women would agree or disagree with that statement. I would say that most men would agree. Am I wrong? Why is that? There's no question that these magazines objectify and degrade women. Or do they? Why do some people have to lie and say that they read it for the articles? Are we living in a guilt-ridden society?
2006-09-25 15:28:11 · 8 answers · asked by Maine Landscapes 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Photography
I don't think he means the ads.
Some of the photo work is art, such as in Playboy, as far as the quality of the image goes. A lot of work goes into it. I prefer the pin-ups from the 40's, the hand-drawn images. Porn degrades women; if a woman willingly poses nude for a tasteful photo portrait, how is that different from posing for one being painted?
2006-09-25 15:36:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
First of all I think what perhaps you are trying to say is that the design in these magazines whether they are illustrations or photographs, or text for that matter is appealing. There is a distinct but fine difference between art and design. Design unlike art isn't necessarily created to heighten the senses,to metamorphise the benign into the sublime, but created to sell something whether that is vodka, cars, or washing machines. In the design industry a client approaches a designer with the intentions of reaching an audience to sell a product. In the case of mens magazines the number one approach to selling a product is through sex whether that be naked women lying on a beach drinking beer, or a glass of vodka with the words sex subliminally outlined in the ice(this was an actual advertisement). Anyhow, objectively speaking this design, though distasteful, gaudy and tactless as I feel it is, is effective in reaching the audience, so I would say it is good design, but not art. It is good design because it reaches an audience and the end result is that products are sold. Do we live in a guilt ridden society? Again look to the products that plague our media, look at what we consume. If they can make you feel bad, then they can sell the product. Americans arent any more guilty than any other people on this planet, but advertisers sure make us feel as if we are.
2006-09-25 19:22:24 · answer #2 · answered by wackywallwalker 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Last question first: yes, we live in an uptight, guilt ridden society.
A nude image of a woman isn't necessarily pornographic. It becomes pornographic when it is intended to elicit a sexual response.
Women are beautiful by design, not just physically but existentially. Just remember, regardless of a magazine's contents, (within the spectrum of this question) the publishers choose the content to make money, not to promote art.
2006-09-25 15:40:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because i don't think of that one and all sorts of leisure are inevitably paintings sorts too. honest adequate, that's all subjective, yet for one ingredient, i do not see how something so packaged and contolled through different individuals can quite be paintings - or in case you do opt to call it paintings, then the artists stands out as the promoting human beings, no longer the "faces" like Soulja Boy. It doesn't make human beings imagine, doesn't strengthen their lives and that's not made through those who've any situation for imaginative integrity. How can something it really is all about the money and the ability of the emblem be paintings? that would make the hollow or Starbucks sorts of paintings too. that's leisure. that doesn't without delay make it paintings. And what makes me diverse from someone who bashes all rap? i love hip hop and that i'm prepared about it. i do not blame hip hop for the ills of the international and as a fan, i opt to be certain the artists i love get a honest shot interior the game, and opt to help those who've the integrity now to not promote out. merely because i love hip hop, does no longer advise I even ought to love each and every music with rapping on it obtainable. i did not savor Gigli - does that make me some variety of action picture basher? edit - I see what you're affirming Mr Biscuits, yet to me, for something to be stated as paintings, that's as a lot about the objective behind it because it really is about the whole product. If the objective behind it really is SOLEY to make money, then i do not count number that as paintings. i don't think of promoting is an paintings variety in any respect - no longer even close. So that's no longer paintings to me, because paintings has no longer something to do with the intentions behind the making of it. anybody's were given a diverse opinion of what constitutes paintings although, it really is merely mine.
2016-10-16 02:20:37 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The nude human form is not degrading. Did God make a shameful masterpiece?
Whether nudity is art or not - does not depend on nakedness itself. Art has to be beautiful, even if the artist intends it to be pornographic. Yes, Playboy is art (at least until the 1990’s, in terms of originality); 1940’s pinup art is art; Goya is art. Hardcore is trash; a functional visual piece, not meant to be appreciated visually.
Why do people say 'sex sells' when nudity has little to do with sex, in my own artistic eyes?
Why is it OK for women to pursue their erotic fantasies? Why is it not OK for men to relish an erotic fantasy? Things that make you go 'mmm'...
2006-09-25 15:46:11 · answer #5 · answered by Yahoo user 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
women in ads are not so much an art form as a sensuous form - advertisers rely on the old adage sex sells
2006-09-25 15:33:45 · answer #6 · answered by worldstiti 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I personally belive that non-pornographic and pornographic pictures are both lovely... Pics of men or woman.. The human body should be praised weather clothed or naked... I love the curves of the human body.. They are so cool... I love woman and I love my hubby..
2006-09-25 15:50:08 · answer #7 · answered by exstacylynn 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Master piece of God was the human body so why we cover it.
2006-09-26 03:18:47 · answer #8 · answered by bigonegrande 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋