Erotic or Pornographic?

[JBrunner]

Yes, but the only one who can censor it here, is the one who created it - right? Which is effectively what happened. Someone stated an opinion, and he removed the photo? Or am I completely missing the point of the converstation.

I'm quite sure I could bully you into leaving the site entirely.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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?

If you still want to look at it after you're done masturbating, it isn't porn.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I'm quite sure I could bully you into leaving the site entirely.

I've got tougher skin than that. Its just that your original comment lead me to believe that anyone posting an opinion about a controversial subject would be considered harassment, and would be shown the door. I'd like to think that the only forum I pay a subscription fee for would be a little bigger than that.

 

[lxdude]

There's a joke in that, but I'm not using it

Yeah, I thought better of it, too!

 

[lxdude]

Sad. I only saw a thumbnail of one photo and it was far from obscene. The American Puritan Ethic refuses to die.

IIRC,the OP is not American.

 

[JBrunner]

I've got tougher skin than that. Its just that your original comment lead me to believe that anyone posting an opinion about a controversial subject would be considered harassment, and would be shown the door. I'd like to think that the only forum I pay a subscription fee for would be a little bigger than that.

Generally, and I mean this quite generally, the so called "opinions" of puritans with issues about sex and nudity is nothing more than bullying. They try to force their will on everyone, and when they meet resistance they claim that they are the ones being harassed. That has played out countless times.

There is also the matter of taste. Maybe I find dog portraits utterly pedantic. If I post something derogatory about you and your photography I might be expressing an opinion, or just maybe I'm a crank with really bad taste. In the meantime, you, being about a thousand times more sophisticated and sensitive concerning canines, delete part of your gallery.

I find the idea of that pretty repugnant.

Keep in mind that we are not a democracy here. If it were it would have ceased to exist long ago. This is a Monarchy with the philosophy of a Republic. We may not get it right every time, but we are pretty good.

 

[lxdude]

Yes, but the only one who can censor it here, is the one who created it - right?

Well, Sean could-it's his site.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

There is also the matter of taste. Maybe I find dog portraits utterly pedantic. If I post something derogatory about you and your photography I might be expressing an opinion, or just maybe I'm a crank with really bad taste. In the meantime, you, being about a thousand times more sophisticated and sensitive concerning canines, delete part of your gallery.

I find the idea of that pretty repugnant.

As do I.

 

[JBrunner]

Well, Sean could-it's his site.

The Mods can too. It is exceedingly rare compared to volume. Almost non existent for the gallery, and very infrequent in the forums. That is a reflection on the quality of the membership here.

 

[lxdude]

Don't click on images that don't interest or disturb you.

That's about as simple as it gets.
Considering that any of us can click out of APUG and in moments see what actual porn sites have, it's a little tough for me to see how some images which speak to sexuality but have really nothing in common with those sites could be compared to their product.

 

[lxdude]

The Mods can too. It is exceedingly rare compared to volume.

And maybe that's the thing. If someone sees something that genuinely concerns them, they could take it up with a moderator or the site owner instead of with the poster or in an open forum.

 

[JBrunner]

And maybe that's the thing. If someone sees something that genuinely concerns them, they could take it up with a moderator or the site owner instead of with the poster or in an open forum.

That is exactly the policy.

 

[Diapositivo]

The Vatican is in Rome, isn't it? :devil:

Sadly, it isn't. It's in the Stato della Città del Vaticano, SCV, an independent quasi-sovereign state. They even have a seat in the ONU. When I am in Saint Peter's basilica, I am "abroad". Mussolini did this awful mess in 1929 to rub himself purring on the priests, who rubbed themselves purring on him in return. Religio instrumentum regni, as ever.

 

[RedSun]

I find it disturbing that artists are encouraged to create work that stirs emotions and opinions, and then viewers who state such emotions or opinions are then threatened with a ban for doing so.

A person stating that a photo is pornographic, is no different than the photographer who shot it stating that its art. Both are opinions, and both are equally entitled.

This is completely and totally wrong.

We humans have emotions, there is nothing wrong with them. Your emotions can be totally different than the other person.

This site was created for people to share their ideas, their passion, their opinions, and the photos they took, be art or not. The photos may not be art to you. If you do not like them and think they are tasteless, then just move on.

Nudity is not pornography. It is an important chapter of the photography. Again, a 20-year old liberal art student can have totally different tastes than a 60-year old conservative fellow.

I think the poster should learn how to respect other people and should not try to impose his ideas onto other people.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Clearly this is harassment the and poster (ChristopherCoy) has no respect to other members who simply disagree with him.

I was illustrating my point. You've been reported.

 

[gandolfi]

My turn...

First of all: Thank you for all the kind words you have spoken in my behalf...

To make things clear:

I removed the images for two reasons:
1: Of respect of my models (they can read too...)
2: I didn't want to have a discussion like this going on under my image... here I think it is right - and (maybe even) important...

The most interesting/surprising statement was not the porn part actually, but the "fact" that I was hiding my "porn" under the bromoil technique (= bad!)

I feel the opposite: In this summer I have made over 200 bromoils - mostly using the multicoloured approach.... and in my effort to get a subject matter to fit this technique really well, I came across the idea of using erotic, and later images with pornographic content. The idea of using the lowest of the lowest in images (porn images) and then transform then using some of the highest in technique I know of (multicoloured bromoils)l appealed to me. So much I actually went on the web and stole a lot of images, and then turned them into small multicoloured bromoils...

Let me share a "secret": It is a match made in heaven!!

I can't and won't show these here for a couple of reasons:

1: If wievers gor upset by the ones I just uploaded, they'd die.....
2: the images aren't really mine, as I haven't actually taken the original...

But I now know it can (and should) be done....

For submission to the gallery here:

I agree if the poster puts a "warning" in the title, then fragile persons can just move on....

Do I want to re post the images?
Don't know yet, but I am not done making images, and I'll upload when ready...

thanks again.

 

[blansky]

Erotic or pornographic?

You can't define the undefinable.

Every definition is merely an opinion and as such has no merit to anyone else.

It still is undefined legally. And is a moving target. Legally it is still defined by "community standards", and that varies by community. (see Mapplethorpe)

Arguing it is like debating religion, and it pros and cons usually are stated from a religions perspective which is why the US still has such is such a prudish standards.

The number one arguments goes something like "we're trying to protect the children" who supposedly would turn to a world of crime and debauchery if they viewed a naked body.

An old and over used definition is, " if you use a feather it's erotic and if you use the whole chicken, it's pornographic".

 

[RedSun]

I think your photo is pornographic.

I think your photo is pornographic and you are a bad photographer who will never amount to anything, why do you even try.

See the difference? I doubt someone actually did the later, although I'm late to the conversation and anything is possible.

You were calling other people's photos pornographic and you bad-mouthed other member as "bad photographer". I just wonder why no one reported you.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

You were calling other people's photos pornographic and you bad-mouthed other member as "bad photographer". I just wonder why no one reported you.

BECAUSE I WAS ILLUSTRATING A POINT. I was using it as an example.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I agree

Erotic or pornographic?

You can't define the undefinable.

I'll bet European APUGers see Americans as a prudish lot. As long as they're is an agreement between the photographer and an adult model it's OK with me. This is a touchy subject because the biggest sex organ is between one's ears.

 

[RedSun]

When I enter gallery, I browse the photos. I may not like all of them. For the one appeal to me, I view them, learn the intention of the photographer, and to see if there is anything I can learn from. For the ones I do not like, for various reasons, I do not even click them and just move on.

Here we have some newcomers and some people who just want to try something different. This is not an art exhibit. Even at an photographic exhibit, you may find some art work tasteless too.

We should try to create an environment that people would have the opportunities to express their views and to exchange ideas, free from the outside distraction and harassment....

 

[JBrunner]

BECAUSE I WAS ILLUSTRATING A POINT. I was using it as an example.

That is clear. RedSun, if you have something to express, please do so concerning an idea or concept. Refrain from attacking the man, it does not serve discourse. Or are you illustrating a point?

 

[RedSun]

I thought he was stating that for real.....

We move on.

 

[JBrunner]

And so we do. This discussion has been had here before. It is usually interesting, but nothing really new comes up. We pretty much discover that the line where something becomes pornography doesn't really exist, because the line that defines art doesn't really exist, and ultimately we move on.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

You were calling other people's photos pornographic and you bad-mouthed other member as "bad photographer". I just wonder why no one reported you.

No, he was not. He was illustrating a point by making two different statements.