Have you ever wondered why in the 1500's nude photos/painting were art, while today it's pornography?

Answer 1

Well they didn't have phoography in the 1500s as such and some paintings depicting nudes were seen as obscene. Titian's Venus of Urbino was one in particular which caused a lot of trouble as the nude lady in question had her hand between her legs while looking the viewer in the eye. Did you know of the artist nick named 'big underpants' whose job it was to paint loin cloths and merkins on Michelangelo's figures in the Last Judgement in the Sistine Chapel? Nudity was very much frowned upon in those days you know. There has been pornography available for almost as long as man could paint and draw. Have you seen the paintings in Pompeii? Pornography didn't become widely available to the public until the printing press was invented but it's always been there.

Answer 2

Yes; I have.

Re lowrider's answer: where's your source?? ...
and Don M, that may be so, but even in the 1960s, any nude photograph - even non-provocative - that wasn't put in a formal "art" setting was also considered "pornography".
Even today, casual nude photos shown in magazines, are often referred to as "soft porn".

The answer to what is pornography seems to be a collective of where the shot is displayed, and by whom, what message is trying to be conveyed by the presenter and also by the model posing.
Also, today, much of the social view is still banked up against a society that stems from Victorian values and influences.
500 years ago this was not the case.
There is also the fact that many 'old' paintings depicted religious events or significance - even where figures were nude or semi-nude.

Answer 3

The word pornography is from two Greek words, one is porni (prostitute) and graphi(meaning writing). The intent of visual porn is to arouse the onlooker.
In today's college art classes, you have to be a Graduate student to have the skills needed to take a class painting nudes. The human body is extremely difficult to realistically portray on canvas. The older works of art that are nudes are usually just the outcome of technique practices by artists. If you think about it, none of the paintings that are recognizeable by most people are nudes- Mona Lisa, Starry Night, Monet's paintings, AMerican Gothic, Scream by Picasso, Andy Warhol's stuff...etc...

Answer 4

Not all nude art today is considered porn, it just depends on the context of the work and it also depends on personal interpretation. In todays world anything naked is taboo by most conservative Americans, and they are too quick to slap the title of pornography on a true work of art without giving the work proper consideration.

Answer 5

Today it depends on the nature of the photo, if it's done artfully it's considered art, if it's done for the purpose of arousal then it's pornography. Sometimes there's a huge difference and sometimes it's a fine line.

Answer 6

The eye for art has almost disappeared. In It's place was born a people who only think for themselves selfishly and view things as offensive, It's all about how they are offended, and not wanting to interpret someone Else's Idea of art. It's quite sad.

Answer 7

If you can get hold of any photos,nude or otherwise from the 1500s I'll have them off you there'll be worth a bomb

Answer 8

Actually in the 1500's a lot of those paintings were considered porn.

Answer 9

Because in the 1500's they weren't bent over a chair wearing stiletto heels.

Answer 10

i think it's the other way around actually. a lot of what was scandalous before is quite acceptable today.