Porn or Art?
 

Hi all,

I received an AP newsletter in my indox this morning. In it was an article regarding some controversey over the 2nd place winner of the Taylor Wessing Photographic Portrait Prize, currently on exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery in London.

The article can be found [URL="http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Porn_or_art_No_ban_on_explicit_nude_photo_update_news_303593.html"]here[/URL].
Is it porn? is it art? Is it suitable for children to see it hanging in the gallery?

I would stick my neck out and say that it borders on neither art nor pornography. I don't think it is suggestive, which in my opinion would make it lean towards the pornographic, but I can imagine a lot of children who view it at the NPG asking their parents what it is . . .

I'm with Carol on this. It's not porn. I don't see why it's won a prize and I certainly don't think it's art either. The thing is, the explicit nature of the shot doesn't add anything to it.

I also don't have a problem with children seeing it. It sort of asks the question about whats the difference between that and a naked statue? I know that the statue isn't made of real skin but the form and shape are still all there.

Shall we say that it is just not particularly tasteful.

Steve.

I agree too Chris. I really couldn't see why it has won a prize in such a prestigious competition. I found it void of any aesthically pleasing elements and equally I didn't find it thought provoking or conveyed a message. The fact that her lady parts are on full view adds nothing to it either.

soft porn!

Not a very good photo. Pushing the limits one might say, but not a great photo .

[QUOTE=Stormsong;27497]..... and say that it borders on neither art nor pornography. I don't think it is suggestive, which in my opinion would make it lean towards the pornographic,. . .[/QUOTE]

I'm certainly no prude but think this deserves no better place than the top shelf in WH Smith's. I cannot agree that if something is suggestive it "would make it lean towards the pornographic" One has only to think of the Pirelli calendars which were sexy and suggestive but nowhere near pornographic , then there was the Athena poster of the tennis player.If the girl posing for this picture had been wearing a pair of knickers I would suggest it would not have got a second glance and therefore her genitals are the only reason for the photo being considered for an award. The picture follows the trend of art only being good if it is shocking, unfortunately this is not art and IMHO it could be offensive to a good many.
Steps down off soapbox and exits stage right!!
Dagwood

Given that it's titled 'the photographer's wife', maybe he sent it to Reader's Wives and just got the address wrong?

I've already positioned my deck chair outside for a half naked crotch self portrait. However in these temperatures, I'm not sure how much will be visible to the naked eye. Might need to crack out the Tamron SP90 for a macro shot :o