So suppose a medical textbook has a picture of a doctor performing a prostate exam. According to your definition, that would be porn.
"Artistic Pornography"
-
A
- Thread starter Christopher Nisperos
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Sold NIKON D800 (read)
- Started by Acere
-
Want to Buy WTB Konica Hexar RF
- Started by axestrata
-
For Sale Multiple Signed Photographic Books
- Started by tallenpatterson
-
Sold Graflex XL Outfit with 180mm f/4.5 Zeiss Sonnar lens, roll film back and EXTRAS!
- Started by pdccamerqs
-
Want to Buy Color by Beseler Print Processing Drums
- Started by logan2z
Forum statistics
So suppose a medical textbook has a picture of a doctor performing a prostate exam. According to your definition, that would be porn.
So then say, licking is okay then,.... cool.
Yay!
It can be for the right person....
Oh. And how do you know that?
It is a theory of mine (I just re-read this. I'm NOT the only one with that theory) that the more a desire is repressed, the more it will be sublimated and surface at another point. I believe sexual desire is as strong in women as it is in men, but slightly - somewhat - more surpressed.... therefore there is more of a need for release.
There was a classic defense to a felony charge of disseminating (oh, the irony of that phrase) pornographic material - "material that violated community values" in a town in Utah. The defense subpoenaed the local Cable Channel records that showed that the incidence of viewing "Adult" channels was *significantly* higher in that particular area - more than twice the national average. So much for "community standards". The case was dismissed.
Repression is not a good thing ... but there is something called "decorum" that is not to be ignored, either.
I guess the answer her is the same as it is is in many other areas of human activity -- BALANCE is nearly everything.
The definition of pornography need not be rigid, and I don't think it's possible to delineate it by content alone.
Pornography fundamentally is exaggerated sexual activity (or suggestion) construed in a way that will arouse the audience.
But why does that require penetration? The solo shoots in Hustler fully qualify as pornographic, even if no penetration is taking place.
In fact why does it even require nudity? You could film two people 'dry-humping' fully clothed, moaning, and talking dirty to each other, and most of us would agree it's porn.
I think when beauty and composition come into the picture, then you start to have an element of art -- and there's no reason why something otherwise pornographic couldn't cross over into that realm. Maybe the artistry of it would make it 'not quite porn' and the physical banality of it would make it 'not quite art', but why does there have to be a strict boundary between the two?
Pornography fundamentally is exaggerated sexual activity (or suggestion) construed in a way that will arouse the audience.
But why does that require penetration? The solo shoots in Hustler fully qualify as pornographic, even if no penetration is taking place.
In fact why does it even require nudity? You could film two people 'dry-humping' fully clothed, moaning, and talking dirty to each other, and most of us would agree it's porn.
I think when beauty and composition come into the picture, then you start to have an element of art -- and there's no reason why something otherwise pornographic couldn't cross over into that realm. Maybe the artistry of it would make it 'not quite porn' and the physical banality of it would make it 'not quite art', but why does there have to be a strict boundary between the two?
How about this:
A representation is pornographic if and only if it's main purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
A representation is successfully pornographic if and only if it's pornographic, and it succeeds in causing arousal.
A couple points: These definitions don't imply anything about the morality of pornography. Moreover, these definitions can admit of degrees, as some things can be more or less pornographic depending on the hierarchy of intentions involved. For example, I consider a number of commercials and television shows to be pornographic, and yet the main purpose of them is to make money. So not only are they pornographic, they're commercial.
Many definitions try to distinguish pornography from eroticism. I've never found any of these definitions to be remotely plausible. What they all come down to is the definer classifying sexual representations that they like as eroticism, and those they don't as pornography.
Here's an example, some people claim that sexual representations that show intimacy are good, whereas those that don't are bad. Well, what would representing sexual intimacy amount to? Showing tenderness? Cuddling? Leaving the door open when you take a crap? Yikes. Intimacy by itself doesn't necessarily make anything better or worse, and thus it can't turn something bad (pornography) into something good (eroticism). (I'm not saying that pornography is bad, but the people who make these types of distinctions tend to do so.)
Finally, words mean what we use them to mean, and since people use words quite differently, there's no reason to think that we'll come up with a universally acceptable definition.
A representation is pornographic if and only if it's main purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
A representation is successfully pornographic if and only if it's pornographic, and it succeeds in causing arousal.
A couple points: These definitions don't imply anything about the morality of pornography. Moreover, these definitions can admit of degrees, as some things can be more or less pornographic depending on the hierarchy of intentions involved. For example, I consider a number of commercials and television shows to be pornographic, and yet the main purpose of them is to make money. So not only are they pornographic, they're commercial.
Many definitions try to distinguish pornography from eroticism. I've never found any of these definitions to be remotely plausible. What they all come down to is the definer classifying sexual representations that they like as eroticism, and those they don't as pornography.
Here's an example, some people claim that sexual representations that show intimacy are good, whereas those that don't are bad. Well, what would representing sexual intimacy amount to? Showing tenderness? Cuddling? Leaving the door open when you take a crap? Yikes. Intimacy by itself doesn't necessarily make anything better or worse, and thus it can't turn something bad (pornography) into something good (eroticism). (I'm not saying that pornography is bad, but the people who make these types of distinctions tend to do so.)
Finally, words mean what we use them to mean, and since people use words quite differently, there's no reason to think that we'll come up with a universally acceptable definition.
But that's not how definitions work. A definition is supposed to provide necessary and sufficient conditions for predicate application. As such, a definition can be either too wide, i.e. they can include things that aren't really the thing in question; or they can be too narrow, i.e. they can leave out things that are the thing in question.
You defined pornography as something involving penetration. I cited an example of something that is not necessarily pornographic but does involve penetration. Hence your definition is too broad.
Hopefully not for anyone who has to perform them for a living.
Being a physician and having performed innumerable 'sensitive' exams on patients of both genders, nothing could be less sexual than an encounter like that. You're dealing with a patient who is scared, uncomfortable, ill, or all three. And all you care about is doing a good exam, getting the info you need, and making sure your patient trusts you and is free of any unnecessary discomfort or fear. Throw in gloves, exam room lighting, chaperones, etc, and I can't imagine how it would be an erotic experience.
But yes, there are people with all kinds of proclivities out there -- but hopefully few who practice medicine.
Pastiche - A hopeless discussion I agree, but your forwarned website certainly defined what maybe emotionless Art is, depending on what your definition of Is is.
Bruce
Tattooing?
Ear piercing?
Sewing?
Taking the patient's temperature with a rectal thermometer?
Colonoscopy?
Applying Preparation "H"?
You are implying you get to photograph sexy girls aren't you?
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2005
- Messages
- 319
- Format
- Multi Format
Really?
I think that the subject matter in the link IS pornographic by any definition..
BUT, if you remove the "content" and appreciate things like line, shape, yada yada... the literal elements of visual representation, you will note that there has been a lot of thought put into balancing the composition, and creating fictitious shapes...
I find it rather comical. Not erotic. Pornographic, yes, sexy? No.
Interesting? Definitely. I'd not sit through several frames of that stuff if it were pictures of walls, flowers, junked cars, etc...
Colonoscopy is where a camera should never be shoved!
BTW Ed, why is it when someone wants to think of puritanical or fundamentalists Utah is brought up. Yeah I agree about the Rodin exhibit being pitiful. In San Francisco I use to go the Museum out by the Presidio and see the rodin's on permeant display there. Think about it. If Utah was against nudity, why are there so many large families? There is one nude photo at BYU. It was taken on a survivaL class outing near Lake Powell back in the spring of 74. It is of a girl with very long blond hair sitting naked in a rain pool on top of a plateau. She is turned away from the camera, but the back shot is a classic Lady Godiva type image. Well you know what, I didn't see that damn photographer after I had hiked for hours to find a seculuded spot to take a bath. I have the distinction of being the only nude shown at BYU. There now take that for being stuffy and puritan like.
You lost me here. I'm not implying anything. I am simply stating my argument to the definition ... it is an oversimplified, sweeping generality, and as such, not very efficient, IMHO.
"I get to photograph sexy girls"? Well - yes ... but "sex" is not my primary, or even secondary, motivation. It goes with the territory... but my primary motivation is to produce work indicative of my fascination and obsession with the incredible beauty in this world as it exists in my "vision".
With very few exceptions, women - ALL women - are beautiful.
I lost myself..
TheFlyingCamera
Membership Council
Amor Omnia Vincit
Here's an example of an image that in its day was considered borderline pornographic (the Catholic Cardinal who commissioned it kept it hidden behind a velvet curtain in his Roman Palazzo). Today it is considered part of the Canon of western art, much like Michelangelo's David. Yet you can't call it porn, because it has so many other points of reference beyond the sexual suggestion. There are the referents to classical mythology (Cupid, with his wings and bow), the contemporary symbols of musical instruments with their allusion to performance and education as well as seduction...and the masterful, even revolutionary, understanding of light and shadow, and how to capture them on canvas.
Here's an example of an image that in its day was considered borderline pornographic (the Catholic Cardinal who commissioned it kept it hidden behind a velvet curtain in his Roman Palazzo). Today it is considered part of the Canon of western art, much like Michelangelo's David. Yet you can't call it porn, because it has so many other points of reference beyond the sexual suggestion. There are the referents to classical mythology (Cupid, with his wings and bow), the contemporary symbols of musical instruments with their allusion to performance and education as well as seduction...and the masterful, even revolutionary, understanding of light and shadow, and how to capture them on canvas.
Attachments
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 868
- Format
- 35mm
For some reason I've been thinking of this all day off and on. What makes it porn?
For a while I was thinking that one thing all porn has in common is that it is commercially developed as a tool of arousal.
But, taking a step backwards ... if it informs, entertains, inspires, it's art or (not)porn.
If it arouses, it's porn.
And I don't think there can be a clear line between porn and (not)porn.
There are young people on here!
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 868
- Format
- 35mm
double post.
Last edited by a moderator:
double post blansky
He is getting old!
He is getting old!
Marko, It is a Krishna that has not shaved anything. I am surprised that you did not know this. They are only to be found North of the US border.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |