http://www.crazythoughts.com/index7.html
2006-12-09 05:51:14 · 7 answers · asked by robin 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Painting
It is still art today. Yet when photos are taken, it becomes pornography. How stupid people can get!
2006-12-09 05:54:28 · answer #1 · answered by Sophist 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pornography is not just naked subjects in a pose for art. Pornography comes from the word fornication, which means any lewd sex act with another person, or animal.
So there is a distinction between viewing someone sitting naked(with no sex act) & viewing one or two individuals in sex acts.
*** g02 7/8 p. 19 Pornography—Is It Just a Harmless Diversion? ***
The Bible’s Viewpoint
Pornography—Is It Just a Harmless Diversion?
WHEN Victorian archaeologists began systematically excavating the ancient ruins of Pompeii, they were shocked at what they uncovered. Scattered freely among the beautiful frescoes and artwork were many sexually explicit paintings and sculptures. Appalled by their lurid nature, the authorities stashed them in secret museums. They coined the term “pornography”—from the Greek porne and graphos, meaning “writing about prostitutes”—to classify these explicit artifacts. Today pornography is defined as “the representation of erotic behaviour in books, pictures, statues, motion pictures, etc., that is intended to cause sexual excitement.”
Most likely back in 1500 there were many perversions practiced, but I do not think that the publishing of such sex acts was as rampant as today.
2006-12-09 14:08:49 · answer #2 · answered by THA 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is a real big difference between art and porn. The old masters sometime used a nude body to show beauty of the curves, lines, colors, etc. No one would get sexually aroused by studying nude art.
Sex is the whole idea of pornography. If you can't tell the difference, you're in big trouble.
2006-12-09 14:45:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I still work primarily with the nude figure, no ones called it porn.
Now if youre looking in a dirty magazine thats completely different.
The difference is that a painting or photo or sculpture of anything else done by a nude is doing it to look at the beauty in the natural form.
Porn is usually not done very tastefully, and its soul purpose is to be sexually provocative. Porn is all about sex, painting a nude has very little or nothing to do with sex.
2006-12-09 18:13:46 · answer #4 · answered by idontknowjustgivemeaname 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Even before that...look at some early Greek and Roman art. They perfected and appreciated the human body(stylistically re: art)....even during the renaissance, look at painting with Bacchus...often depicted with bare breasted women lounging around getting drunk and having orgies.....either way it's sex greatly personified! Pottery of that time(early Greek and Roman) can also very often depict "phallic symbols". Same with early Asian art. Even our very first civilizations has "art" that commonly depicts fertilty. Only over the past few hundred years have we become uberprudes re: the human body.
2006-12-09 14:24:08 · answer #5 · answered by kissmybum 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually nude pictures done the way they did in the 1500 are not considered porn, they are still art. Poses that are sexually seductive and show the whole caboose are porn.
2006-12-09 13:56:16 · answer #6 · answered by Mightymo 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it is still art, if it is presented as art, in an artful setting...but you know the difference
2006-12-09 18:54:54 · answer #7 · answered by captsnuf 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋