yet another take, Reuven Afanador's Torero series, where he photographed some young toreadors in various countries in Latin America where the bullfighting tradition is still strong, in some homoerotic poses. I think some of the boys he photographed were in their late teens (16+), but from the scars some of them had, they were more "men" than most of us couch potatoes participating in this chat. How do you draw the dividing line between maturity and immaturity? Can someone who has faced down a 1000 lb bull with 18" horns be too young to decide to pose nude at 16?

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

Porn Art Museum

. . . and as remarkable as it seems, a whole museum on the subject:

http://www.porninart.ch/museum/index.html

 

[Roger Hicks]

I find Hamilton is beautiful coming of age, in color, in a French cottage kind of thing and Sturges, coming of age in black and white, at the beach.

Neither porn.


Michael

Dear Michael,

Once, I'd have agreed with you. But consider this comment from the younger sister of a girl I once fancied. She (the sister, not the girl) was maybe 14. When she heard I has a Hamilton book, she asked to borrow it.

"You see one, and you think, wow. And you see another, and you think, he's good. And by the tenth you say, what else can he do?"

That's why I've not bought another Hamilton book in 25-30 years.

Porn? Possibly; possibly not. I don't really care in either case. The main purpose was to draw a parallel with Sturges, where there is far less overt eroticism.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Jock Sturges. I'm kinda torn.

It seems kind of like voyeurism to me....It sort of seems like a guy pushing the envelope and engaging our irrational fear of nudity and shame, that we in this country have about pictures of naked people including children....

Michael

I'll go along with that. Some of those girls don't look comfortable. Others do. And a lot depends on your definition of 'child'.

Cheers,

R.

 

[blansky]

"You see one, and you think, wow. And you see another, and you think, he's good. And by the tenth you say, what else can he do?"

That's why I've not bought another Hamilton book in 25-30 years.

You nailed it there. His work is kind of like the antithesis of a tattoo, " I bet you can't get just one".

One Hamilton and you're good for life. I settled for his greatest hits....the best of David Hamilton.


Michael

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

What about Roy Stuart? Given that he uses precisely the visual conventions of pornography in his work, wherein would lie that fine line he wants us to make between porn and his work?

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

I'm more partial to Sally Mann than Jock Sturges. If we're talking about budding youth in general, how about some of Bruce Weber's work he did for the Abercrombie & Fitch campaigns? it may not be technically pornographic, but to me it is more suggestive and intended to titillate than Jock's work. Or for yet another take, Reuven Afanador's Torero series, where he photographed some young toreadors in various countries in Latin America where the bullfighting tradition is still strong, in some homoerotic poses. I think some of the boys he photographed were in their late teens (16+), but from the scars some of them had, they were more "men" than most of us couch potatoes participating in this chat. How do you draw the dividing line between maturity and immaturity? Can someone who has faced down a 1000 lb bull with 18" horns be too young to decide to pose nude at 16?

.. and speaking of male nudes and the question of porn as art (plus, considering my interest in Hollywood lighting), what about the work of Jim French? Here you have males, sometimes in full erection, but with some of the best damned 'Hollywood' lighting you can find anywhere.

When people contact me and ask me where there can see modern-day examples of Hollywood lighting, I've frequently refered them to the Jim French/Colt website. The posing can be a little "kitschy", but I suppose that's part of the Hollywood look too. When I tell people about the site, I don't ask whether or not they are gay (and don't care). Anyway, if they're not, I have to assume that they're interested enough in the technical aspects of the lighting to see past the subject matter. (I do tell them the nature of the site).

I don't know if the website still has alot of spot-lit nudes, but give a look. Is it porn? Is it art? Those who would be shocked to see photos of erect males, please wear your blindfold while looking at the site.

Dead Link Removed

.

 

[blansky]

A lot of the French stuff is merely gay beefcake with a few Herb Rittsy type gay arty stuff. At least on his site.

I don't see much that is very arty and I don't see any great lighting here either, centainly not Hollywood glamour lighting.

There seems to me to be a definite "gay beefcake" element in male nudes and in others more of a male nude study similar to a female nude study.

His stuff to me seems like gay beefcake.


Michael

 

[blansky]

I just looked at the Roy Stuart work. His work seems very cinematic and an exploration of sexual fantasies. It's a sort of detached erotica more in the vein of a porno movie. Beautiful people, beautifully lit, having sex.

I see this stuff every night on the porno channel. Whooops, I mean this stuff is available every night on the porno channel.


Michael

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

What about Roy Stuart? Given that he uses precisely the visual conventions of pornography in his work, wherein would lie that fine line he wants us to make between porn and his work?

Funny thing about Roy Stuart's work, I often get a feeling from it of commercial photography, rather (or more than) so-called fine art (ok, ok .. admitting the sometimes blurred line between the two). I mean, I can easily imagine some of his work serving as fashion shots in Vogue, even as crude/nude as some of it can be.

(speaking of which, don't forget a trend in fashion photography whose vestiges are still trailing around here and there, to imply pornography
in certain shoots)

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Jim French's stuff bores me to tears... I'd say regardless of how well lit it may or may not be, it firmly comes down on the side of porn - soft-core or medium-core, depending on your take on it, but nonetheless, porn. It's the gay equivalent of Penthouse (a bit raunchier than Playboy/Playgirl, but not Hustler-esque). The Bruce Weber stuff he did for Abercrombie & Fitch, to me, sidles right up against the porn limits, despite the mainstream distribution of the images, and the "artsy" composition, lighting and printing. BTW - did you know that Bruce owns a Littman? Knowing this, does that push him over the line one direction or the other???

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

Dear Michael,

Once, I'd have agreed with you. But consider this comment from the younger sister of a girl I once fancied. She (the sister, not the girl) was maybe 14. When she heard I has a Hamilton book, she asked to borrow it.

"You see one, and you think, wow. And you see another, and you think, he's good. And by the tenth you say, what else can he do?"

That's why I've not bought another Hamilton book in 25-30 years.

Porn? Possibly; possibly not. I don't really care in either case. The main purpose was to draw a parallel with Sturges, where there is far less overt eroticism.

Cheers,

R.

Hey, Raj .. your right. Earlier this year, here in the big city, there was a Hamilton exhibit. The work looked amazingly like the stuff I remember from the 1970's. But at least he can't be accused of not having his own look!

For me, it's corny rather than porny. However, there is still some shock-value
when a pre-pubescent, bare-chested girl is starring you in the eyes. More disconcerting than erotic.
.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hey, Raj .. your right.
.

Cher Nisp,

Of course I'm right, dear boy. I make a habit of it, whenever possible. Though I have to admit I've seen very little of David Hamilton's new work in, well, maybe 25-30 years. Or maybe I have and didn't realize it was new.

But don't knock it. There have to be many worse ways of earning a living, and what looks like quite a good living at that. I think I'd be happy with his lifestyle and income, though it's always hard to tell, and it's all very hypothetical anyway: I'm happy only with a couple of my nude shots, ever, and the subject had to be pushing 30 at the time.

Now we're really into the realm of 'Is It Art'? A friend of mine used to paint what he called 'wallpaper' for a leading London furniture stores: as I recall, 3 paintings for a thousand quid, thirty years ago. What's that today? Five thousand ($9500)? Ten thousand (£19,000)? It funded his serious work.

Next question: has anyone seen Hamilton's serious work?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

Jim French's stuff bores me to tears... I'd say regardless of how well lit it may or may not be, it firmly comes down on the side of porn - soft-core or medium-core, depending on your take on it, but nonetheless, porn. It's the gay equivalent of Penthouse (a bit raunchier than Playboy/Playgirl, but not Hustler-esque). The Bruce Weber stuff he did for Abercrombie & Fitch, to me, sidles right up against the porn limits, despite the mainstream distribution of the images, and the "artsy" composition, lighting and printing. BTW - did you know that Bruce owns a Littman? Knowing this, does that push him over the line one direction or the other???

Dear Flying,

I dunno. While I'd probably agree that a nude-with-erection could be considered porn (whatever degree you choose), seems to me that a simple nude pose (especially when not showing the genitals), isn't really pornographic. To return to the question: boring or not, would you consider it art?

(Interesting observation: Taking your phrase, "Jim French's stuff bores me to tears" and substituting Ansel Adam's name, this is something I've heard before! Yet French and Adams both sell lots of prints, post cards and calendars .... hmmm... maybe "boring" is a market-segment we're all missing?)

(nawwww)

.

 

[Ed Sukach]

The fact that there is a direct link between pornography and sexual assault in children and adults is well documented. Please go to this web site for a listing of studies concerning this topic. www.ktk.ru/~cm/stat2.htm http://www.ktk.ru/~cm/stat2.htm

It took a while, but I finally have been able to wade through much of the "proof" (n.b. quotation marks) presented on this site. After straining everything through my "Does it prove there is a significant relationship between cause and effect" filter, there isn't a lot left, and the greater part of all that really falls into the category of "everyone knows".

Interesting statistics: "43% of sexual predators were exposed to pornography." What do we compare that to ... there is no mention of the incidence of "exposure to pornography" among the general public, or among those who are NOT sexual predators... and without that comparison, coherent conclusions are difficult, at best.

One thing in particular was interesting -- the idea that abstaining from sex was in some way 'healthful" while participating in it, under ANY circumstances - was not ... and that even pro ...? digressed? ... to the idea of "If you play with yourself, you'll go blind".

Oh, come ON!! In this day and age?

I would suggest one thing ... take time to read everything on this site. Consider all the pseudo - medical jargon, and the "Well, YOU don't know - and I do!" attitudes. The more I read, the more it sounded like a transcript of the Bible-thumping frenzy so common to the ... not really Evangelical ... "Sour Godliness" programs on the idiot box.

To tell the truth, that web site scares me. The ONE distiguishing factor is that of denial, and with it, a severely unbalanced set of theories. I wonder how these "abstainers" do as time goes by ... How many will say, "Well, yes - I bought crystal meth ... but I didn't USE it ... I threw it away ... or its sexual equivalent.

In the meantime -- I'll read some erotic literature - beautifully written: The Song of Solomon, in my King James Bible.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Funny thing about Roy Stuart's work, I often get a feeling from it of commercial photography, rather (or more than) so-called fine art (ok, ok .. admitting the sometimes blurred line between the two). I mean, I can easily imagine some of his work serving as fashion shots in Vogue, even as crude/nude as some of it can be.

(speaking of which, don't forget a trend in fashion photography whose vestiges are still trailing around here and there, to imply pornography
in certain shoots)

Like the Guess ads, for example. I find these particularly tasteless: it's always involving a girl with spread open legs and something in front of the quaint area (e.g. a cinema clapper). Shot in a dumb way, so no, there is no thoughtful treatment of its subject. The problem is with the treatment, not the subject.

Roy Stuart to me looks very 80's in the way he lights stuff, the feel of the film stock, his color compositions (lots of blue...).

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

It took a while, but I finally have been able to wade through much of the "proof" (n.b. quotation marks) presented on this site. After straining everything through my "Does it prove there is a significant relationship between cause and effect" filter, there isn't a lot left, and the greater part of all that really falls into the category of "everyone knows".

Seriously Ed, I've been trying to tell him that but it doesn't seem like it matters. I agree with you: all of that evidence is gerrymandered to prove a point it does not support. And there's nothing that's not at least 15 years old. In terms of quality of literature review, I'm sure an undergrad could do better.

 

[Peter De Smidt]

In the meantime -- I'll read some erotic literature - beautifully written: The Song of Solomon, in my King James Bible.

Go, Ed, go!

My Sunday school teacher told me that Solomon was the wisest person ever. If so, and given his lifestyle, remember that this is the person chosen by Jehovah to build his temple, it's hard to see how people who believe this story can be prudish about sex. How many concubines were there? Kinda puts a different spin on the current Christian interpretations of fornication and adultery. And then there's the Song of Solomon. Somehow our pastor never got around to giving a sermon on it, and I had to go every week for 18 years.