Paintings of nudes, sculptures of nudes, photographs of nudes. Remember a former Miss America losing her title over a few pictures.
Mow they cover the breast of the statues of justice when the TV is covering the president.
How far should it go one way or the other?
2006-09-12 16:34:56 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Other - Visual Arts
It's porn if it's created solely for the aim of stimulating the sexual desire and the desire for bodily satisfaction. It's art if it's intended to engage the mind and the emotions as well as the body.
2006-09-12 17:03:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a question of taste from both the viewer and the artist. Many see a nude woman and they see it as porn when many others see it as art. Is she reclined on a couch or is she laying there with legs open? There are so many possible ways to define what is tasteful and what is not, but mostly common sense usually takes precedence. People are so complex in this way.
When the beautiful Vanessa Williams lost her Miss America crown, it was due to some pretty suggestive photos she posed for with another girl. Suggestive but not pornographic! But there, she is supposed to 'uphold' her title and it's 'meaning'. Personally, I loved what she did and she prospered quite well from it. Many people have forgotten that whole issue. Society is far more open minded than you would think. However, censorship is in the hands of a small few.
2006-09-12 16:53:04 · answer #2 · answered by michael g 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
well, to expalin the sculptures of nudes, they mostly probly came from the greeks, who didnt wear clothes sometimes becuase they thought that the body was precisoius as is...and plus, not everyone probly could afford clothes....but then again,they did compete in the olympics without clothes to sometimes, but dont worry there is a line, one is PG and the other is R(lol, idk), and i totally agree with they person who says that pornography is just CALLED art by ppl so they can look at it....but it wouldnt be considered art because that was not what it is intended for(artful purposes), more for pleasureful (which doesnt have the same pleasure as one does when tey have complete a painting that took them several ages, its more called joy), unless by some rare circumstances it WAS indeed intending for art, but that would be highly unbelievable. and well, the paintings of nudes, so far i havent seen any paintings where two ppl are doing eachother, it was more probly to capture the beauty of the body(as the greeks did back then)....but believe me, there is a line, and a line that SHOULDNT be crossed......for everyone's innocense/sake/sanity!!!
2006-09-12 19:34:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Intent is the real difference. Definitely not judgment. Someone might judge erotic art to be pornography due to lack of experience, or inability to understand the original intent. But yeah, the truth behind expression lies in intent.
2016-03-26 22:48:20 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Erotic Art is usually in black and white. This shows an artistic edge. You would not watch a black and white pornography film. Art will show shadows and have well planned out angles and details. Pornography will have a whore with a dildo in her mouth. She will most likely be on a fuzzy purple heart shaped bed. So, it's easy to tell the diference.
2006-09-12 16:43:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Don't know the answer...but whatever the line is, it should be CLEARLY laid out by law. If you can see this, but can't see that...it's artistic nudity....if you can see this AND that, it's porn....whatever. Right now the deciding factor is "community standards", which is a joke. Why should someone in a very liberal community be freely able to view something that someone in a conservative community would go to trial for?
2006-09-12 16:39:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
art and erotic art are intended for galleries and wall hangings, pornography is intended for mens magazines and video tapes solely for the purpose of achieving personal pleasure. i'm not against porn, it has its place, but not on my livingroom wall. i think covering the breasts of statues is over reacting. if the pres is ashamed of the statues he should have them removed. personally i dont see a problem with it. its art, no one is going to sit there through a presidential speech and give themselves pleasures over a statue...if they do, they have a bigger problem than pornography!!!!!
2006-09-12 17:16:23 · answer #7 · answered by kristeena911 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Google "abject art" thats a good example of a style that blurs the line. Its really subjective. Its generally judged on the intention of the artist but I would define it by how it makes you feel.
2006-09-12 16:39:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Art is the eye of the beholder. it all depends on a persons moral standing and how and where they were raised.
no matter what they will be people in the government trying to stand in and pose their view.
2006-09-12 16:46:32 · answer #9 · answered by the_lovely_holly_golightly 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the erotic is art the pornographic is the sex but in a nasty way of presentation
2006-09-12 16:37:27 · answer #10 · answered by CHICA24 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋