if photography is considered art, then is nude photography/erotic photography/pornography considered art also?

Answer 1

By generally stated opinions of Western society:
Yes/Yes/No

Value in the marketplace:
$ / $$ / $$$$

Answer 2

Each person sees that in their own way and they define that on their upbringing, religious believes and moral values. In Europe nudity is not a big issue because how the people are brought up around it. For example there is a large park in the heart of Munich (just like Central Park in NYC) where you can go and sunbath and do what you want along with the "normal dressed crowed".

The TV commercials for bath soap may show a woman or a man using this product in the shower and they are nude. This commercial may be on when the cartoons are playing and this is not "HBO" or cable just normal TV.

Magazines be it Playboy, the TV Guide or a Photography magazine, there are no "Black Bands" in plastic bags to cover them and putting them in the "Adult" section. They also have frontal nudity on them (and yes Playboy's covers are different here). They are on the shelves in the super markets just like any other magazine. And they are not on the tallest shelf that you need a ladder to get them.

As for porn in the US you know which ones are the porn shops the ones that the windows are covered up and people sneak in to them. Ever been to Amsterdam well up there the windows are not covered and the magazines are even open so you can see what they have to over. Plus the prostitutes sit in the windows so you can view their wares. This is not really considered the "Red light district" either, it is right in the middle of the city near diamond stores, McDonalds, art galleries etc.

In other countries you can be breaking the law (this could be religious law also) and you can go to jail or worse.

So there is no real answer to your question but it is determined by each person and society.

This is coming from an American living in Europe.

Hope that helps,
Kevin

Answer 3

Some nude photography is considered art, just as many nude paintings are part of the fine art world. However, pornography is different and is definitely not art. Pornography lacks the aesthetic criteria of art because it sacrifices any aesthetic in favor of blatant, in-your-face lewdness. It serves no purpose but to exploit and titillate.

Great art moves the soul. The only thing pornography moves is your genitals, provided that you're into it.

Answer 4

If it evokes an emotion then it is art. The ruins of Pompeii had to be hidden from "public eye" for many years because the images on the walls and the buildings were considered pornographic. Helmut Newton was considered a pornographer for his images. And Andy Warhol responded, "isn't that great." in an interview about people saying his work was pornography.

Answer 5

Let me clarify one thing before I continue,medium does not dictate art, and not all photography is art just in the same way that just because something has paint on it doesn't automatically make it art.
First of all divorce yourself of the superficial understandings of art. Art, in particular modern art is not about simply making pretty pictures that you can hang in your living room, it is a lot more cerebral than that. So let me attempt to define art and how it relates to us in the modern age. Art takes the benign, the stagnent, the everyday object, person place or thing and manifests its everyday meaning to something beyond itself. With respects to erotic art, indeed this is an art, although beit a somewhat more classical or traditional approach to art, being that a lot of the works are studies of the human form. In essence the photographer or artist is taking something as common and everyday as the human body, and transforming it into something spirtitual or exotic.
As for pornography being art, that by definition is not art, though some art can take the superficial form of being pornography, most notably the works of Nobuyoshi Araki and Jeff koons. However, there is a thin but well defined difference between porn and the works of say Araki or Koons, and this has a lot to do with intentions. Neither Koons nor Araki make their work to purposely satiate the sexual dreams and desires of their viewers. Sex and the human body are metaphors for other things, with Araki sex is often a metaphor for the various aspects of modern city life, in particular Tokyo. Of course this is severe understatement but what I am trying to illustrate is that artists who use nudes or sexual acts in their art do so not to get people sexually stimulated so much as mentally stimulated.
I know for some people it is hard to think that someone can look at a nude body or a sexually explicit scene and think that someone could possibly be thinking of something non sexual and cerebral. Indeed some people may not be able to see beyond the sexuality, and regard anything with nude bodies as pornography because it could be construed as sexually stimulating. But look at it this way, there are people out there who get sexually stimulated from burning things down, or getting abused, or stabbing someone to death. So does this make photos of burning houses, or dead people pornography because someone is getting sexually stimulated?

Answer 6

It can be, but I would say that if the effect of the photograph causes the viewer more arousal than aesthetic response, I would not call it art. Of course, if the viewer judges it's a lousy photography, I would have to question whether it is art as well--although one could argue that it is art, just BAD art. Aesthetics is a very tricky topic. Try Kant's Critique of Judgment.

Answer 7

Nudity has been an integral part of fine art for thousands of years.

Art holds a mirror up to society, and is also a window offering a deifferent view of that same society. If pornography is a part of that society (and it definitely is) then an artistic treatment of porn is a very valid artistic statement.

Answer 8

Yes, yes, and maybe... Not all photography is considered art; snapshots for example are more records of an event

Answer 9

It all depends from what angle does the viewer see your final photographs.

If it is viewed from an angle of appreciation - I will considered it art but if it is viewed with agendas other than appreciated.
It will than be pornography

Answer 10

art can be defined by two people the person creating it, if he intended it as art, or the person that views it, if he sees it as art. Is all nude photos art? no Are all nude photos porn? no.

What may be deemed as pornagraphic by me may not by you and vice versa. There is no "rule"