|
Forums >
Model Colloquy >
Does open leg = pornography?
Bolo Paolo wrote: While erotic is a sense or feeling, erotica is a style of photography as far as I perceive it. Aug 21 14 06:36 pm Link The only things that define pornography is the church and the marketing department. Aug 21 14 06:43 pm Link CHAD ALAN wrote: Doesn't matter whether you model nude or not, it is NO excuse for people to judge, stalk or harass you in any situation. Nudity does not always mean sex or sexual availability. Aug 21 14 09:19 pm Link Nothing can deteriorate the level of photography then confusing between art and porn. Aug 25 14 01:06 am Link In the U.S., the definition that makes something porn is "lascivious display." And then the Justice Department goes into great, absurd detail about what's lascivious and what isn't. Bottom line: If pink shows, it's likely porn, at least in the U.S. There's plenty of art photography that would be considered porn and a little porn that could be considered art. Even the law here maintains that artistic merit of a work has nothing to do with whether it's porn. So, as others have said, if you're comfortable with a given shot, do it. Don't try to categorize, because you can't see what's being captured. Or what the final image will look like. Aug 25 14 01:21 am Link I now have this posted on my FB recent quotes from Christian Aragon that I love Art isn't supposed to be safe all the time. That's what craft fairs are for. This particular artist exercised awesome dedication to her work in these self portraits. It's not NSFW. It's just the human body. No reason to freak out. A lot of people ask, when it comes to nudes, what is "art" and what is "porn"? Many mistakenly point to how "explicit" a piece is as determining that it is "porn" rather than "art." "Explicitness" ONLY exists in one's mind if you are demonizing parts of the human form; otherwise they are all equal. Period. Aug 25 14 02:10 am Link So then you need to be careful about the law of the place as regards to definitional of porn before you shoot. If it don't fit...you need to travel to other locations.. Aug 25 14 02:10 am Link Admittedly I did not read, at the time of my writing, all 127 postings in this thread. I don't see open leg as being pornographic. I see it as provocative, erotic, and as long as the labia are not being pulled open, not porn. It may well invoke sexual feelings in the model, the photographer, and the viewer but the image itself is not inherently sexual. I also see it representing a model who is confident, bold, perhaps a bit more of an exhibitionist than average and willing to push her or the photographer's envelope a bit. As many people have said (I read the first two pages), do it because you want to for either personal reasons or because you truly think it adds to the shot. Aug 25 14 01:36 pm Link the net has changed the landscape for this sort of thing. pre-internet models had a fair amount of privacy but now anybody can publish on-line which is a barrier for many people who would otherwise consider this type of modelling. Aug 25 14 01:47 pm Link Rose Valentina wrote: Agreed! Aug 27 14 09:31 am Link I vote no but recognize it could be depending on the context. Aug 27 14 09:59 am Link Normally, yes. But of course this will differ from person to person. In my mind, the majority of the time it would be. And god, how many horribly tacky photos are there of photographers calling themselves ''artists'' shooting open leg work when it's so obvious from the photo that art was the furthest thing from their mind? Ugh. I have seen some fantastic artistic shots that are technically open leg but aren't sexual. Norm Murray in Qld, Australia comes to mind. My personal definition of open leg work is that if it's not sexual (i.e. it doesn't make the majority of people think of sex when they look at it), then it's art and therefore not pornographic. l won't shoot them personally as they are well out of my comfort zone but I have seen models do that style with class so it can be done. It's just easier - and takes far less talent -to be tacky. Aug 28 14 04:43 am Link howard r wrote: Sensational advice. Aug 28 14 04:50 am Link Dario Western wrote: This is important. Harassment and mistreatment are NEVER excusable. Even if you do rough-sex porn. You are the sole owner of your body, no matter what you choose to do with it. Aug 28 14 09:46 am Link I think it depends what else is going on in the shoot for whether or not it's just erotica or pornography. Pornography gets a bad rep because in a lot of it, it involves turning people into nothing but sex objects for sexual gratification and/or involves dehumanizing people. Aug 30 14 07:27 pm Link If "Done artistically".......Then any thing goes....... Aug 30 14 08:33 pm Link Is it fair to say (in the context of a photographic web site)... If it entices a specific part of the audience to think about sex, then it's erotic If it actually depicts person(s) having sex, then it's porn Aug 31 14 04:38 pm Link I don't see a relationship with open leg nude poses and pornography. Aug 31 14 09:21 pm Link Open leg shots aren't really what I do, but I have a few half-formed concepts where that might be warranted some day. I don't know if I'll ever pursue them, but they have their place. That said, my opinion (speaking very broadly) is that open leg shots exposing the vaginal area have moved out of the purely "art nude" area and into the erotic. Erotic not being the same as porn, which as others have opined in this thread, implies some variety of sexual act (which has its place as well, but for the most part is less about the artistry and more about the participants). And exposed vagina seems to have similar loaded sexual connotations as an erect penis (pardon the pun), which tends to give some photographers and models pause in pursuing more envelope-pushing concepts. It also doesn't help that GWCs are all about the open leg shot. The long and short of it: Do what you want, do what you're comfortable with, and try to ignore arbitrary societal inhibitions. Aug 31 14 10:05 pm Link Dido_Wend wrote: Very well said. Sep 01 14 05:09 am Link I shoot for a lot of Men's magazines - and Lad's magazines. While I don't consider what I do as porn it's a lot different to art-nude. On top of that some of the most erotic work I've seen has clothed models. Good luck with your work. Sep 01 14 05:31 am Link Open leg shots draw the viewer's eyes to the vulva. If that is the model's or photographer's intention, then the photograph 'works'. The same goes for eyes, breasts, legs, bums etc. If you would hang the photograph on the wall then it is art. If you mastrubate to it, then it is pornography. BTW pornography literally means 'pictures of love'. Sep 01 14 08:13 am Link BTW it's not 'vaginal' - the vagina is internal. Genital is the word you're searching for. Or vulva even. I like Mound of Venus, but then I'm a romantic bastard. Sep 01 14 08:16 am Link Miss 5 11 wrote: Yea models are very judgemental on other models for doing things that they personally wouldnt. Who cares if someone considers it porn? People consider a basic nude porn......or in bra and panties. Do what you feel like doing and charge what you think you need to charge. Sep 01 14 10:37 am Link First off: You have started 2 threads on pretty much the topic https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … 867&page=1 Second: Every model is different in what they are comfortable with and not. Some are ok with everything at the same price. Some models charge more or less depending on how badly they need work. Some models charge more or less depending upon if they need the style of work in their portfolio. No one in either of these threads are going to give you the answer that will best fit you. So whether you spread or not and charge more or not for it needs to be based upon your comfort level and how you want to be perceived in the modeling world. Sep 03 14 07:50 am Link Koryn wrote: Whole heartedly agree. Sep 07 14 06:13 am Link nudeXposed wrote: Really? You just labeled Sports Illustrated, National Geographic, Victoria Secret catalogs, etc... as porn. There a great many of people who masterbate to those, as well as some who do to a Payless ad, or Sears circulars. Sep 07 14 12:48 pm Link nudeXposed wrote: It means 'the writings about prostitutes' Sep 07 14 01:51 pm Link As a painter... open leg is a compositional issue. If I were to paint the vulva as the subject... then it would be a necessity. Visual art is a means of visual communication. There can be art in pornography, but pornography is a tool. Art can turn you on, but that is more of a side effect than a purpose. (some might argue against that, but that is what I believe) Pornography is often classified as a means to turn someone on or to stimulate a response. It is a tool. I am not against porn, nor do I judge models who pose for it. Maybe someone might call my work porn and I would be okay with that. I know my intent and my process... So my advice is to follow your heart and choose the consequences of your life... You are either living intentionally or at the whim of others! Sep 08 14 12:43 pm Link Spend more time creating and less time worrying about labels and hoohas..... Sep 08 14 01:02 pm Link Gynecologists are not pornographers. If there is one exception to the rule then there must be many. Sep 08 14 01:06 pm Link nudeXposed wrote: Pick any photo with a human in it (and some without!) and someone is masturbating to it. Sep 08 14 01:43 pm Link Four-Eleven Productions wrote: Jerry Nemeth wrote: And it was $0.30/gal. Sep 08 14 04:26 pm Link "Does open leg = pornography?" (Assuming you are talking about a woman, with her legs open, and her genitalia fully exposed) Short answer: Yes. Longer Answer: More often than not, yes. Can you think of one situation, other than giving birth where it would be even artistic to pose in that way? Sep 09 14 04:58 am Link I like what Chad Allen said. For me, classic poses will always be beautiful yet expected. Open legs and or showing bits is much more sexual, as there is more than just form and figure. My limits are in my head, and with a little help from models like you I can crush these and get past my inhibitions, and make pictures that are beyond expected, beyond classic. Rates: I don't often pay models, actually not for artistic ( although I do contribute to some travel expenses) as I can't at this point. For those who can, I'd say you are offering something more, thus you can charge more. Yet by charging you are inviting perhaps a different kind of photographer and that is not always in your best interests other than financially. Sep 09 14 05:18 am Link After giving this a lot more thought. I have another question. Will it be shot with a 1.2 aperture or 5.6 lens?  Sep 09 14 06:13 am Link Oh come on, this is an easy one! If it's in black & white and lit well, it's art. If it's in color and lit poorly, it's porn. Easy. ;-) Sep 09 14 07:14 am Link KissedByLight Studios wrote: I've seen some well lit porn. I've been on an adult set that had better lighting set ups than some photographers Sep 09 14 11:46 am Link Steve Korn wrote: AMEN! Sep 09 14 02:26 pm Link I M N Photography wrote: I suppose you walk around with your legs squeezed together? Sep 09 14 02:29 pm Link |
