A recent post of explicit photos w/ interesting lighting produced interesting discourse. Including some self-admitted 'prudes' calling the images vulgar. Below are two approaches to perhaps make explicit images more acceptable. One uses processing tricks following the maxim, "print it grainy and call it 'art'." The other will appeal to arachnid fanciers. So string your longbows and let the arrows fly!
I am by far not a “prude”. But, these images are not my cup of tea.
To each his own.
PaolaPF
Loc: Roma via Tommaso da celano,94 00179
Los-Angeles-Shooter wrote:
A recent post of explicit photos w/ interesting lighting produced interesting discourse. Including some self-admitted 'prudes' calling the images vulgar. Below are two approaches to perhaps make explicit images more acceptable. One uses processing tricks following the maxim, "print it grainy and call it 'art'." The other will appeal to arachnid fanciers. So string your longbows and let the arrows fly!
since you mentioned me I would to answer to this nice post: I find your post ironic and friendly because after so many members troubled by the genitals you try to laugh on them (and on someone's limits)
a vagina is not a depraved or immoral thing it is only a vagina
I wouldn't call it artistic.
PaolaPF wrote:
a vagina is not a depraved or immoral thing it is only a vagina
...and without them, none of us would be here!
gym
Loc: Athens, Georgia
"I'll know it when I see it." In today's environment, there's little that can be construed as "vulgar". If you go back a few decades, then - yes. But today - no.
Since the lovely girl Gabby is so popular, let me share more:
Vulgarity is in the eye of the beholder, as is beauty, and determining whether something is considered art. I would bet among UHH posters I have one of the more liberal interpretations of art. I don't find your images vulgar.
That said, of the work you have proffered in this particular post there is nothing I would hang on my wall and there is probably nothing that would be hung in a gallery showing unless it was your one-man show. They are not bad photos, just not great photos. That top photo is probably the most graphic and yet it is also in my mind the most artistic. The portrait is stunning but too closely cropped for my personal taste.
I realize the framing or cropping of the bottom photo is to maximize the reddened rear of the model, but I would rather see all her hair and all her legs. I think one of my personal distinctions between pornography and art has to do with cropping. Cutting an image to maximize the size of pieces and parts moves it from the artistic to the prurient. Obviously not a hard and fast rule, but I think you can see my point.
InfiniteISO wrote:
Vulgarity is in the eye of the beholder, as is beauty, and determining whether something is considered art. I would bet among UHH posters I have one of the more liberal interpretations of art. I don't find your images vulgar.
That said, of the work you have proffered in this particular post there is nothing I would hang on my wall and there is probably nothing that would be hung in a gallery showing unless it was your one-man show. They are not bad photos, just not great photos. That top photo is probably the most graphic and yet it is also in my mind the most artistic. The portrait is stunning but too closely cropped for my personal taste.
I realize the framing or cropping of the bottom photo is to maximize the reddened rear of the model, but I would rather see all her hair and all her legs. I think one of my personal distinctions between pornography and art has to do with cropping. Cutting an image to maximize the size of pieces and parts moves it from the artistic to the prurient. Obviously not a hard and fast rule, but I think you can see my point.
Vulgarity is in the eye of the beholder, as is bea... (
show quote)
Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful comments. I learn with every shoot and also learn when feedback helps me notice things that, in the thrall of female beauty, I miss.
Los-Angeles-Shooter wrote:
A recent post of explicit photos w/ interesting lighting produced interesting discourse. Including some self-admitted 'prudes' calling the images vulgar. Below are two approaches to perhaps make explicit images more acceptable. One uses processing tricks following the maxim, "print it grainy and call it 'art'." The other will appeal to arachnid fanciers. So string your longbows and let the arrows fly!
The first one is simply ugly and not what I'd call appealing. The second one is much better especially since her skin is soft and free of blemishes. I'm not saying that all people with blemishes are ugly, just not appealing since I know better than most about blemished skin. I still get blemishes and I'm in my 60's. That's why I wouldn't let anyone take pictures of my ass. I don't think she should have either.
Gabby is a happy participant, which is important. I love her look, especially in that last shot; and I love that she's shaved and glad to exhibit! She's a doll, and the shots are quite artistic.
PaolaPF wrote:
since you mentioned me I would to answer to this nice post: I find your post ironic and friendly because after so many members troubled by the genitals you try to laugh on them (and on someone's limits)
a vagina is not a depraved or immoral thing it is only a vagina
And it's beautifully exhibited!
If nothing else, this is definitely one of the finest Brazilian waxes I've seen. Bravo! Beautiful.
Gabby is not just delightfully beautiful and uninhibited, she's a sweet person in every way.
ppage
Loc: Pittsburg, (San Francisco area)
Whenever you introduce the genitals that crosses a line for many, not me though. But for many. I looked up vulgar just to flesh it out, (no pun intended)
lacking sophistication or good taste; unrefined.
I personally would objectively judge them vulgar. For my taste they are just not pleasant, in good taste or refined. They're a bit jarring and in your face, uncomfortable, the first one is especially dark and nasty and for the second one, as much as I love many renditions of the female buttocks, I don't enjoy evidence of skin trauma. Like the other poster said, guess it's just not my thing. I think there is small audience that enjoys S&M but that is a pretty small audience. Most other folks would think they were vulgar. IMHO
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.