Is a photo of a posed nude body considered the same as pornography or soft-porn?

Answer 1

Pornography is pretty subjective. Playboy's photos are all posed nudes and there are a lot of people out there that think it's porn.

Definition of Pornography (Dictionary.com) - obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.

Anything can be pornographic.. I find posed bananas pornography. :-)

Answer 2

A photo of a posed nude body is considered art. This is because you are not looking at the model or the shape of the body in the sense of sexual but, as art. Every curve, smoothness of the skin and contour of the body shows something special of the model. If you look in the art books that have nude models, look at the lighting and open your mind to the beauty that is in this world.

Answer 3

Many great works of art from antiquity are nudes posed in suggestive ways. So, as some respondents suggest, that's not a criterion.

Legally, nobody really knows where to draw the line. Hence, we have the phrase, "accepted community standards."

Supreme Court Judge Souter, who was the last judge to give an opinion on the matter of pornography said, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

Believe it or not, that's the legal basis on which the law rests.

Answer 4

This question probably goes back as far as people first started searching for a definition of porn. My personal definition is that to be labeled porn, the intent of the art, is to sexually excite the viewer. So most art-type poses are not porn (In my humble opinion)

I model for figure drawing classes, some painting, some sculpture. Recently I had an opportunity to model for photography. I chose the same types of poses I use for other media. No emphases of the genitalia, just overall body shots. I don't think of any of the shots as porn of any level.

Just my $.02
Bob

Answer 5

Well, in the picture you mentioned, the woman is clearly a pornographic actress-- with that in mind, I think the 'porn' vs. 'not porn' debate has to do with the intent of the person taking the photos-- are they being taken for a sexually motivated purpose or not? Really, the definition of porn will change based on what people find sexually attractive.

Answer 6

Not necessarily. If it's a sexually suggestive pose, then it could be. If it's just a pose, and the person just happens to have no clothes on, it could be considered art/photography. And of course, your intent with said photo must come into consideration.

Answer 7

Some see it as plain filth...period. others don't.
There is controversy from the photos of nude children by David Hamilton, Sally Mann And Jock Sturges.
Even one senator thinks the statue in front of the capital is pornographic.

There is even controversy about child modeling sites on the web.

Some art is plain junk...just to get attention....and others that are great.

Hard porn I describe as sexual contact rather than imitating sexual contact(soft porn).

If your purpose is art..then it's art....but if you see it a sexual gratification to see nudes....then it's porn.

Answer 8

it depends on how it is sold. A posed nude can be considered art if it is done for that purpose. While it could be considered porn if it's sole purpose was to arrouse.

Answer 9

This question is as old as the art of photography.

Basically, as you have no doubt already read, it depends on your taste and morals as to whether you consider it porn or art.

Personally, I look at the image itself. Is the genetalia overly emphasised? is the lighting such that it provides a "clear view" of anything? does it look like it was intended to arouse the viewer in any way? if so, then I consider it porn.

Answer 10

I think is should be considered art! But technically it is soft porn.