this is what I'm proposing
Artistic Nude Photography and Pornographic Photography: What, Where, and Who Says Where the Fine Line between the Two is?
The fine line between pornographic photography and artistic nude photography is almost impossible to see with the naked eye, it doesn’t help that erotica and this nation’s conservatives tend to make the distinction between the two fuzzier than it should be. One could take into account the viewer’s cultural background, their own moral beliefs, their own ideas of art and how it should be appreciated and each time end up with the line in a different place. Before looking for or trying to discern an answer as to where this fine line lies it’s best to try to understand what artistic nude photography is and how it differs from pornographic photography. The question, "What is Art?" could be a paper all on its own, debated for centuries not only by artists, but also by the benefactors, the government, religious leaders and by parents. A basic definition found through the Princeton website states that art is "the creation of beautiful or significant things." This definition may then motivate one to question "what is beautiful or significant?"
A person can analyze what some defining moments in history are when Art can be said to have crossed the line making it seem as if it were pornographic and vice versa? One may question in today’s society why there is a need for the censorship of Art that some may interpret or mistake for pornography. Are we as a nation ashamed of our bodies? Of what God gave us? Does this censorship of Art teach our children to be ashamed of nudity and their bodies thus instigating if not creating self image problems and an uncomfortable approach to that which is natural? But when does Art become unnatural? Can pornography reach outside its boundaries and fool the naïve viewer into believing what they’re viewing is truly art? When pornography does trick the viewer into thinking the work has artistic qualities and values, does that mean it can now be considered Art? A parent could argue that a child does not need to learn at such a young age about their bodies and the parts of the body the child doesn’t fully understand and seeing art that one could argue is pornographic could increase the risk of a child experimenting with their sexuality at a very young age.
The Mapplethrope Case is a prime example, one of many, of trying to draw the line between artistic nude photography and pornographic photography. The Dada movement may be another avenue to research as it is a very controversial movement. Artists in the Dada movement strove to break boundaries, rules, and the social norms. Much of Helmut Newton and Richard Avedon’s photographic work could arguably referred to as pornographic photography as some of the poses they put their models in are a bit racy if not lewd by some of our society’s standards.
"Art and porn: the history of the female nude" is a statement I came across that itches in the back of my mind incessantly more so than where the fine line is between the two. I think the distinction between artistic nude photography and pornographic photography is one’s own opinion more so than a real line that any person can point out. A very basic definition of Art is that art is the product of human creativity. A definition such as this leads me to believe that anything can arguably be art. This also means anyone could argue the artwork in question could be otherwise. This leaves me with the impression that the fine line between artistic nude photography and pornographic photography can not be drawn up into words that are nothing more than another person’s opinions compiled into a research paper.
The fine line between pornographic photography and artistic nude photography is almost impossible to see with the naked eye, it doesn’t help that erotica and this nation’s conservatives tend to make the distinction between the two fuzzier than it should be. One could take into account the viewer’s cultural background, their own moral beliefs, their own ideas of art and how it should be appreciated and each time end up with the line in a different place. Before looking for or trying to discern an answer as to where this fine line lies it’s best to try to understand what artistic nude photography is and how it differs from pornographic photography. The question, "What is Art?" could be a paper all on its own, debated for centuries not only by artists, but also by the benefactors, the government, religious leaders and by parents. A basic definition found through the Princeton website states that art is "the creation of beautiful or significant things." This definition may then motivate one to question "what is beautiful or significant?"
A person can analyze what some defining moments in history are when Art can be said to have crossed the line making it seem as if it were pornographic and vice versa? One may question in today’s society why there is a need for the censorship of Art that some may interpret or mistake for pornography. Are we as a nation ashamed of our bodies? Of what God gave us? Does this censorship of Art teach our children to be ashamed of nudity and their bodies thus instigating if not creating self image problems and an uncomfortable approach to that which is natural? But when does Art become unnatural? Can pornography reach outside its boundaries and fool the naïve viewer into believing what they’re viewing is truly art? When pornography does trick the viewer into thinking the work has artistic qualities and values, does that mean it can now be considered Art? A parent could argue that a child does not need to learn at such a young age about their bodies and the parts of the body the child doesn’t fully understand and seeing art that one could argue is pornographic could increase the risk of a child experimenting with their sexuality at a very young age.
The Mapplethrope Case is a prime example, one of many, of trying to draw the line between artistic nude photography and pornographic photography. The Dada movement may be another avenue to research as it is a very controversial movement. Artists in the Dada movement strove to break boundaries, rules, and the social norms. Much of Helmut Newton and Richard Avedon’s photographic work could arguably referred to as pornographic photography as some of the poses they put their models in are a bit racy if not lewd by some of our society’s standards.
"Art and porn: the history of the female nude" is a statement I came across that itches in the back of my mind incessantly more so than where the fine line is between the two. I think the distinction between artistic nude photography and pornographic photography is one’s own opinion more so than a real line that any person can point out. A very basic definition of Art is that art is the product of human creativity. A definition such as this leads me to believe that anything can arguably be art. This also means anyone could argue the artwork in question could be otherwise. This leaves me with the impression that the fine line between artistic nude photography and pornographic photography can not be drawn up into words that are nothing more than another person’s opinions compiled into a research paper.
hope there's more?