Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
As a primarily nude photographer it is all in the eye of the beholder. I would like to think that what I create is art but ultimately that is up to the viewer
Mar 04 13 06:19 pm Link
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
I'm not sure that artistic nudes can't also sometimes be pornographic- I have seen some images in my time that are both beautifully artistic and definitely highly sexual and sexually moving. For me personally, my distinction lies in the quality of the image- is it reasonably original? Well drafted? Is the lighting carefully created, is it an image that you keep looking at after you've brought yourself to orgasm?
It's highly subjective.
On a personal note, I do fine art nudes (I'm waiting on quite a few to add to my port, shot on film so it takes time) and my selection process includes that what we are trying to do is make art- We might not succeed, it may not turn out well and the intention could vary greatly, but I don't shoot stuff that's just intended to titillate without artistic merit and ability and talent do make a big difference in the final product- and when original, talented and skilled individuals make porn- well I think it's a new genre- Art Porn.
Personally, I'm a fan
Mar 04 13 06:24 pm Link
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Designa Davina wrote:
Mar 04 13 06:26 pm Link
Tampa, Florida, US
in figure drawing the rule of thumb was the lack of clothing plus anything else would emphasize sexuality. so a nude woman wearing a necklace and socks or a nude man wearing eyeglasses, etc. i would reference euan uglow to disagreed with this point as his figures often are nude plus say a small shirt or article of clothing and i would think it very hard to argue against his working running the classy, sophisticated and very valuable art side of nudes. i also dont think this applies to photography the same as it does painting but i find the general rule to be interesting if nothing else.
Mar 04 13 10:15 pm Link
Charleston, South Carolina, US
The more explicit the image, the more likely it will be interpreted as smut. But, no degree of nude content automatically eliminates an image from being art. Conversely, artistic intent does not guarantee artistic output.
Mar 22 13 07:38 am Link
Avon, Connecticut, US
Mar 22 13 08:59 am Link
So, this is the usual argument about art. I think someone else already made the allusion to religion.
I divide the work I do as:
- work done by me, for me, to satisfy some introspection about the world and how I live in it = Art
- work done by me, for a client = probably not Art. Creative, sure. Art, no.
Why do I make this distinction? For me, art is about intention. My intention.
I'm very critical of my own work and that of others, so, I'll just say, I examine my intentions pretty deeply when I'm shooting.
I do think in basic terms, good vs. bad art.
Good art = work that is visually pleasing, that encourages me to ask questions about the subject.
Bad art = work that can be visually pleasing, and then stops there.
Lots and lots of really nicely photographed nudes in the world, but that's all they are. Just nice images of nude figures. Give me Manet's "Dejeuner sur l'herbe" (https://www.google.com/search?q=dejeune … e&ie=UTF-8)...
Now that's an artistic nude.
Mar 22 13 01:56 pm Link
Portland, Oregon, US
in my opinion ...
Art Nude is where the Model is simply a part of the over all concept of the image that includes her/his nudity.
Glamour Nude is where the Model IS the main ingredient of the over all concept of the image that emphasizes her/his nudity in a flattering way.
Porn is where the "Model" is simply the bearer of the specific anatomical parts that are the only purpose of the image.
Art is to make the viewer think. Glamour is to make viewer admire. Porn is to make the viewer ... (oh you know).
Mar 22 13 02:03 pm Link
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Me Tarzan, you Jane, sex now!! Lol
Mar 22 13 02:06 pm Link
Oh, and to add fuel to the porn vs art thing:
Courbet's painting of what is essentially a spread-leg shot.
Mar 22 13 02:22 pm Link
Is there such as thing as artistic sculpture....... artistic water colours.......artistic pre Raphaelite .......artistic fashion ....... artistic nude ?
Mar 23 13 06:20 pm Link
Mission Hills, California, US
Mar 23 13 06:31 pm Link
For me, it's an image where the model is nude, or effectively nude, and the goals are "artistic." Which is most of my work, because other styles tend to bore me. Some of my stuff has a bit of fashion to it, but still.
Mar 23 13 07:21 pm Link
Los Angeles, California, US
Everyone....Elvis left the building about 3 or 4 days ago. This is moot!
Mar 23 13 07:29 pm Link
Hampton, Virginia, US
Whatever you want it to be?
Mar 23 13 10:09 pm Link
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
You are correct, but your models are not "Just standing there" which is what I referenced. I have seen many artistic nudes with no props and a plain background, but again, not just standing there.
Art of the nude wrote:
Mar 23 13 10:28 pm Link
You mean, so that someone else can start a thread with the same question in a week, and be told to "do a search"?
Mar 24 13 07:03 am Link
And there we have it there is no such thing as art nude just the same as no such thing as art sculpture.
Mar 24 13 11:44 am Link
Santa Barbara, California, US
I will not even try to speak for everyone but for me personally if I look at a nude image and it hold my attention, makes my eye travel around the composition, makes me think and interpret the energy... And then if I go back days later and I sometimes see a different interpretation in the same image, I will then call it art.
Technical aspects of the image can be a combination of millions of things but the final print determines in my mind if it is art.
Maybe not for others but for me is all that counts.
Mar 24 13 12:25 pm Link
Florence, Toscana, Italy
On my previous reply i quoted this sentence:
since the perception is different for each person and also change depending on the historical period.
Mar 24 13 02:06 pm Link
Paris, Île-de-France, France
Andrew McDonald wrote:
There is a big difference regarding nude photography and nude painting.
Mar 24 13 02:39 pm Link
I'd like to see a list of photographers (artists) exhibiting their images of nudes in a galley.
Mar 24 13 04:46 pm Link
Totally agree. Just playing devil's advocate to those that define art vs. porn by a pose or exposed body part.
Mar 26 13 11:53 am Link
Mar 27 13 08:48 pm Link
Pinson, Alabama, US
Someone once said that a work of art and a work of pornography both instill desire on the part of the viewer.
The difference is that with pornography the viewer desires the subject depicted in the work, whereas if it is art, the viewer desires to possess the work of art--the painting or print--itself.
Apr 03 13 05:04 pm Link