|
Forums >
Model Colloquy >
Does open leg = pornography?
Connor Photography wrote: Pretty big difference between doing it for a partner and doing it for a photoshoot. The two are entirely different circumstances, with different expectations. So the sentence of 'if one of the partners picks up a pencil/paper to record the image' etc is a bad example. My partner taking an intimate photograph of me is one thing, but doing a nude shoot with a photographer that might involve an open-leg pose is quite another and very, very different. Dec 25 15 11:54 am Link Jeff Fiore wrote: I guess it might be argued that a full bush turns that last one back into a hair light again. Dec 25 15 01:26 pm Link malefica wrote: Your reply to Connor is based strictly in your own opinion. Many times when I do boudoir shoots for ladies, that shoot is aimed directly at enticing the lady's lover and I encourage them to imagine it's their lover in front of them instead of my camera and me. Connor's example was simply meant to illustrate the public opinion disparity between a lover recording what's transpiring in their view and having that occur during a photoshop. Using your logic, my work -which is meant wholelly for the client,s lover - is porn and has no artistic value, which is totally not correct in any sense. The images I create are meant as a conduit of emotion for a specific audience, are composed with class as a hallmark. Please don't project your personal views on an issue and diminish the value of the work that others create in good context for their clientele. Dec 25 15 01:44 pm Link Todd Meredith wrote: I didn't include boudoir in my opinion Dec 25 15 02:00 pm Link Just remember that digital pictures when on the internet, becomes "public domain"...If you have a for a job or are in a serious relation...The pictures could be floating somewhere and can open a can of worms (to say the least)...I know two cases of models who wishes they never had done the "open legs" pictures and have the fear that some guy from their office, surfing the internet will recognize them.....Not to mention the boy friend...Forget the debate art, versus erotic, versus porn.... a vagina/labia on line is what it is.... Dec 31 15 09:41 pm Link D A N I wrote: You're right. I agree. That's simple Jan 18 16 03:04 am Link Personally, I don't care to bother with the distinction simply because I see nothing inherently wrong with being pornographic, because I see the sensation of sexual arousal as being just as legitimate as the arousal of any other feeling. Sex is after all a huge part of our existence, so it seems kind of silly to me to stigmatize something that everyone feels and experiences on a fairly frequent basis. But most people, really through no fault of their own, are brainwashed from birth to view sex itself as something dirty and wrong, even harmful and dangerous. So much so, that even once they mature and no longer believe in this perception on a rational, intellectual level, they do almost always retain the negative emotional reaction towards sex, which often causes them to form their opinions on things like art and pornography with a subconscious reflex driven by their conditioning. I disagree that pornography is solely a mater of intent. Rather, I think it's more a matter of subjective perspective of the observer. Even the law cannot manage to define pornography with any sort of consistency, but instead relies upon the opinions and perceptions of the "community". Of course there are different levels to that. There are some things that most people would easily agree are art. And there are some things that most people would easily identify as porn. But there is this rather large grey zone in which people cannot come to agree with any sort of regular consistency. To some people, a model being nude at all is always pornography. To others, things like spread legs and even explicit sex acts can still be art if done right. I tend to be the latter. I've even attempted to do photos of explicit material with the intent of trying to make it artistic, but I have thus far failed to do so. And that's the thing. It is possible to do things like spread leg shots and still be artistic, but it is more difficult. But I'm even kind of iffy about even that. What seems to be the biggest distinction among those with a more open mind between art and pornography is a matter of whether or not it looks cheaply made. But even that manner of distinction doesn't really work because, yes most porn is cheap looking, but then again so is a lot of "art" and entertainment. Like, at least to me, magazines like Maxim are pretty damn cheap, but most people, even if they don't personally like the content, generally don't view it as being "as bad" as pornography, despite the fact that the content is clearly meant to just arouse and nothing more. Jan 18 16 06:35 pm Link Wheeling Tog wrote: That depends what his dick is aimed at Jan 19 16 12:53 am Link Neurotica Photography wrote: I cannot think of any who have succeeded at that, save one. Seems like it would be a worthwhile goal since it is so rare. The only artist I can think of who did succeed, wildly so, would be Mapplethorpe. Jan 21 16 12:42 pm Link Art and pornography are not mutually exclusive. Jan 21 16 03:51 pm Link So many people seem to think they’re being cool by proclaiming all parts of the body equal, and that anyone who claims otherwise is being uptight and judgmental. They think they’re taking the sexually enlightened position. They’re not. They’re taking the sexless position. By proclaiming everything neutral, they’re taking all the beauty and mystery out of a woman’s body. What a photographer chooses to show, and how they choose to reveal it, is a major part of nude photography. It’s where the magic and the artistry come together to create sensuality. Personally, I wouldn’t have it any other way. Jan 21 16 05:25 pm Link  Jan 23 16 09:14 am Link IMAGINERIES wrote: that phrase doesn't mean what you think it means Jan 23 16 10:35 am Link  Jan 23 16 01:23 pm Link Vito wrote: Nearly any visual material can fill the role of pornography, whether it was created with the intent that it be used as such or not. Feb 01 16 08:16 am Link My "Open Leg" image was jut accepted to 2016 Settle Erotic Arts Festival Im really glad I was able to start ignoring XXXX=Porn brigade Feb 11 16 10:53 am Link What you are comfortable with depends largely on whether you rely on the approval of others to feel good about what you do. Some people will always call your nude images "porn" and some people will always call them "art" regardless of how explicit they are. As far as your question, you can find whatever answer you want to find, but the solution to your comfort probably lies in your ability to ignore those answers rather than to find them. Feb 12 16 03:05 pm Link No, I don't think open-leg = porn, but I'm appalled to learn (two years ago) you were asked to do so for the first time during the shoot, not before, which sounds unethical to me. Establishing boundaries is key to mutual respect. I see from your page you're retiring because of unprofessional behavior by photographers. Best of luck in future endeavors! I enjoyed your work. Feb 28 16 05:59 am Link Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote: That's one handy way to screen your images for porn vs erotic vs art submitting your work to an erotic art festival lke the one on Seattle. The art aspect is paramount with a considerable dose of originalty required. Viewing the art on display at these shows can provide real insight into the artful depiction of highly erotic material. Mar 31 16 05:42 am Link Any pose can be slutty or classy, depending on how it's presented and the intent of the shoot. I personally strive for the 'always classy, never trashy' approach. I prefer sensual over sexual. There is Erotic and there is Exotic... it's up to the collaboration between photographer and model. AND I always let the model decide what she's uncomfortable with and we simply pursue another approach. Mar 31 16 08:46 am Link Read a lot of posts in this, and it all comes down to context. I've done some shoots and life modeling where an erection has been asked for prior to the session. If the concept is natural, rather than purposefully arousing, then I have no issue with it and don't see it as pornographic. I have also seen photography done of unsimulated sexual acts that is done beautifully and I still consider it art. I would welcome a shoot done like that but with complete veto over which images were retained. May 01 16 09:38 pm Link Miss 5 11 wrote: Hi Miss 5 11, May 07 16 09:06 am Link |
