Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

A famed photographer commented:

“I hate good taste. It's the worst thing that can happen to a creative person.”
― Helmut Newton

scsdesphotography Loc: Southeastern Michigan

We are all more than the sum of our body parts, but we are all made up of body parts. And those body parts can subject to interesting photography. A face is just another body part, are you disrespecting a person because you just include their face and not the rest their body in the image? What about if you just do an eye or the ear? is that disrespectful? Just asking.

scsdesphotography Loc: Southeastern Michigan

LA, don't give much shrift to the prudes (why are you on this forum?) and the naysayers. Your first image is edgy and powerful. The viewer is forced to readjust their thinking about the models situation, having fun, submissive, perhaps a captive? From all the responses here it has clearly provoked an emotional response. In my mind you are channeling the spirit of Mapplethorpe, so my suggestion is that you render it in B&W and repost it.

I agree with some others here that it is obvious that the men and women photographers here prefer to share images of women, very few men. So, to rectify this and in the spirit of what I said above, here is an image from the Mapplethorpe collection.

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

A clever use of diagonals and 'leading lines' to make a strong composition.

Mapplethorpe was also known for extraordinary b&w photos of flowers.

craig.j.tucker

The 1st is disgusting to the eye as it is grotesque more than vulgar.

The 2nd was quite creative and well-done. I like the Spiderman photo quite a bit

anderzander

And viewers call my 3D CG Crap, not my kind of art!

DrPhrogg Loc: NJ

It is not vulgar, but is it not art. It is designed to provoke a response, and I am not sure I want to be included with those who find stimulation, Using the maxim that less is more, can you get a better response by being less explicit and implying more. The Spiderman photo moves in that direction. This would not really even be good art for a medical textbook. Good art tells a story or conveys a message. I am not sure what message is conveyed here

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

Is this stuff 'good art?' Or just nonsense?

http://www.google.com/search?q=most+expensive+%27modern+artists%27&rlz=1C1PRFI_enUS803US803&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8zPHO4IDiAhVQpZ4KHX22ApIQ_AUIDigB&biw=1554&bih=896#imgrc=Wnoxga7fo3xnWM:

Tom G Loc: Atlanta, GA

Permitting an old, fat man to spank her is a bit kinky... but, maybe you're her favorite uncle.

John Hicks Loc: Sible Hedinham North Essex England

There are various styles of nude photography and this is one of them, I like the photos, if you do not then it is better not to comment surely.

ImageCreator Loc: Northern California

Gross. You can do better

PaulG Loc: Western Australia

The first image is extremely unflattering in so far as the poor girl looks like she's got some sort of skin complaint. And a bad one at that. The second makes me wonder, "what's the point?" Forget the eye-of-the-beholder hype, prudishness, etc . . . there is a chasmic difference between snapshot and creative imagery. Anyone can take a photo; absolutely anyone. And there is a very obvious difference between an image that has some concept in mind and one that is simply produced from a point and click mentality. Opportunistic shots, typically scenery, can often be very impressive. But staged images with little planning, look just that - empty, lacking in purpose. If you look at the most appealing and successful nude/boudoir images it is patently clear that a great deal of forethought and planning has been put in place as opposed those that seem to have been taken on a whim.

Gallimaufry Loc: Denver, CO

To me, you either like it or don't like it. That is a right of all of us. You can consider it vulgar, but what does that mean? What is lacking in good taste. You can say, but I still don't know what that means, because I have the right to ask back "according to whom?"

In the end I think almost all the comments I read (and I haven't bothered to read them all) totally miss a primary point: it doesn't matter. If you have a problem looking at genitals, don't come to this section. If you don't think it's arty, then it's not. Whatever you believe is true.

Go ahead and define arty for me. Same goes for defining literature.

Others do think it's arty. You do have a right to your own opinion, and Los-Angeles-Shooter has a right to his.

The definition of vulgar in one of the posts makes no sense--each of the words used is relative. There is no absolute definition of any of these words.

So what is pornography? It's what you think it is. Does your calling it porn make it porn? To you, yes. Does my not calling it porn make me right? It IS in the eye of the beholder; it's all relative. I certainly can appreciate someone calling something porn porn, but that someone doesn't have the right to say I'm wrong absolutely if I don't consider it porn. Just cover your eyes and don't look.

Keep it up L-A-S, though I'm sure you would even without my comments.

Chuck B

Not vulgar, but one is harsh and the other is comical.

Chuck B