Porn or Art?

[karenoliver]

Originally Posted by Stormsong

By the way, no one so far has raised another point about the second place Taylor Wessing prize - well, not that I have seen in this forum anyway.
Would there have been the same furore if it had been a bloke flashing his bulging bits or a youngish male sitting in the same pose?
And would the tags 's***ty' and 'porn' have been applied had it indeed been a male subject rather than a female one?

Regards
Denise

I think its deemed more acceptable for men to get their bits out than women. Which makes no sense really but its just a society view? I stll don't think the photograph is pornographic , its certainly controversial though and has over shadowed the winner.

Karen

[Bristles]

Originally Posted by Stormsong

That sounds completely misogynist, as does the first sentence of your last paragraph . . .

Regards
Denise

Denise, I wasn't intending to be misogynist in anyway. The point I was trying to make was that women tend to absolutely wrap up their children in cotton wool and keep them from the 'real' world. Any question a child ask's should be answered by the parent whether it is of a sexual nature or not.

As to the image in question surely you must agree it is quite distasteful and is a very poor example to represent a female. However, if there was an image of a male exposing ugly tackle my views would be exactly the same. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! That image is NOT beauty IMO.
Regards'
Robin.

[Bristles]

If the Brits want a lesson in what is porn and what is not porn then a trip to Scandinavia will certainly educate them.

95% of comment's that I come across when peoplke use the word 'porn' show ignorance, they have no more idea of what porn is than flying a Jumbo 747 and that's a fact.

[simjol]

Pornography is open to cultural, contextual, and personal interpretations, irrespective of the legal connotations, but at heart it is concerned with material that has no artistic merit and is designed to sexually stimulate. In my view, given that the photograph has been presented as an artistic image and judged on its artistic merits, it is not pornography. The problem lies in the fact that any image can be interpreted as both art and pornography depending on one's viewpoint. Sexual fear and ignorance and the mixed messages children receive in our society contribute greatly to the current social malaise, (and to be controversial, the 'soul murder' of us all), so it is not surprising that there is so much confusion regarding art and pornography.

[Balenciaga]

My issue with it is that its simply not a beautiful picture..bits and pieces aside, the model has no charisma with the camera and looks rather plonked by a table very quickly (while no one was looking I suspect) and the shot was fired off pronto. Its not porn and its not art, Porn is supposed to arose and Art is supposed to inspire, this picture does neither..

Bal

[spin498]

There appears to be several different definitions of "pornography". By this particular definition the photograph is pornography IMHO


"obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit."

Tasteless, without merit and offering no insight as to it's purpose.

[Dagwood]

[QUOTE=Bristles;30132 95% of comment's that I come across when peoplke use the word 'porn' show ignorance, they have no more idea of what porn is than flying a Jumbo 747 and that's a fact.[/QUOTE]

Or possibly just another opinion!
Would I take my 4 year old neice to see this in a public exhibition? No.
Would I take her to see works of art including tasteful nudes? Yes
Is this a tasteful nude? No
Dagwood