user2071 Loc: New England

I tried to formulate ... for my own purposes ... a definition of "art study" as it relates to the nude human form vs. "boudoir" photography vs. erotica ... and discovered that I actually couldn't make a clear distinction.

Without getting anyone into an uproar, IS there any definition? Or is the line between one thing and another so indistinct as to be meaningless?

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

I suspect that the greater the price, the more artsy the nude.

rocco_7155 Loc: Connecticut/Louisiana

fivedawgs,
I like the tack you took trying to resolve the vitriol of the other thread by cogent thought. Its what discussion should cause us all to do. My take on this is that it truly is in the eye (or mind) of the beholder and the venue. Robert Mapplethorpe's art has been displayed in the world's most prestigious galleries and museums and has still been called "pornography". We humans are who we are....with all of our biases and beliefs. I am glad we arent all of one ilk..... I hope that we have more spirited discussions here AND always remain civil and collegial as artists. Thank you for your contributions here always.
Rocco

user2071 Loc: New England

I suspect you are right :-)

The very little work I did with nudes was way back when, in a studio under lights and was a lot harder than I imagined possible.

user2071 Loc: New England

Well, thanks. I try. I do not always succeed. I figured okay, fine, we aren't going to post any pictures of naked or nearly naked people and that's okay with me. No problem. But we talk about it and so much of the problem is that we don't all mean the same thing, even though we use the same words ... so maybe, if we could at least define what we are talking about, that would help.

rocco_7155 Loc: Connecticut/Louisiana

I agree. I did some photography and painting of them in college. Light falling on the human form is not an easy thing to capture artfully. Still, I have issue with anyone telling another they CANT try.

user2071 Loc: New England

My position has NEVER been that you can't or shouldn't try. I just agree that we can't post them HERE. There are other places, some actually dedicated to that type of photography. You wouldn't get meaningful feedback here anyhow. Wrong group.

I have no issue with the art. There's a lot of art in the world that I don't personally like, but that doesn't make it bad or "not art." What I like is subjective.

Historically, art has caused rioting and violence. Art gets to people on a very visceral level. Maybe that's the nature of art and maybe it is supposed to arouse our passions, for or against.

Musicians, painters, sculptors ... they've been stoned (as in having rocks thrown at them), run out of town and occasionally murdered by mobs because their art was not popular. I think Rodin, Cezanne, and Van Gogh are among those who were treated very harshly in their day. Van Gogh never sold a single painting and as everyone knows, eventually committed suicide.

Beethoven caused at least ONE riot in his time and maybe more. It is hard to imagine today that these great masters inspired such venom in their time, but they did.

rocco_7155 Loc: Connecticut/Louisiana

We are in agreement.... Thanks for being you.

XJoeyX Loc: San Antonio, TX

Something that I have noticed is that, the minute that anyone mentions nudity, boudoir, or erotica, someone invariably begins to scream "Pornography". I think these are all subjective terms. Many people can not seem to distinguish one from the other. What I might see in a publication like Playboy, in MY mind would be considered erotica, while what I might see in a publication like Hustler (or some of the more sordid magazines out there) I would consider pornography. These are my views, and I'm sure there are those who would disagree.

There is nothing obscene about the nude human form, but there again, this is MY opinion. I doubt there are ANY definitions that would please everyone, or even most... I think they are all shades of grey, with few, if any, clear-cut divisions.

I think that this discussion is much like discussing politics, or religion. We each have our own opinions, and many will violently defend their own personal positions.

-XJoeyX

PhotoArtsLA Loc: Boynton Beach

Ask yourself, "Would this image be worthy of an art museum wall regardless of decade?" This perhaps, defines the "Art Nude" or "Figure Study" from the the more pedestrian nudes of the Internet and men's magazines. Of course, there have been "Artistic Nudes" shot to create shocking impact, and such museum shows become banned in certain areas while accepted in others. This generates a lot of press, and so, strengthen the inevitable book sale. Decorum precludes posting of any examples...

jbert Loc: Texas

Did some extensive reading and I feel I have a better understanding, so here we go.


1. Nude ------- Naked without clothing / wraps
2. Boudoir ----- Womens Dressing Room, Bedroom,
Private sitting room
3. Erotic -------- Intending to arouse sexual love/desire
4. Porn --------- Intending to cause sexual excitement
or emotional reaction.

I could go on and on with many combinations but these words seem to define every thing, for me anyway. I did notice the slim line we mention sometimes in the last 2 One depicts arousal and the other cause.

A distinction is often made between erotica (the portrayal of sexuality with high-art aspirations, focusing also on feelings and emotions) and pornography (the depiction of acts in a sensational manner, with the entire focus on the physical act, so as to arouse quick intense reactions).


As I see it, these 2 areas do or can use Human nude form in the Boudoir or somewhere else. Even though the lines or really thin, I do believe there are distinct difinitions that determine the art. For me there is art in Nudes forms, Boudoir settings, and even erotic, but in no way is porn an art form.

Bobbee

Good discussion, and I really agree with many of the ideas that are proposed here. My only disagreement, or maybe extension here is that we are dealing with humans. Each peron regards what hits their eye in different aspects from another. Sort of brings up the old term "Maybe be crap to you, but it's bread and butter to me." I see people look at things, make a desision about it and then analyize it. Not a good procedure. My whole life and business is about disassembling things to their basic form and reconstructing it and putting my opionions together in the process. I guess I may be lucky that my brian works this way. So I see an object and try to understand it before I let my upbringing judge what is good or bad. Sometimes I surprise myself at things I find apleasing. I do notice that alot of people shut down before they ask the "Who, what, when, where and why".

Again, good discussion, and as someone said right off the bat, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Take care, Off to Lake Louise.

dongrant Loc: Earth, I think!

No, no... pornography is what they put on TV to sell cars and other stuff;-).

klbates64 Loc: Maine

I did a research project on the temples in India. Most display very intent sexual positions. All I could think about when I looked at each one, was how incredible the archetechture was. It is truly amazing. I never gave the erotica or nudeness a second thought. All I could think of was wow, It is amazing that they had the technology to do this so long ago. Even in todays world. They are truly amazing pieces of art. Americans are taught the the naked body is dirty, when it is actually a beutiful amazing work of art in itself.

user2071 Loc: New England

Yes, a lot is in the eye of the beholder and no definition will change that. I'm just trying to get a handle on the words that we use when we talk about it on this forum. Everything else is subjective. At least if we agree what we mean, we know WHAT we are arguing about.

I think that at least those who've joined in this discussion are not people who object on principle to nudity in art. I certainly don't. I just realized that even for myself, I was really unclear of the "definable" differences between styles. The line was so razor thin that I wasn't sure there WAS a line. So far, this has been really helpful and I appreciate that no one has lectured anyone else on morality, which personally I think has nothing to do with art (and never has). But that's me.