Definitions
Oct 1, 2011 15:54:59 #
XJoeyX
Loc: San Antonio, TX
fivedawgz wrote:
Okay, I'm a bit anal about this sort of thing ... I always need to know that what I say is what I mean and that I am not unknowingly saying something entirely different.
It is a true shame that MORE people aren't as "anal" as you! Far too many people engage their mouths (or in this case, their fingers) before engaging their brains (and sadly, I've been known to be one of them on more than one occasion!). It would be a far happier world if we all would think before we speak... Ok, OK, I'll climb down off my soap box now.
-XJoeyX
Oct 1, 2011 15:58:24 #
XJoeyX wrote:
It would be a far happier world if we all would think before we speak... Ok, OK, I'll climb down off my soap box now.
-XJoeyX
-XJoeyX
All of us share that guilt. It's just that I've spent a lifetime writing technical documents where it was critical that everything be absolutely clear. I also know that more arguments result from misunderstanding than from disagreement.
Oct 1, 2011 15:59:54 #
fivedawgz wrote:
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?
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?
Okay, LSU won and I fixing to go to my camp, but I'm going to way in on this later. Great subject.
Oct 1, 2011 16:01:03 #
Rachel wrote:
quote=fivedawgz I tried to formulate ... for my o... (show quote)
Isn't it great when we all act like adults ? :-)
Oct 1, 2011 16:31:02 #
I probably shouldn't comment but one of the responses stated that a photograph of a nude woman wearing high heels was erotic. Actually, it is just the opposite. At one time, pornography laws in this country, state laws, and laws of other countries made it illegal to show a photograph of a totally nude woman. Photographers and others used the loop hole of having models wear shoes/high heels so they weren't totally nude. In some cases they used hats or gloves. This somehow made the images "acceptable".
Oct 1, 2011 16:34:37 #
mgemstone wrote:
I probably shouldn't comment but one of the respon... (show quote)
I vaguely remember that. However, I think we aren't looking for a legal definition, but one that we can use for purposes of discussion. However, I don't think that a pair of high heel automatically turns a photo into erotica.
I'm sure there is no "one size fits all" definition for any of this, but maybe we can at least agree on the broad categories.
Oct 1, 2011 16:49:51 #
fivedawgz wrote:
quote=mgemstone quote=fivedawgz I tried to formu... (show quote)
OK, are suggesting a site glossary? If so, I would think that in order to be done properly that would need an administrator. And, process for submitting entries and a process to debate definitions in a civil manner. Come on, we're human here! Well, your guys probably are. You know that your going to hurt my brain. Can we just agree to use the definitions in the Webster's dictionary or something like that?
Oct 1, 2011 16:53:57 #
dongrant wrote:
quote=fivedawgz quote=mgemstone quote=fivedawgz... (show quote)
I don't think we need to be that formal. I was thinking more like an agreement in principle, kind of broad outlines so that when we talk about something, we all are talking about the same thing, or at least something in the same genre.
Webster's just doesn't cover this stuff. Art categories? Not really. Besides,I find discovering what other people think about this stuff really interesting.
Oct 1, 2011 17:14:56 #
fivedawgz wrote:
quote=dongrant quote=fivedawgz quote=mgemstone ... (show quote)
That sounds cool. I just would not want to get so rapped up in details that we failed to have meaningful discussions. But I do understand you anal attitude about common agreement in terms. Just remember that there will always be differences in interpenetration, even if only so subtle.
Oct 1, 2011 17:25:10 #
dongrant wrote:
quote=fivedawgz quote=dongrant quote=fivedawgz ... (show quote)
Agreed and understood.
Oct 1, 2011 17:28:41 #
mgemstone wrote:
I probably shouldn't comment but one of the respon... (show quote)
In the Northwest they would be climbing boots. I am here right now, trust me!!!
:lol: :lol:
Oct 1, 2011 17:29:57 #
XJoeyX
Loc: San Antonio, TX
mgemstone wrote:
I probably shouldn't comment but one of the respon... (show quote)
I also heard somewhere that a couple could be on a bed in a photo (or perhaps it was in a movie??) as long as one person had a foot on the floor... I can't remember where I heard that ,or if it is even true, but I SEEM to recall hearing that somewhere...
-XJoeyX
Oct 1, 2011 17:32:15 #
XJoeyX wrote:
quote=mgemstone I probably shouldn't comment but ... (show quote)
I think that was movies.
Oct 1, 2011 21:23:34 #
Quote:
BUT. I will defend to the death the right of an artist to create those images no matter how I feel about them personally. To me, if free speech isn't about artistic expression, then it is meaningless.
New here, but this pretty well says it all for me. Your choice may or may not be my choice, but I to too will stand and defend your right for your artistic choice.
Our choices on this are as endless as are we. We all have our own filters that have shaped our opinions and lives. From where we came, our religion or lack of, the times or periods we came from, the family values we grew up with. There is no end to the filters influencing our opinions on this colorful topic. If there were an end, maybe we would all agree on politics, religion, and exactly what Art is... For me Art, resides in the creation of something "new".
In the 40's & 50's you could be arrested for having pictures of nude people. Which is why that era gave us some of the greatest "Pin-up" artists painters, of all time. To name a few; Alberto Vargas, Boris Vallejo, Hajime Sorayama, Gil Elvgren, Olivia De Berardinis, Enoch Bolles. If the ladies were painted, it was Art, if they were photographed, it was pornography.
I believe this discussion will continue long after we are all gone.
Great discussion!
Oct 1, 2011 21:33:56 #
Brandy wrote:
quote BUT. I will defend to the death the right o... (show quote)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Vargas was still active and working up through the 1980s, was he not? I don't remember in which publication I saw it, but there was a retrospective on his work a few years ago. It was interesting seeing his style transition through the decades. Sort of a photographic time capsule.
I suspect this discussion, in some form, has been going on as long as there has been art and artists and will continue as long as there is anyone to discuss it. I hope so, anyway.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.