*this is a side discussion from the "themes i would never post on photoblog" thread

i'm not sure if i really see the difference between "porn" and "erotic photography". for me, it's too easy to allow erotic nudity and declare it ART while blunt and explicit nakedness with bodies involved in the ACT would be bad, bad porn. also, i believe you can express quite artistic view points with pornographic pictures...although, i admit, it's probably not their MAIN purpose.

i would prefer, however, photoblog not to be a site where i find pornographic material. the reason simply being, it would get immediately banned by our office's proxy server and i couldn't comment and post anymore during a boring work day.

what do you think?

what I said in the other thread, to start this off:

There are at least 10 million sites on the web to see porn. I don't want to see it here.

First of all, it makes a big difference to me if the images belong to the photographer. It really pisses me off when someone posts a collection of magazine or other images.

how the hell to you define porn? I don't know. but when I saw a page of three really AWFUL photographs of oral and penetrative sex with a super made up, board looking young woman looking like she'd rather be dead, I emailed the mikes and asked them to remove it. It's like the old cliche about art: 'I don't know porn, but I know what I don't like.'

I'm not anti-porn on principle. However, I'm pro choice. I want the models/performers to have choices. I want the copyrights of photographers to be respected. I want viewers to decide if and when they want to see pornography (on the assumption that people looking for porn will go to porn sites, not photoblog).


I don't think sexual/erotic images should be off limits. It is obviously subjective. a number of the pictures in my 'favorites' list are sexual/edgy shots.

I'm not anti-porn, but I'm definitely anti-porn-on-Photoblog. I browse the site at work on my lunch break, and I'd hate for a customer to walk in just as I made an unfortunate click.

interesting guidelines, ShangriLa.

I really love picture 7 of this series by noptek. to me this falls in the 'erotic, but not pornographic' range.

YAY!

for once... i'm in sync and harmony with all you others here on photoblog! we all don't want porn here... and we all don't know what porn actually is! great, great, great, GREAT!

for discussion purpose, i've looked up several definitions of "pornography" (a quite amusing collection is here) and found this one useful:

"Pornography or porn is the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter, especially with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer. It is to a certain extent similar to erotica, which is the use of sexually-arousing imagery for mainly artistic purposes." (Wikipedia)

i find it difficult to really determine the intention of certain photoblog entries (including noptek's gay naked dancing men, see link in julia's post above). there seems to be quite some "erotic" photography which mainly wants to sexually arouse here, but hey... that reaction is the VIEWER's and any photographer could claim he didn't INTEND it.

however, there is also definitions that base pornography on the (highly debatable) "offensiveness" of the act shown.

maybe the discussion is fruitless. we'll just have to see what the mike's let go through and what not.

yeah, I ask myself why I like some of the images in noptek's posting and don't view them as 'pornographic'.

there are a few in that same series which I dislike, not because they are porn, but because the human body is being used as advertising - the subject has a vodka ad painted on his muscular body. he's heavily made up in a way that intensifies the sense of him as an object. I don't like those images.

The images I do like include the subject in a different way. In the first shot, the subject looks at the camera in a way that he himself seems embodied and present. my favorite in the series, picture 7, conveys to me the subject's own sensual experience and openness. I love that shot, which is very sexual, but not ... the only way I can put it into words is to say 'it's not a wank picture'.

maybe that's it - for me it is porn when the subject is dehumanized, even in the sense of "body used to advertise"

I read your post, shangriLa, only after I'd posted mine. Interesting. I could imagine buying a painting like that in a spirit of protection. isn't that silly? but I really could. Sometimes I do that - buy something out of some feeling of protection.

(total digression from the topic: My mother once came home with a collection of hand crocheted blankets that she had no need for. she felt sad for the relative that lovingly made these beautiful throws, which were too old fashioned for the family, so they were selling them all, unused, in a yard sale.)

WOAH! some heavy words thrown into the discussion here!

pornographic is when the subject is "dehumanized"? what should THAT mean? when is a body "humanized", in comparison?

and why should sexually arousing pictures in GENERAL be porn? obviously, there's some some pretty arousing pictures out here that have nothing indecent (=totally covered up bodies); they're just showing a shilouette and tickle my imagination by some sensual part of belly skin, etc. if done well, these pictures are VERY sexy and arousing. but not porn. or are they?

then again, there is some right-in-your-face-boobs-&-muscles i find heavily pornographic (but not arousing very much) which obviously are accepted by the community as the usual self-boosting portraits of our, hmm, fleshy younger generation which seems to have a need for advertising themselves like that (quite in the sense like julia said: these naked bodies don't only advertise vodka, they also advertise their virility). it's ok with me... but why should that not be pornographic?

what makes a picture of a nude person ART, what makes it porn? i mean... other than my very subjective moral demands?

despite the danger of being frowned upon again, i don't think that pornography is bad per se... all of it. arousing through sexual explicit content can be even an ART (and has been done so by many great artists) - the problem is that there is an overwhelming amount of very BAD porn out there. which is what i wouldn't like to see here, for the reasons given above.

pornography draws a sort of attention that draws a certain customer and THATS what i wouldn't want to sift through here.

there's already quite a lot of people looking for exactly that kind of amusement on photoblog... just look a bit closer at some of the comments that ANY slightly sexual/erotic entry gets here.

eidea: "pornographic is when the subject is "dehumanized"? what should THAT mean? when is a body "humanized", in comparison? "

subjective, I suppose. or else I'm too lazy to begin the work of articulating it. I start to formulate something about the subjective experience of the person in the image, and this feels both old and wordy.

Just to add my views (and I may be repeating what has already been said...)

I DO want to see nude art photography. However, as earlier mentioned I guess though one person's porn, is another person's nude art photography.

I really like the work of Djabolica, who does a lot of nude art work, which I would not class as pornography...or is it?

Djabolica rocks! that's not porn, to my eyes. The images speak to a whole human being about a whole human being.

Ok, that's subjective again. but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Great example, Emma.

[this was written in response to shangriLa's post, which has since been deleted]

"the feminists" have kept on talking/writing/thinking since the 80's - there is more then one point of view.

here is another djabolica. to me, there is always a clear difference between her images and mainstream images.

why is there... as far as i can see and with my exception - only women contributing to this discussion?

Interesting point Mr Eidea. Although, maybe that is for another forum post...as in, why do we have more female forum contributers than men?!

great link, shangrila.

like roses, the female nude has been looked at from every angle in photography, at every f stop and aperture. Djabolica is looking at her own body in a creative way. the fact that she identifies hersef as the subject in these complex and interesting images already is a huge departure from the beautiful back image that you linked to.

I think it is possible to talk critically about a photographer's work will still holding an attitude of respect. Respect includes some humility when talking about someones artwork, because we are not authorities on the consciousness of the artist.

ShangriLa writes "if you were to look at photographs by [...] women with more of a feminist slant or progressive point of view (woman who want to show more than just women being sexy), you wouldn't see anything like djabolicas. Ok, she's a young woman, I am not criticising her for doing same old same old - everyone starts out like that since its all we know (all we've learnt)."

I find what you wrote condescending and arrogant, and again, I don't think you've seen the subtle quality of her work. No matter how much art you've looked at, and how many theories you've read, when you start dismissing young artists for being young, you've stopped really looking. you've become rigid.

Yes, I'm familiar with the concept of the appropriated male gaze. Perhaps you should consider the concept of the appropriated serious art critic's gaze.

This may put the proverbial cat amongst the pigeons, however I do not think there is anything wrong in a naked photograph of a woman (or man) being sexy. In fact, if I had the guts to take such shots of myself (I do have a secret desire to do so and admire anyone that does, but don't worry Photoblog is safe of my nakedness....for now!), I would want people to think they were beautiful and possibly sexy.

Note: I do not mean sexy in a sluttish porn star way, I mean alluring, sensual and sexy....(gawd, I wish!!).

psst, emma - knowing your work, I bet you could make some wonderful, sensual self-portraits. If you looked at yourself the way you look at flowers ... the results could only be beautiful (whether or not you post them here).

You're too kind Julia.

My parting words on djabolica's pictures. She's a sex object to her own self. That is the view point of her pictures. It's a very limited portrayal although she certainly does hold the position of power apparently but it's what in other venues can be described as a TDWT-er-B or thinly disguised wanking th.../blog.