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
Agreed. Definitely erotica. Still artistic. Definitely not for everyone. And as a heterosexual female I'm not at all offended. Ah, to be young and thin again. :D
There are advantages to maturity. I have always had a liking for strong mature women. Also If I had the body of an adonis I think I would probably have these kinds of photos taken too. You might as well have something to remember from your youth and the human body is beautiful. Sadly I have a face and body that is best suited for radio so I stay behind the camera!
ROFL - that's MY line! hahaha
My husband's line is: "I used to be built like a brick shit house. Now I'm just a shit house." I love that man. :D
A few years ago I had been going through boxes of old things and found an album full of negatives. Upon further inspection I realized there were a few pages of my mother (in her early 20s before kids) in the nude. They were actually quite beautiful...even though the subject was my mother. LOL When I brought it to her attention with a little wink and wiggling eyebrow, she was not embarrassed at all. She was like, "What! I was HOT back then." GO MOM! haha. Maybe that's where I get my attitude from?
So why discuss t anyway, if you have no chance of changing or even affect other people perception of something being "art" or"pornography"?
I think the story is something else. By calling pornographic images art, the girl in the photo is put on a more acceptable category than if it is labeled pornography (though the acceptance of pornography is rising). This way the girl will keep posing for such shots and the "viewer" (who likes this kind of pornography) can get more of it and at the same time hide the true purpose of his or her "interest"
Maybe it is not really doing the girl a favor to tell her to keep doing pornography, while pretending it is art. If she get kids in the future, they may not really like that their moms pussy and ass floats around in cyberspace. Just a thought !
While I concede to you from the future, hypothetical, children's point of view, I contend that she has every right to do whatever she wishes, as an innocent and naive person or a cunning and calculating person putting on that front, and any gradation in between, so long as she doesn't impede on our rights as humans, and I think we know the answer here about whether her content does such a thing.
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.
I would call it "erotica" and I think it is very artistic. There is no sexual activity involved.
Agreed. Definitely erotica. Still artistic. Definitely not for everyone. And as a heterosexual female I'm not at all offended. Ah, to be young and thin again. :D
There are advantages to maturity. I have always had a liking for strong mature women. Also If I had the body of an adonis I think I would probably have these kinds of photos taken too. You might as well have something to remember from your youth and the human body is beautiful. Sadly I have a face and body that is best suited for radio so I stay behind the camera!
ROFL - that's MY line! hahaha
My husband's line is: "I used to be built like a brick shit house. Now I'm just a shit house." I love that man. :D
A few years ago I had been going through boxes of old things and found an album full of negatives. Upon further inspection I realized there were a few pages of my mother (in her early 20s before kids) in the nude. They were actually quite beautiful...even though the subject was my mother. LOL When I brought it to her attention with a little wink and wiggling eyebrow, she was not embarrassed at all. She was like, "What! I was HOT back then." GO MOM! haha. Maybe that's where I get my attitude from?
There's nothing wrong with it lol! You should ask her if you could post them:) If I had the body I would do it for sure. To be immortalised as art!
That's great to hear, Thank You :)
I agree. I think I will use EroticArt for a tag on future posts instead of art, Thank You.
You're welcome. Thank you for sharing:)
hahahahahahahahahah
I totaly agree with you. This is NOT "art" to me.
it's beautiful
Thank You
Thank You
It's okay to have different opinions :) !
I agree 100%
Pornography to you is art to someone else. Aesthetic is in the eye of the beholder.
So why discuss t anyway, if you have no chance of changing or even affect other people perception of something being "art" or"pornography"?
I think the story is something else. By calling pornographic images art, the girl in the photo is put on a more acceptable category than if it is labeled pornography (though the acceptance of pornography is rising). This way the girl will keep posing for such shots and the "viewer" (who likes this kind of pornography) can get more of it and at the same time hide the true purpose of his or her "interest"
....and?
So what?
Maybe it is not really doing the girl a favor to tell her to keep doing pornography, while pretending it is art. If she get kids in the future, they may not really like that their moms pussy and ass floats around in cyberspace. Just a thought !
While I concede to you from the future, hypothetical, children's point of view, I contend that she has every right to do whatever she wishes, as an innocent and naive person or a cunning and calculating person putting on that front, and any gradation in between, so long as she doesn't impede on our rights as humans, and I think we know the answer here about whether her content does such a thing.
In freedom, beauty is achieved.
That's not pornography.