So tell me, what’s makes this image an “art” nude as opposed to just some naked woman lying on the rocks, or even pornography?

Does an image have to fulfil certain conditions before it can be considered art?

Things like:

• Has it been published?
• Has it been exhibited?
• Did someone arbitrarily say “Ooh, nice art.“?
• Do you have to “know” someone specific?
• Do you have to BE someone specific?
• Are there specific aesthetic conditions that it must meet?
• Can “art nude” only be acceptable in black and white?

So what makes this “art” and another image just “coffee table porn” as it was described to me recently?

Join in the discussion and maybe we can work it out? Or does it really matter? Is it ALL subjective – one person’s art is another’s porn is another’s art…etc.?

Comments

• 04/11/2006, ByTor wrote: Aw well, I guess no-one can be bothered joining in, or contributing to the discussion at all. That's a disappointment! Well, I think the difference between Fine Art Nude and Pornography, is the intent behind the creation of the image. If the intent is to get the viewer all hot and bothered - horny if you prefer - then its porn. Otherwise, its Art!! Anyone want to talk about it? We could get a good little group therapy session going here... I know I need one!
• 12/11/2006, gooddeed wrote: Hey I agree with you about intent of the image, but also think the way its composed and presented makes a big diffrence too. Basically.... if it looks good. Its art :)
• 04/02/2007, AliBenn wrote: I see it as a matter of Impact and Intent. If the shot is taken with eroticism as its root and motive, then the photographer is marketing that work as porn. If the photographer and model work together to create what they feel is a fine art nude image, then that too is the photographers motive. I call this "Intent" However, once an image is in the public domain; online, published wherever, how the viewer perceives that image, and what it does for them, is out of the photographers hands. This I call: "Impact" The motive and Intent of the image creator define the root of the image. The Impact on the viewer defines the success of the image creator at articulating their vision. I believe this is a good gauge for us to measure our standard as photographers. How well do we articulate our Intent?
• 20/03/2009, Chris. I. Ogbu wrote: Hey, I like that picture or that image, it reminds me when I was school, doing general and painting of a nude person, its really good. I like to see more that.
• 14/06/2009, Sparky wrote: For me, an art is an extremely high skill. Here, I rthink that the model overshaows anything else. Probably getting this model to pose was the highest art. For me, there is no porn. This cannot bve what there is not any.

I’ve just been adding some more topics into my forums on here.

It’d be really cool if you could join me and we can get some interesting and useful discussions going.

Like, “What’s the difference between art-nude and just naked, art and pornography?”

Go on, you know you want to…

Or am I the only one who’s wondering…?

Comments

• 16/01/2007, Ali wrote: What makes a picture or film art or pornography? The simple answer is whatever the artist says it is. It is popular for the establishment to pretend that something is art or something else is pornographic in order to popularise the notion that they are somehow above it all. This is similar to how the upper classes delt with erotic art in the 19th and early 20th century. They locked it away in british museum and only allowed the intelligentsia access on the grounds that the common man wouldn't understand it, when in fact most of these so called academics were just getting their jollies. If you say what you are doing is art and you are serious and can explain what it means to you, then it is art.