Is nudity still considered pornographic, even if it is photographed in a artistic way with lighting and shadow

Question

Is nudity still considered pornographic, even if it is photographed in a artistic way with lighting and shadows and purely art?

Answer 1

Depends on your definition of pornographic.

It's subjective. I think that generally, people use the word 'pornographic' when something conflicts with their own tastes and sense of values. Some people consider many classic works of art pornographic because they show genitals.

When you say "in an artistic way" - that's just your interpretation. There will be groups who consider what you define as art to be pornographic, sinful and leading to the decline of civilization, blah blah blah.

Answer 2

I think this is a fine line in the art world...I have been exhibiting fine art nudes in galleries for 6 years.....I think posing, lighting, and cropping has alot to do with the difference in the two. For me,there is a difference between sexuality and sensuality in an image, and it is what you choose to portray as an artist. Maybe spend time looking at the two....look at maybe Ruth Bernhard, a classic Fine Art Nude photographer, and that might guide towards and example of the difference. Once you have seen what has been done by other photographers before you, you know what is possible for yourself. Just a thought. Good luck.

Answer 3

I think that depends upon your outlook and beliefs.

Personally I do not think that is pornographic - that is art. The human body is nothing to be ashamed of and done in a tasteful way, nudes make very beautiful works of art.

Answer 4

Well, pornography is "sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal," according to the American Heritage Dictionary.

I think what is pornography varies from person to person. If you try to get turned on by ogling statues in the Louvre, then that's pornography to you. They probably wouldn't be to most people.

To me it sounds like you are trying to justify a) getting your girlfriend to pose for you; b) looking at porn; c) posing yourself. To which I reply: don't do it. Pornography is more addictive than most illegal drugs, and it can destroy any chance for a normal relationship with a human being.

I don't think there are hierarchies of porn with a "higher" level being more "artistic." If it's trying to objectify the participants, then it's porn, plain and simple. Stop rationalizing, and call a spade a spade.

Answer 5

The human form is one of the highest forms of art. If not, why be pleased with it? From this form comes music and song. From this form comes all that you call art. God created us to love art and create art. Do you love the grace of a man or a woman? Someone must have, you are here to ask the question.

Answer 6

Who is to determine what is purely art? The artist, or the viewer?

The law says you can commit sexual harassment, even if you did not intend to. Intent is not the issue. The receiver is the one who determines whether they have been sexually harassed. That should be the same for so-called art.

Answer 7

No,not for years. Nude photography was enjoyed as art (and in other forms of course,porno) since the dawn of photogr aphy. It is true that the 60's were a big breakthrough as far as the general public is concerned. Artistic usage hasn't been considered porno for forty years,at least in the States.

Answer 8

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, no.

According to most religions, yes.

Is this a legal or a religious question?

If you are spiritual, why do you obsess over physical beauty anyway?

Answer 9

Nudity is not always pornographic!!!

Answer 10

Well, in my eyes, if it's naked and can 'turn on' a male or female and cause them to masturbate, etc. then it is a sin.