Reading mode: Light Dark

How do YOU define pornography?

Go to last post
Hi Tom

I think nowadays the definition of porn is more shifted to hard core type of illustration.

There are nice examples of pictures even showing bondage which are not porn or intended to be porn.

http://www.pbase.com/image/2390752.jpg

Thats one of my images I shot this year. I shows a hint of nudity but not more.

Have fun .... Juergen (aka Karlos)
 
Bill too said:
Sounds logical to me....

billtoo
Jamie W said:
There was some good discussion of this issue in another thread,
based on this photo:
http://www1.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=414110

However, specifically relating to photography and art I felt the
issue was worth a thread on its own.

As with most anything, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I
think this can be a very healthy dicussion and I appreciate views
of others, despite whether I agree or not.

In my view, the photo in question is not porn, though I could be
conviced to conceed that it may be right up on the line. Webster's
defines porn as "the depiction of erotic behavior intended to cause
sexual excitement." Seems to me that the definition hinges, at
least in part, on the word INTENDED. So, to a certain degree, the
intent of the photographer and the purpose of the photo must be
considered. One could make a very legitimate argument that this
photo is really nothing more than a "non-traditional" portrait of a
couple.

However, some folks feel that any image that contains nudity is
porn. I respectfully disagree. To me, photos become porn when there
is NO artistic merit, and sexual acts/poses are displayed for no
reason other than for the suggestive nature itself. I do not think
that is the case with this photo (or others like it).

I would be interested to hear more views on this point. As one
Supreme Court Justice famously wrote, "I cannot define pornography,
but I know it when I see it." So true.

--
Jamie W.
Canon D60
Film? What do you mean, film?
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/billtoo
Click to expand...
 
Karlos,

I find the shot distasteful, not because of any nudity, but because of the suggestion of violence, ...i.e.the red streaks (blood?) on the figure.

Undoes any pleasing form/compositional elements for me, personally.

These things are subjective, of course. In my book nudity is not obscene, ...violence IS!

My opinion,

Larry
EBE said:
Hi Tom
I think nowadays the definition of porn is more shifted to hard
core type of illustration.
There are nice examples of pictures even showing bondage which are
not porn or intended to be porn.

http://www.pbase.com/image/2390752.jpg

Thats one of my images I shot this year. I shows a hint of nudity
but not more.

Have fun .... Juergen (aka Karlos)
Click to expand...
 
Hi Larry

where do you find red streaks or blood?

.... Juergen
lhsmith said:
I find the shot distasteful, not because of any nudity, but because
of the suggestion of violence, ...i.e.the red streaks (blood?) on
the figure.

Undoes any pleasing form/compositional elements for me, personally.

These things are subjective, of course. In my book nudity is not
obscene, ...violence IS!

My opinion,

Larry
EBE said:
Hi Tom
I think nowadays the definition of porn is more shifted to hard
core type of illustration.
There are nice examples of pictures even showing bondage which are
not porn or intended to be porn.

http://www.pbase.com/image/2390752.jpg

Thats one of my images I shot this year. I shows a hint of nudity
but not more.

Have fun .... Juergen (aka Karlos)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
EBE
 
Looking more carefully, it seems that I may be seeing a fold of sheer material. One of the most pronounced "streaks" runs from below left breast to front of upper left thigh.

I notice the sheer material wrapped around the feet, and suspect that it IS what I'm seeing.

My first-look impression was that some coloring (paint, lipstick?) had been smeared on the skin to make the streaks.

Apparently I was mistaken. My apologies for my erroneous interpretation of your work ;-)

Larry
EBE said:
where do you find red streaks or blood?

.... Juergen
lhsmith said:
I find the shot distasteful, not because of any nudity, but because
of the suggestion of violence, ...i.e.the red streaks (blood?) on
the figure.

Undoes any pleasing form/compositional elements for me, personally.

These things are subjective, of course. In my book nudity is not
obscene, ...violence IS!

My opinion,

Larry
EBE said:
Hi Tom
I think nowadays the definition of porn is more shifted to hard
core type of illustration.
There are nice examples of pictures even showing bondage which are
not porn or intended to be porn.

http://www.pbase.com/image/2390752.jpg

Thats one of my images I shot this year. I shows a hint of nudity
but not more.

Have fun .... Juergen (aka Karlos)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
EBE
Click to expand...
 
I'd have to define porn in this way:

If you have it on your computer screen and someone comes in and you shut it off....then its porn.
 
Jamie W wrote:
As one
Jamie W said:
Supreme Court Justice famously wrote, "I cannot define pornography,
but I know it when I see it." So true.

--
Jamie W.
Canon D60
Film? What do you mean, film?
Click to expand...
Maybe it's true for you, but it is a terrible pronouncement from a Supreme Court justice.
Sure smacks to me of "L'etat c'est moi! (The state is me!)
While it's true that the law literally is what the Supreme Court says it is,

a definition so vague that it may be re-interpreted each time a case is heard is really scary.

Laws derived from definitions like this guarantee that they cannot be applied consistently--the first requistite for any fair legislation.
Tom
Tom
--
D60, Sigma 14/2.8, Canon 16-35/2.8L, 50.1.4,
28-70/2.8L, 85/1.2L, 70-200 IS USM
 
I would not, so it wouldn't be purely art to me. I think this photograph is done very well, the lighting is great and feeling is conveyed. I would not really want my daughter posing in it though.

Porn doesn't mean anything. Is it obscene, to me no. It's an artistic erotic nude photograph. That I would not want a poster of in the kids room. :)

This is erotica to me since it conveys sex between the two nude women but not obscene since it doesn't graphicaly depict it.

I take issue with those that will tell you that any nude photo is porn. I think that the nude form can be incredibly beautiful, just like anything in nature or architecture, etc.

Just my $.02
Jamie W said:
There was some good discussion of this issue in another thread,
based on this photo:
http://www1.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=414110

However, specifically relating to photography and art I felt the
issue was worth a thread on its own.

As with most anything, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I
think this can be a very healthy dicussion and I appreciate views
of others, despite whether I agree or not.

In my view, the photo in question is not porn, though I could be
conviced to conceed that it may be right up on the line. Webster's
defines porn as "the depiction of erotic behavior intended to cause
sexual excitement." Seems to me that the definition hinges, at
least in part, on the word INTENDED. So, to a certain degree, the
intent of the photographer and the purpose of the photo must be
considered. One could make a very legitimate argument that this
photo is really nothing more than a "non-traditional" portrait of a
couple.

However, some folks feel that any image that contains nudity is
porn. I respectfully disagree. To me, photos become porn when there
is NO artistic merit, and sexual acts/poses are displayed for no
reason other than for the suggestive nature itself. I do not think
that is the case with this photo (or others like it).

I would be interested to hear more views on this point. As one
Supreme Court Justice famously wrote, "I cannot define pornography,
but I know it when I see it." So true.

--
Jamie W.
Canon D60
Film? What do you mean, film?
Click to expand...
 
Jamie W said:
There was some good discussion of this issue in another thread,
based on this photo:
Click to expand...
In the context of this forum, perhaps we should define objectionable rather than pornography?

Jamie posted a link to an image that we had the choice of viewing or not, had he posted the image itself, with an obscure or poorly defined title, someone viewing it might find it objectionable.

Someone else mentioed if it is on your computer screen and you hide it it is pornography. How about if your 12 year old was looking at it, does the definition change?

I am not trying to be judgemental, for myself I am mostly a libertarian in these areas, but I do think that not everyone shares that view and they have as much right to not view or protect the interest of others as I have to view.

--
Mike Bauer
 
Jamie W said:
There was some good discussion of this issue in another thread,
based on this photo:
Click to expand...
Jamie W said:
http://www1.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=414110
As with most anything, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I
think this can be a very healthy dicussion and I appreciate views
of others, despite whether I agree or not.

In my view, the photo in question is not porn, though I could be
conviced to conceed that it may be right up on the line--
Click to expand...
Perhaps a more practical measure of any photo would be this: Would you feel comfortable viewing it and discussing its merits with your teenage or younger children? Or would you be comfortable with your daughter being a model in such a picture? Or do you look over your shoulder before bringing up such images on your screen? I think that would draw the line very clearly between art and obscenity.

IMO, the term "adult material" is pretty much an oxymoron.

Steve
http://home.att.net/~bishopweb/

The secret to good photography: a camera, a lens, artistic vision, a little skill, some patience, and sometimes a little luck doesn't hurt!
 
lhsmith said:
Big heads never get anything right.

An accurately calibrated peter-meter is the only real way to
measure "porn-quotient"!

Larry :-)
Click to expand...
Larry,

I disagree. If I'm understanding you correctly, I can paraphrase you with "if it turns you on, it's porn." I've been turned on by some of what I would call art, and turned off by some of what I would call porn. And to clarify, not all art turns me on, and not all porn turns me off. So I don't think I can decide by checking my emotional/physical reactions. I also CANNOT say, "I know art when I see it, everything else is porn."

I'm persuaded the justice got it right when he (or she) said it's about intent. And, don't get me wrong, I believe some pornography is art (because of the level of sophistication and merit in the delivery of content).
And yes, we should be having fun by now.
 
intresting, and the intent is the most important thing
Jamie W said:
There was some good discussion of this issue in another thread,
based on this photo:
http://www1.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=414110

However, specifically relating to photography and art I felt the
issue was worth a thread on its own.

As with most anything, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I
think this can be a very healthy dicussion and I appreciate views
of others, despite whether I agree or not.

In my view, the photo in question is not porn, though I could be
conviced to conceed that it may be right up on the line. Webster's
defines porn as "the depiction of erotic behavior intended to cause
sexual excitement." Seems to me that the definition hinges, at
least in part, on the word INTENDED. So, to a certain degree, the
intent of the photographer and the purpose of the photo must be
considered. One could make a very legitimate argument that this
photo is really nothing more than a "non-traditional" portrait of a
couple.

However, some folks feel that any image that contains nudity is
porn. I respectfully disagree. To me, photos become porn when there
is NO artistic merit, and sexual acts/poses are displayed for no
reason other than for the suggestive nature itself. I do not think
that is the case with this photo (or others like it).

I would be interested to hear more views on this point. As one
Supreme Court Justice famously wrote, "I cannot define pornography,
but I know it when I see it." So true.

--
Jamie W.
Canon D60
Film? What do you mean, film?
Click to expand...
 
I would phrase it "Nudity displayed in a sexually provocative manner". For example, if the model has a 'come hither' look on her face, as opposed to a neutral expression. Or if the model is looking into the viewers eyes, as opposed to elsewhere.

The Greek word from which we get the word 'pornography' is also translated as 'fornication' ("pornication"), and 'sexual immorality'. in the Bible. The origin of the word 'fornication' in the English language is also obvious.

I think that should make it clearer.
Jamie W said:
There was some good discussion of this issue in another thread,
based on this photo:
http://www1.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=414110

However, specifically relating to photography and art I felt the
issue was worth a thread on its own.

As with most anything, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I
think this can be a very healthy dicussion and I appreciate views
of others, despite whether I agree or not.

In my view, the photo in question is not porn, though I could be
conviced to conceed that it may be right up on the line. Webster's
defines porn as "the depiction of erotic behavior intended to cause
sexual excitement." Seems to me that the definition hinges, at
least in part, on the word INTENDED. So, to a certain degree, the
intent of the photographer and the purpose of the photo must be
considered. One could make a very legitimate argument that this
photo is really nothing more than a "non-traditional" portrait of a
couple.

However, some folks feel that any image that contains nudity is
porn. I respectfully disagree. To me, photos become porn when there
is NO artistic merit, and sexual acts/poses are displayed for no
reason other than for the suggestive nature itself. I do not think
that is the case with this photo (or others like it).

I would be interested to hear more views on this point. As one
Supreme Court Justice famously wrote, "I cannot define pornography,
but I know it when I see it." So true.

--
Jamie W.
Canon D60
Film? What do you mean, film?
Click to expand...
--
Sometimes it's better to have loved and lost, than to have loved and won.

'Scenic Virginia Photography'
My Galleries: http://svphoto.home.attbi.com
 
Jamie W said:
In my view, the photo in question is not porn, though I could be
conviced to conceed that it may be right up on the line. Webster's
defines porn as "the depiction of erotic behavior intended to cause
sexual excitement." Seems to me that the definition hinges, at
least in part, on the word INTENDED. So, to a certain degree, the
intent of the photographer and the purpose of the photo must be
considered. One could make a very legitimate argument that this
photo is really nothing more than a "non-traditional" portrait of a
couple.
Click to expand...
Until it gets hung out for general viewing. Then it crosses the line. People are sooooooo into denial.
Jamie W said:
However, some folks feel that any image that contains nudity is
porn. I respectfully disagree. To me, photos become porn when there
is NO artistic merit, and sexual acts/poses are displayed for no
reason other than for the suggestive nature itself. I do not think
that is the case with this photo (or others like it).
Click to expand...
I won't go further because I don't think that was the point of your question, so I'll keep my pithy comment above to say it all.
 
Robert Burkhalter said:
lhsmith said:
Big heads never get anything right.

An accurately calibrated peter-meter is the only real way to
measure "porn-quotient"!

Larry :-)
Click to expand...
Larry,
I disagree. If I'm understanding you correctly, I can paraphrase
you with "if it turns you on, it's porn."
Click to expand...
If you understood me correctly, you would have "got" that this was a JOKE, ...not a serious statement of my philosophy ;-)
Robert Burkhalter said:
I've been turned on by some of what I would call art, and turned off by some > of what I would call porn. And to clarify, not all art turns me on, and not
all porn turns me off. So I don't think I can decide by checking
my emotional/physical reactions. I also CANNOT say, "I know art
when I see it, everything else is porn."
I'm persuaded the justice got it right when he (or she) said it's
about intent. And, don't get me wrong, I believe some pornography
is art (because of the level of sophistication and merit in the
delivery of content).
Click to expand...
I agree with your comments here, except for the intent thing. It has to be about something more than that.

If a would-be pornographer submitted a photo of a milk-bottle cap (let's say), I'd say he had failed to create "pornography", regardless of any intent.

(Can't wait to see what someone can make of THAT :-)

Inkblots, anyone?

Larry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
How do I make my film photos less "digital"?
Replies
16
Views
56K
alex_virt
A
B
Folder Mania! How do you manage your pic folders and files?
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
vyusseem
V
T
Myths about RAW and JPEG -- A thorough (read: long) list.
6 7 8
Replies
150
Views
19K
Bob A L
B
T
Photo Framing Techniques, Part 2
Replies
10
Views
147
tokyoaaron
T
L
Are People More Paranoid Than 10 Yrs Ago? What Do You Do?
6 7 8
Replies
143
Views
2K
Streakshooter
Streakshooter

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top