Forums > Critique > Serious Critique > Art or Porn??

Photographer

Phigure Foto

Posts: 24

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Whats your take on these 2?  (18+ obviously)

1- http://files.phigurefoto.com/phf-01.jpg
2- http://files.phigurefoto.com/phf-02.jpg

Sep 24 12 12:23 am Link

Photographer

Doug Jantz

Posts: 4025

Tulsa, Oklahoma, US

You will get the same answers as every other time this question is posed.  Some will say art, some will say porn.  Yawn

Sep 24 12 12:28 am Link

Photographer

Michael Broughton

Posts: 2260

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

little of both, not enough of either.

Sep 24 12 03:37 am Link

Model

MatureModelMM

Posts: 1440

Detroit, Michigan, US

Neither.

Sep 24 12 04:23 am Link

Model

J O A N N E

Posts: 2362

Petersfield, England, United Kingdom

A couple of vag close ups, nothing artistic about it.

Sep 24 12 04:34 am Link

Photographer

shooter 88

Posts: 530

Houston, Texas, US

Why do U care wht other think?
As soon as U pik up that camera U already know art or porn.

Sep 24 12 04:34 am Link

Photographer

Harold Rose

Posts: 2925

Calhoun, Georgia, US

Phigure Foto wrote:
Whats your take on these 2?  (18+ obviously)

1- http://files.phigurefoto.com/phf-01.jpg
2- http://files.phigurefoto.com/phf-02.jpg

First of all Not even good photography.   I would call both of them  Trash!

Sep 24 12 04:37 am Link

Photographer

shooter 88

Posts: 530

Houston, Texas, US

Post hidden on Sep 24, 2012 05:35 am
Reason: violates rules
Comments:
Stick to he topic.  Next time you will be in the brig

Sep 24 12 04:43 am Link

Photographer

Bighorn Photography

Posts: 404

Florissant, Colorado, US

Art can be porn, porn can be art.

People often say that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder,' and I say that the most liberating thing about beauty is realizing that you are the beholder. This empowers us to find beauty in places where others have not dared to look, including inside ourselves.

That is the great thing about art, you get to decide for yourself.

Sep 24 12 04:50 am Link

Photographer

Hidden Beauty Imagery

Posts: 130

San Antonio, Texas, US

“Work isn’t art until enough noise is made about it, until someone rich comes along and buys it.” - Alfred Stieglitz

If you want to raise enough eyebrows, put up with the abuse from non believers and still get somebody to like your work enough to buy it, that should be a pretty good judge of art vs porn.

I have to agree with the second poster here, that on MM, there is a mixed bag of people who believe that if it is art, it cannot have sexuality, or explicitness, and others that believe the opposite.

Just a suggestion, but consider your point of view. If you like it, that should suffice. What others think is immaterial.

There are four audiences for your images. You, the model, male and then female viewers, for this discussion, on mm. Each will have a different point of view and different tastes. You will not satisfy them all. Choose.

Sep 24 12 05:04 am Link

Photographer

Kevin Alex Photography

Posts: 105

Perth Amboy, New Jersey, US

I'm sure there will be some who will call this art but, there is no general law of what everyone is supposed to consider art. Some people find porn to be art.

Personally, despite the subject matter, if an image to me doesn't show something aside from the obvious, I view it as an image made without talent or attempt at art. Shocking, titillating, disturbing, whatever the image make one feel is only as strong as the thought behind it from the maker. Not to say that every shot should be deep and meaningful but, to put an obvious subject in front of the lens of which being the only point of interest to the image is just as artistic as shooting instagram.

Please don't take what I'm writing as an insult. This is just my opinion, for what ever that is worth.

Photos such as these I assume are to be edgy and titillating. Some may see it that way, for me, I see it as a cliche and in some instances, more of a score card of "look who the GWC got naked".

In short, if you like these photos, and you feel good about these images being public as a representation of who you are and what you have to offer, then no one else s opinions should matter.

Sep 24 12 05:06 am Link

Photographer

J Welborn

Posts: 2552

Clarksville, Tennessee, US

Regardless of definition they will not ad quality to your portfolio

Sep 24 12 05:13 am Link

Photographer

Jeffrey M Fletcher

Posts: 4387

Asheville, North Carolina, US

I like the shallow depth of field and the chipped nail polish.

I'm not able to work up much interest in an art vs. porn debate with these although that could just be my mood this morning.

Sep 24 12 05:29 am Link

Photographer

Jeffrey M Fletcher

Posts: 4387

Asheville, North Carolina, US

Post hidden on Sep 24, 2012 05:36 am
Reason: violates rules
Comments:
Just getting rid of his statement

Sep 24 12 05:30 am Link

Photographer

AWHill Photography

Posts: 151

New York, New York, US

Harold Rose wrote:

First of all Not even good photography.   I would call both of them  Trash!

+200

As someone who regularly attends fetish events/art/modern events in NYC this is sub standard. Make a profile on fetlife if you need inspiration.

Sep 24 12 02:55 pm Link

Photographer

Don Garrett

Posts: 4657

Escondido, California, US

I see nothing compelling about either image. When I want to see pussy, I REALLY want to see it, and it has to look inviting, and well photographed, (maybe a gleam of wetness, or something of the sort). When I want to see art, I want to see great composition, an unusual and interesting use of space, perfect focus, interesting light, etc., etc.. All of the above elements can be present in either.
  Eroticism is not always about content, but content DOES have something to do with art, just not the way some think it does.
-Don

Sep 25 12 07:15 pm Link

Photographer

You-Nique Studio

Posts: 57

Greenville, Michigan, US

Don Garrett wrote:
I see nothing compelling about ether image. When I want to see pussy, I REALLY want to see it, and it has to look inviting, and well photographed, (maybe a gleam of wetness, or something of the sort). When I want to see art, I want to see great composition, an unusual and interesting use of space, perfect focus, interesting light, etc., etc.. All of the above elements can be present in either.
  Eroticism is not always about content, but content DOES have something to do with art, just not the way some think it does.
-Don

Well said!!
These look like a husband took them in a failed effort to try something kinky!!

Sep 25 12 07:29 pm Link

Filmmaker

d a r i n R O B B

Posts: 44

Austin, Texas, US

Michael Broughton wrote:
little of both, not enough of either.

Perfect answer! LOL

Sep 25 12 09:37 pm Link

Photographer

Ken Marcus Studios

Posts: 8633

Los Angeles, California, US

Doesn't qualify as either. . .

No artistic value . . . And nothing to raise anyone's blood pressure.

You need to try harder !

Sep 25 12 09:48 pm Link

Photographer

Wysiwyg Photography

Posts: 6326

Salt Lake City, Utah, US

MatureModelMM wrote:
Neither.

Yep.

I don't see anything artistic about the shots.

But, they don't make me hard like porn typically would (though pictures rarely make me hard anyway)

Sep 25 12 10:11 pm Link

Photographer

ARA Photo

Posts: 487

Mountain View, California, US

Yawn.. boring...

Sep 25 12 10:26 pm Link

Photographer

B R U N E S C I

Posts: 25319

Bath, England, United Kingdom

I looked at the first and that was enough to dissuade me from looking at the second.

As for Art vs. Porn - I know both when I see them and I saw neither there.





Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com

Sep 26 12 05:51 am Link

Photographer

Karl Ray

Posts: 494

Chicago, Illinois, US

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/120925/20/50627a7a1bf56_m.jpg

I am not sure what to say.

Sep 26 12 08:05 pm Link

Photographer

dgold

Posts: 10281

North Smithfield, Rhode Island, US

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
I looked at the first and that was enough to dissuade me from looking at the second.

As for Art vs. Porn - I know both when I see them and I saw neither there.





Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com

++ (As usual Stefano)
Plus a $2 Bill From Gold

Sep 26 12 08:09 pm Link

Photographer

Oscar Partida

Posts: 732

San Diego, California, US

In Bad taste i would say

Sep 26 12 08:09 pm Link

Photographer

Bravoscape

Posts: 259

Frederick, Maryland, US

Michael Broughton wrote:
little of both, not enough of either.

This. Respectfully, it seems like the model is naked for the sake.

Sep 27 12 07:19 am Link

Model

Samantha Scarlette

Posts: 444

New York, New York, US

It's a really unappealing image when viewed either way.  It's not artistic enough to be art, and there's nothing particularly erotic about it enough to be porn.. I highly doubt anyone would get turned on by it.

Oct 05 12 02:22 am Link

Photographer

dave phoenix

Posts: 1300

Phoenix, Arizona, US

neither. i don't think they're art museum quality, nor playboy quality.

Oct 08 12 02:29 am Link

Retoucher

ChelleyCredible Retouch

Posts: 463

Boston, Massachusetts, US

I agree with the majority here. Neither art nor porn. I don't find it artistic in my opinion. We all have different views of what's appealing or not. What is art or not. What is porn or not. I just don't like the 2 images in general either. The point of view on this model isnt flattering in the 1st image. And the 2nd image I was like .... 'mehhh'

Oct 09 12 12:54 am Link

Model

Alivia Autumn

Posts: 610

Seattle, Washington, US

If her nails were done, and it looked like the model and photographer cared about the finished photograph it could be erotic art.  I just have to add since you posted in the critic section, they are just terrible, not even good enough to be considered pornography in my opinon.

Oct 09 12 11:51 am Link

Photographer

M Pandolfo Photography

Posts: 12117

Tampa, Florida, US

In the case of the 2 images posted...neither.

Not tasteful or technically adept enough to be artistic and not stimulating enough to be porn. Just that no-man's land of meh.

Oct 09 12 11:59 am Link