Erotic or Pornographic?

Thread starter cliveh
Start date Nov 18, 2012

BrianShaw

Member

Nov 18, 2012

#26

I'm OK with that. A clear title, like "Erotic Bromoil" ought to be enough to let anyone who may have issues with either erotic images or bromoils to not look.

sly

Subscriber

Nov 18, 2012

#27

I think the line is drawn in very different places by different people. Eye of the beholder and all that. Gandolphi, your images can be close to the line, but don't cross it in for me. I think because your images always seem to carry a kernel of the woman being photographed. As a woman and a feminist, I am much more likely to be offended by images of women who are "tarted up" - preposterous hair; ridiculous unwearable shoes or other garments; cheesy poses. Photographs whose purpose just seems to be eliciting wolf whistles and a cry of "great knockers!"
I'm not about to dictate where others will draw their personal line, nor suggest censorship. That would be offensive.

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 18, 2012

Stephanie Brim

Member

Nov 18, 2012

#28

Sex being taboo is so deeply ingrained in some people that it makes the distinction between erotic and pornographic impossible, especially in the US. It's sad, but true.

Ken Nadvornick

Member

Nov 18, 2012

#29

I saw them...

Along with several other images that as of this morning I also hadn't seen. I look at all of the new submissions every morning.

When I was finished viewing the gallery I then went to complete the installation of a new enlarger component in the darkroom. Then I finished packaging up my submission to the current Blind Print Exchange so it can be mailed tomorrow. Then I ate lunch.

If those images had been pornographic, my enlarger would still be partially disassembled, my BPX recipient would still be waiting, and I'd be really hungry right now.

I am none of those things.

Ken

Diapositivo

Subscriber

Nov 18, 2012

#30

Depending on places and codes of TV conducts "pornographic" is normally relating to people explicitly having sex while showing genitals. "Soft-porn" would be people having sex (or pretending to) without showing genitals but being generally naked. Obviously the real classification would depend on other factors (length of scene, realism, "voice" etc.).

The distinction is of any importance only regarding TV permissions, time of broadcasting, "rating" etc. It should never enter IMO the domain of artistic intent. Pornography can be "artistic" and there can be pornographic art in principle. Just like there can be erotic crap. Any field of human expression can yield artistic results, the appreciation of which is in any case entirely subjective. Art, like Science, must be free of any prejudice.

Saying that a work of art is "pornographic" can be a legitimate way to express a subjective aesthetic judgement (probably not very flattering) on that work. Less legitimate is categorizing works as "pornographic" as a way to censor them or to ostracise their author.

Some people call anything they don't like "pornographic". La dolce vita was defined pornographic by the old same idiots (typically wearing a black dress. Sometimes red. Exceptionally white).

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 18, 2012

batwister

Member

Nov 18, 2012

#31

Pornography is harder to define in photography, I'd say simply because of the lack of motion. Regardless of the aesthetic quality of the image however, if there was a clear indication of penetration or stimulation, it's porn. Showing genitals alone doesn't make the image porn. If penetration or stimulation is only suggested, erotica. If it's simply the naked human form, without any 'props' or phallic symbols which might suggest penetration or stimulation - and this could be anything from chair legs to sex toys, it's up to the viewer to find the sexual content. But bare in mind that even the most innocent picture, of an old sweetheart shall we say, can arouse.

mark

Member

Nov 18, 2012

#32

One has a Grecian urn and the other doesn't. Can't remember which though.

tkamiya

Member

Nov 18, 2012

#33

I saw the image. I liked it as an artful expression. It was WELL DONE. The only part of the body that were clearly visible were breasts. Everything else was artfully and cleverly hidden. What the subject was doing was left up to viewer's imagination. There was nothing graphic about it except for the graphic image that existed in viewer's mind.

lxdude

Member

Nov 18, 2012

#34

batwister said:
But bare in mind that even the most innocent picture, of an old sweetheart shall we say, can arouse.

Bare in mind, indeed.

batwister

Member

Nov 18, 2012

#35

lxdude said:
Bare in mind, indeed.

Happy accident.

"...that's what she said."

lxdude

Member

Nov 18, 2012

#36

I saw the thumbnail image of the photo. The title said "Erotic Bromoil". Full disclosure, right there.
Erotic, though, is not a synonym for pornographic. It seems to me that if we explore and express through photography, sexuality is not an aspect to be avoided.

F/1.4

Member

Nov 18, 2012

#37

It's one of those things when you'll know it when you see it.

lxdude

Member

Nov 18, 2012

#38

Myself, I can see a photo of a nude in an erotic pose, and say "Nice picture".

Where I have a problem distinguishing between art and pornography is when I see a picture of a pristine Nikon F, black or chrome, with plain prism and 50/1.4 Nikkor-S, or luscious images of an exotic Ebony or the beautiful-girl-next-door charm of the Wista 45DX in cherry, the Schneider 90/4.5 PCS Super Angulon tilt-shift, the...oh, I could go on, but it's getting hot in here...
I must admit to having a few kinks, too. The Ricoh Five-One-Nine, the Bronica D...ooooh...

Then there's the sweet memory of long lost love, looking at the virginal red-and-yellow striped canister of K-25, a sad reminder of what we had, and never will again

My LX doesn't mind. She knows she's beautiful and the only one I go out with. Well, except the MX and ME Super, but they're like in-laws. And the Bronica ETRSi, but that's like going to lunch with your mom.

Allen Friday

Member

Nov 18, 2012

#39

When distinguishing erotic photographs from pornographic photographs, we get into circular arguments because the definitions of each overlap.

Definition of EROTIC:

1: of, devoted to, or tending to arouse sexual love or desire <erotic art>
2: strongly marked or affected by sexual desire

Definition of PORNOGRAPHY

1: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2: material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement

I hope no one is offended by me offering definitions, after all, this is the philosophy section. I think it helps to start from common ground (defined terms) for productive discussion. Otherwise, we devolve into Alice in Wonderland where terms mean only what one means them to mean and nothing more.

If we start with those definitions, then the difference is intent--the intent of the creator. The images in the gallery were not pornography because the photographer did not intend to cause sexual excitement.

The problem arises, however, in that people are sexually excited by different things. The viewers tend to say something is pornography if (1) they don't really know the definition of pornography and hence anything containing sexuality in it is pornographic; or (2) the viewer is sexually excited by the image and therefore it had to be intended to cause sexual excitement.

The difference between "tending to arouse sexual love or desire" (erotic) and "intended to cause sexual excitement" (pornography) is a pretty fine line. If one puts the two definitions together, we end up with; pornography: the depiction of behavior devoted to, or tending to arouse sexual love or desire and is intended to cause sexual excitement.

There, that clears things up nicely.

tkamiya

Member

Nov 18, 2012

#40

This is really a subject that's impossible to define. What's erotic and what's pornographic really depends on individual's belief and background. In US, there is no clear definition of what is pornographic. Even in legal sense, what's allowed and what is not allowed is vaguely and ambiguously defined and usually determined on case-by-case basis. APUG is an international community where member spans every part of the globe. Trying to define what's acceptable from progressive Europe to traditional Arabic countries, and confused US is simply not possible. More interestingly.... use of pornographic material is typically the highest in more traditional part of the country. (in US) How do I know any of these? I am currently studying human sexuality at a college. So all this did not come from you know where.

If someone wanted to start a controversy, this is probably the best topic.

BrianShaw

Member

Nov 18, 2012

#41

There are some people who find pictures of sweaty feet to be arousing. Is that erotic, pornographic, or just a picture of sweaty feet?

Allen Friday

Member

Nov 18, 2012

#42

tkamiya:

"In US, there is no clear definition of what is pornographic. Even in legal sense, what's allowed and what is not allowed is vaguely and ambiguously defined and usually determined on case-by-case basis."

This is not correct. The legal problems arise from defining "obscenity", not pornography.

tkamiya

Member

Nov 18, 2012

#43

Allen,
That's right. Wrong terminology on my part. I hope I'm not failing the course.

Brian,
EW!

tkamiya

Member

Nov 18, 2012

#44

Here we go.... page 554....

The 1957 Supreme Court decision defined obscenity in order to implement censorship. It established the following three criteria for evaluating obscenity:

1. The dominant theme of the work as a whole must appeal to prurient interest in sex
2. The work must be patently offensive to contemporary community standards
3. The work must be without serious literary, artistic, political, or scentific value

Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)

"but I know it when I see it"

Facobelis v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 197 [1965]

Of course, this applies only to US

Allen Friday

Member

Nov 18, 2012

#45

The Roth decision was refined in 1973 in Miller v. California. While similar, the standard is slightly different:

The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[3]

But again, that applies to obscenity, not pornography. Pornography is protected speech in the US, obscenity is not.

A bit off topic in deciding the line between erotic and pornographic.

removed account4

Subscriber

Nov 18, 2012

#46

emil

i was going to comment on your photographs when i first saw them
but i was running late getting out of the house and had to scram.
so, i will now ...
both images were beautiful, and PERFECT for the bromoil process .
everything about them screamed, and screamed loudly " arts and crafts movement"
i can't imagine how beautiful your photographs must be in person, hand coated emulsion,
and bromoilized ... sorry to see you took them down !

clive

not sure what pornography is or isn't, but in what i think were the words of a us supreme court justice " i'll know it when i see it"
and emil's images were not pornographic at all. if you are familiar with arts and crafts photography, pictorial photography
or painting from the turn of the 19th --->> 20th century, stuff that may have appeared in lens catalogs, or in art journals
this would have been similar ...

john

JBrunner

Moderator

Moderator

Nov 18, 2012

#47

All I know is that an image that I quite liked has been deleted from what I consider one of the very best galleries on this site offered up by a photographer and printer that I have the utmost in admiration and respect for.

This, as a result of some narrow minded dolt who felt the need to create an issue where none was, and try to force their prudishness on everyone. The fact that they have been partially successful in disrupting some of the finest work in the gallery irritates me to no end, and I would dearly like to know who it was.

I have no tolerance for this. None. Zero.

Emil, please post any image you feel like sharing, and please simply report any harassment. I will personally see them out the door.

Thanks.

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 18, 2012

Chazzy

Member

Nov 18, 2012

#48

Thank you, JBrunner. I worry about what precedent might be set by starting a thread to harass a photographer whenever a photo presses someone's buttons. We have already lost some beautiful bromoil work. This could have a chilling effect on the art people are willing to submit to the gallery, and if so, we will all be the poorer for it.

JBrunner

Moderator

Moderator

Nov 18, 2012

#49

Chazzy said:
Thank you, JBrunner. I worry about what precedent might be set by starting a thread to harass a photographer whenever a photo presses someone's buttons. We have already lost some beautiful bromoil work. This could have a chilling effect on the art people are willing to submit to the gallery, and if so, we will all be the poorer for it.

The precedent for artistic freedom in the gallery was set long ago, and it leans liberal. When issues like this arise, immediately report it to the moderation team.

ambaker

Member

Nov 18, 2012

#50

+ 1

I prefer to make my own choices about what I see. I do not want others to make it for me, and I do not presume to do so for others...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

You must log in or register to reply here.

Share:

Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email