login info join!
Forums > Critique > Serious Critique > Art or Porn?? Search   Reply
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  Quote 
Photographer
Doug Jantz
Posts: 4,025
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  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Broughton
Posts: 2,218
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada


little of both, not enough of either.
Sep 24 12 03:37 am  Link  Quote 
Model
MatureModelMM
Posts: 1,000
Detroit, Michigan, US


Neither.
Sep 24 12 04:23 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Just Danielle
Posts: 2,306
Petersfield, England, United Kingdom


A couple of vag close ups, nothing artistic about it.
Sep 24 12 04:34 am  Link  Quote 
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  Quote 
Photographer
Harold Rose
Posts: 2,925
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  Quote 
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  Quote 
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  Quote 
Photographer
Kevin Alex Photography
Posts: 103
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  Quote 
Photographer
J Welborn
Posts: 2,552
Clarksville, Tennessee, US


Regardless of definition they will not ad quality to your portfolio
Sep 24 12 05:13 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jeffrey M Fletcher
Posts: 4,342
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  Quote 
Photographer
Jeffrey M Fletcher
Posts: 4,342
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  Quote 
Photographer
Don Garrett
Posts: 4,310
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  Quote 
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  Quote 
Film/TV Producer
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  Quote 
Photographer
Ken Marcus Studios
Posts: 8,455
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  Quote 
Photographer
Wysiwyg Photography
Posts: 6,326
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  Quote 
Photographer
ARA Photo
Posts: 487
Mountain View, California, US


Yawn.. boring...
Sep 25 12 10:26 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25,319
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  Quote 
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  Quote 
Photographer
dgold
Posts: 10,273
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  Quote 
Photographer
Oscar Partida
Posts: 730
Palm Springs, California, US


In Bad taste i would say
Sep 26 12 08:09 pm  Link  Quote 
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  Quote 
Model
Samantha Elise
Posts: 443
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  Quote 
Photographer
dave phoenix
Posts: 1,299
Phoenix, Arizona, US


neither. i don't think they're art museum quality, nor playboy quality.
Oct 08 12 02:29 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
ChelleyCredible Retouch
Posts: 453
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  Quote 
Model
Alivia Autumn
Posts: 610
Albuquerque, New Mexico, 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  Quote 
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12,116
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  Quote 
  Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers