Have you ever wondered why in the 1500's nude photos/painting were art, while today it's pornography?

Answer 1

That is not true. Pornography is defined as something that is intended to cause sexual excitement. I don't think that would apply to a nude fat woman in a work of art.

Answer 2

Pornography has been around since the ancient times and has never been confused with art. There are numerous ancient Greek urns filled with dirty drawings. Art is to give pleasure, pornography is to give arousal. Each serves their purpose. The nude paintings are considered art because a. there is artistic effort involved from the part of the artist, b. the models look innocent instead of "I'll show you a good time" and c. their purpose was not the arousal of the viewer. There are nude painting and pictures from today that are also considered art and share the above characteristics.

Answer 3

Perhaps its because nudity was almost always shown in a religious or mythological context. For instance all those "Mother and Childs" by Bellini and Raphael show the Virgin Mary nursing the Christ child. Pictures showing Paris presenting the golden apple to the three goddesses show them in the nude. I guess nudity was considered permissable if there was a reason for it. Nude portraits of people usually didn't exist. The Council of Trent in 1545 laid down rules on nudity that artists were supposed to follow. Manet's famous picture of two clothed men and one nude woman sitting on the grass caused a sensation as late as the 19th century. This was because of the situation. People were shocked at why the woman was undressed in public while the men were fully clothed. Pornography is a subjective thing. I hope that this has been a help to you.

Answer 4

My dear, there were no photos in the 1500's. That said, I would guess it's a matter of degree. Old Masters painted nudes, not porn. The Old Masters didn't usually paint naked tramps with their legs wrapped around their necks and piercings and tattoos everywhere. Porn is not about beauty - it's about exploitation. The Old Masters painted ladies and goddesses with strategically draped gauze here and there, and the models they used were the beauties of their day. "Nude" doesn't necessarily mean "pornography".

Answer 5

I don't remember any painting representing people having sex from the 1500s (even less a photo...). In the nude, yes. But this is totally different.

Answer 6

Pornography has existed as long as man, whether it be cave paintings or illustrated manuscripts. The difference is that pornography is ultimately degrading and usually projects a very negative view of men or women. It has no redeeming quality other than sexual titillation. It cannot be mistaken for a work of art. Nudity is just that.....nudity. In and of itself it is not pornographic.

Answer 7

No, but I wonder how pornographer can say that a picture of a girl with her legs straddled in front of a camera is art. There are plenty of nude photos/paintings today that are not considered porn. It just depends on the audience you are trying to target.

Answer 8

This is actually a real problem. Rick Steves, the well known American TV travel show host explains that it is not possible to show some great works of European art on US TV today because it would get the broadcaster into trouble. I find this utterly appalling.

Answer 9

You don't understand the difference between something that is done with craftsmanship with the purposes to celebrating the human form, and something that's done completely for a commercial form of exploitation? Think of it this way. it's similar to the difference between a well crafted and insightful bit of commentary vs. a fart joke.

And it has nothing to do with conforming to Christian beleifs. By the way the spread of the plague was due to the Mongols invasion of Europe, not Christian dogma.

Answer 10

It's the way they are portrayed sir, though I don't like nude art I am an artist. You have to be an artist I guess to understand. Porn is just sick. Those art just lustful disgusting desires.