Erotic or Pornographic?

[cliveh]

As people have vastly different standards and perspectives, when does an image cross the line between erotic and pornographic? I don’t know the answer to that question, although it was once suggested to me, that it is when it could be considered as masturbatory material. What do others think?

 

[gandolfi]

Clive: it' sfine by me to have this discussion, but don't make references to my images please (I am about to remove them anyway)

 

[coigach]

Clive: it' sfine by me to have this discussion, but don't make references to my images please (I am about to remove them anyway)

Please don't remove them, you've done nothing wrong...

 

[eddie]

Emil- Please don't remove them. They're wonderful images. If we succumb to those that don't like our images, why share them at all? You have far more supporters for your work than critics...

 

[Chris Lange]

Having seen gandolfi's image in the gallery, I really don't think it merits the descriptor of porn.

The art world has long since moved on from defining such photographs as pornography, hell, go look at Ed Templeton's photographs...you won't find that in a porn shop, but you will find him exhibited in galleries and I make a point to check out his new zines at Dashwood Books in NYC everytime I stop in.

Pornography is material that is made with intent of arousal and...shall we say "consumption". I've seen more tawdry imagery in middle-school art classrooms, much less the greater world of art in general. I myself have made photographs that are blatantly sexual in nature, with absolutely no apologetic or veiling characteristics. Do I see those photographs as porn? Absolutely not, they are records of experiences and events that I have either witnessed or been involved in myself.

If Charles Bukowski can be found in nearly any library, or book store, it's very difficult for me to accept the censorship of what is, in reality, a fairly tame erotic photograph on a website devoted to photography.

Additionally, I don't see the point in taking issue with the content in the gallery. As far as I'm aware, the vast majority of members here are 18 or (much) older, and to see the gallery you have to be a subscriber, and I'm not aware of any sub-18 subscribers. Regardless, I was poring over HR Giger's work when I was 13 years old, which hits far heavier than basically any other "erotica" I've ever seen.

 

[dmdair]

It is so typical that a few narrow minds impose their view on the rest of us. I would have thought this was a more enlightened community.

 

[gandolfi]

Emil- Please don't remove them. They're wonderful images. If we succumb to those that don't like our images, why share them at all? You have far more supporters for your work than critics...

I know Eddie, but I do not want my images to be the focus of this kind of attention.
It would be a long debate about porn or not, and not about the image it self.

So I removed them. Havn't destroyed them and maybe I'll just put them somewhere else...

Thanks for your support.

 

[arpinum]

I'm not sure why it should matter how someone classifies an image. Only time it matters for me is if I am trying to locate more of the same. Otherwise, if it appeals to me, not much else matters. I'd pay good money for one of Gandolfi acetone prints and hang it in my house. If someone else doesn't like it they can leave.

Now, if you are talking about apug community standards, don't we have private groups for this to be sensitive to the uptight?

 

[Jim17x]

I seen the two images in the gallery and they were both clearly pornographic of a women masturbating but im not offended by them in anyway.. I dont think they should be removed or even have a thread posted to discuss them.. If you dont like an image, move on to the next one.

 

[coigach]

If you dont like an image, move on to the next one.

The poster who complained willingly clicked on a thumbnail titled 'Erotic Bromoil', then complained about the eroticisim. . It's a funny old world...

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

It depends on the viewer and the intent of the artist.

 

[gandolfi]

I seen the two images in the gallery and they were both clearly pornographic of a women masturbating but im not offended by them in anyway.. I dont think they should be removed or even have a thread posted to discuss them.. If you dont like an image, move on to the next one.

actually not.

And the first one can be found in my images - as a gravure - there without any issue...

 

[eddie]

I disagree with the "clearly" masturbating comment. The hands in the 35mm one were not defined enough to make that assertion, and the other just showed a woman with her hands covering herself. Emil has posted many images where his bromoil technique has "veiled" certain areas. I see it as a testament to his inking skills, as well as his sensitivity to his models and viewers.

 

[cliveh]

Damn I missed what happened here. Someone complained in the gallery?

Yes you have and I have altered my original post by request and there seems to be diverse views about this.

 

[Jim17x]

actually not.

And the first one can be found in my images - as a gravure - there without any issue...

We all view images in a different way.. I always click on your images because i think you do great work and i will continue to view them because i think you are a very talented artist.. Sexuality will never offend me because we are all human and have it..

 

[BrianShaw]

I disagree with the "clearly" masturbating comment. The hands in the 35mm one were not defined enough to make that assertion, and the other just showed a woman with her hands covering herself.

Now I'm glad that I withdrew my earlier comment. I thought Clive was talking about the viewers masturbating, not the subject. :confused:

 

[cliveh]

I seen the two images in the gallery and they were both clearly pornographic of a women masturbating but im not offended by them in anyway.. I dont think they should be removed or even have a thread posted to discuss them.. If you dont like an image, move on to the next one.

I believe it is this post you refer to, not mine and I was refering to viewers. Lets not get confused here.

 

[dmdair]

Picture made me tingle in a naughty please.... MUST DESTROY! Please Grow Up.

 

[hoffy]

I don't have a problem with Erotic, pornographic, nude or any of the above. There were one or two images that I have seen recently that did take me by suprise, but I wouldn't necessarily want them removed

But one thing I will make comment on.... Remove the artistic and creative treatment to the printing and they would have come straight out of Hustler. Now, it is up to you to decide whether that is a bad thing - me personally, I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but I know others that would.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Every living creature on this planet is extremely sexual by nature... even plant life. If trees had eyes and brains I'll bet they'd make erotic images too. Why are we taught that sexuality is bad? I do believe some things should be behind closed doors so that those who may be offended by it can avoid opening those doors. But I don't believe those doors should be locked from others opening them if I so choose. I like erotic images of women but I understand if some folks are bothered by them.

The best solution would be forum software that had a way to filter our experiences here as set by the user. Don't know if that's available.

 

[eddie]

Brian- Clive's correct. I was referring to Jim's post.

As to Clive's original post, I'd never hang porn on my walls. I'd proudly hang any of Emil's images I've seen. That's how I define the difference between erotic and pornographic. Others may have different definitions...

 

[Jim17x]

I disagree with the "clearly" masturbating comment. The hands in the 35mm one were not defined enough to make that assertion, and the other just showed a woman with her hands covering herself. Emil has posted many images where his bromoil technique has "veiled" certain areas. I see it as a testament to his inking skills, as well as his sensitivity to his models and viewers.

The image was fine with me.. Its not that the hand was between her legs but a combination of the position of her other arm, facial reaction and the impression of the "covering hand" which appears to have her lower fingers curved under giving the impression that shes "Going To Town".. I wish the images would have not been deleted because there was nothing wrong with them.. With that said.. She was masturbating or giving that illusion.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Now I'm glad that I withdrew my earlier comment. I thought Clive was talking about the viewers masturbating, not the subject. :confused:

LOL!!!

 

[Alan W]

I don't make many comments on Gallery pictures,I did comment on Gandolfi's image this morning-I was the first to do so,I thought it was wonderful,the image is gone,now I find this thread-what happened in between?Are we burning books anytime soon?

 

[cliveh]

Perhaps we should support the idea of zero censorship?