2006-12-04 19:34:01 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Painting
I guess it depends on how you define art and how you define pornography. I think some high quality pornography can qualify as sexual art, and some low quality nude art doesn't even qualify for pornography.
2006-12-04 19:42:39 · answer #1 · answered by Sax M 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The meaning of art is discovery and awakening of interest and the artist tries to open the minds of the viewers to new ideas, concepts etc. Some people have very closed and narrow minds and they are the ones who think that nude art is pornographic. Really the human body is a scientific marvel and has a beauty which is beyond description so the answer is NO, nude are is NOT pornographic
2006-12-04 20:20:15 · answer #2 · answered by Joy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
2
2016-07-25 23:42:33 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No way, by that logic some of the great artists throughout time were pornographers and that just isn't true. Michelangelo and Ron Jeremy are worlds apart. Some people say it's a matter of degree. I think pornographic images can be artistic, and some nudes are just pictures of people without clothes. It's in the eye of the beholder.
2006-12-04 20:51:56 · answer #4 · answered by ruthie a 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not at all. So long as it's not been produced to arouse the viewer then it's not pornographic. Nude art I find relaxing to look at, it's the human body in its most natural form. It really helps to bring out the true beauty in the subject without the influence of clothing, etc.
2006-12-05 18:49:12 · answer #5 · answered by HJ 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on the content. I have seen some extremely tasteful nude art that has been beautifully done. You could always try looking it up on google. Theres some really nice nude artworks out there.
2006-12-04 20:20:11 · answer #6 · answered by apocolypses_solar_storm 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You called it nude art which automatically means it isn't porn. Nude art can arouse...depends on the social mores at the time of unveiling...Goya ran afoul with the prudes of his time; his work was called obscene. Now it's art, no issue.
2006-12-06 02:43:28 · answer #7 · answered by Victor 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
nop..
actually it depend on the person who looks at it..well u know some morons takes it as pornographic...they cant value art i guess..
for me.. nude art IS ART..i dont take it as pornographic...
2006-12-04 19:41:04 · answer #8 · answered by L_n_C_fReAk 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the kind of nude art. Like suggestive yes, touching themselves yes anything like that involving sexual poses I would think so.
2006-12-04 19:39:46 · answer #9 · answered by calieyecandy 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no often the nude art is of people that are not so attractive to look at in a sexual nature anyway
2006-12-04 19:41:34 · answer #10 · answered by massure4hire 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋