Well it's professional photography by a talented artist and many people view the body as an art form. With that being said art is subjective to the viewer.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Well it's professional photography by a talented artist and many people view the body as an art form. With that being said art is subjective to the viewer.
My philosophy is that art has two sides. The creator is "doing" something to express themselves in some way (my best description on the spot), while the observer trues to put himself in this artists place by "enjoying" his art. Whether or not that succeeds, is the degree to which the observer sees it as art (from his point of view). So basically are is subjective and not really a topic for philosophical discussion whether something is art or not
Pornography is supposed to create sexual stimulation in the observer, not creating an opportunity to put himself in the place of the "artist", therefore, when photographs focus solely on bodyparts that has always been considered sexually stimulating to look at , i consider it pornography, not art
When I look at the photos above i see no specific difference between it, and what is generally considered pornography, except being in b/w. But that in itself is not enough to qualify for labelling something art in the first place
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/erotic-art/#DefEroArtthanks for confirming that this is actually art, erotic art by definition.