I'd like to bring your attention to Donatello's bronze David sculpture (don't know if it's against the rules to link to it so you can google away if you'd like). He *seems* nude, but isn't. He's wearing a hat and leggings, which counterpoint the naked areas of his skin to make him appear more nude than he actually is. I think I know what brought you to this topic, j3concept's new wallpapers? Is what you're wanting to know when sexual imagery is appropritate? I personally don't find anything wrong with the notion of excersizing your fundamental humanity by exposing taboo areas of a human body so long as you're not doing it with any negative pretense. This begs the question, when does art become pornography? I guess you know it when you see it and even then it's subjective. I can't fathom being offended by a nude figure, we're all naked - we don't snap into existence with a nicely pressed outfit sewn unto our skins. So nudity starts when you start to feel uncomfortable, I suppose, since feeling naked is associate with feeling vulnerable and no one likes to be vulernable.
I agree with your statement ... all what you said is true. Once I was asked from Mark to remove wallpaper because it was to realistic (was manipulated). I agreed with him ... but what if I trace that photo in Illustrator and make it a vector picture would it be acceptable?
I would assume this was sparked by Jared's (wicked) SG pack.
As skryingbreath said, it's subjective. I have several friends who wrote on Fashion Photography's cross into Pornographic material and where this line is. What they found was that there is no definite line as everyone has their own perspective and opinions on what is fashion/art and what is pornographic. How the image is viewed and consumed by the audience will therefore vary significantly for each individual, especially from other areas of the world.
motorist// Illustration does allow a step away from reality that photography insists upon as the subject then becomes less of a record, instead suiting the purpose of the image creator. I think that illustration can allow for material of that nature to be used more openly, although this is an opinion. Illustration can also be pornographic and profain.
I personally don't know about suicidegirls, and would prefer not to go lookin' around their website.
But the line where "art" nudity turns into porn. Is when they look sugestively towards a more sexual nature. When they look artistic like the famous sculptures such as the Venus De Milo. That is considered art.
And in this digital world a vectorized photo does make a huge difference. Because it does make it less real. However I don't know if I'd consider it artistically nude, nor would I always go by dA's consideration of it.
But non-real people is less offensive. But like I said it's all about the sexual content especially if it's with people. Non-suggestive poses make you think about it as an art piece rather than a piece of *ahem* ya know what I mean.
But that's the difference. The line starts when a private part of the body is exposed. Lower down on both sides, and for a woman the upper area. And the chest of a man isn't considered nudity.
suicidegirls imo, trys very hard to be 'groundbreaking' in terms of pron, but all it really is naked chicks that have tattoos, 'differen't hair, or piercings.
porn for the 'alternative' scene. what a joke. like guys give a shite.
that being said, the girls are great to look at, just like girls on any similarly themed site. also, j3's pack is phenomenal and i was pleased to see him, a respected, established artist, take on a project with a little of a risque twist.
I agree with Tobias and nitzua, I don't see how nude photography can be so offensive to anyone. art, not porn.
Also I agree with skryingbreath simply because something is drawn shouldn't make it less offensive, I'm sure you've all heard of hentai. i personally think that hentai is offensive.
and i think that a line between pornography and nude photography/art is sort of obvious.
Its great to see you all voicing your opinions. This is definitely a topic we need to figure out as a community.
Right now my main concern is that we don't have any way to warn or prevent people from seeing racy content. A lot of the user's on this site are in high school (under 18), and I am sure everyday there are younger children stumbling onto the site. It is important that this site is safe for all ages. At the same time, I recognize that the (female ;) body is a work of art in itself and an integral part of art throughout the ages.
What do you guys think the answer is? How can we keep the site safe for everyone while respecting "art"? A 'mature content' logo like on deviantArt?
I second that. It's good to try to shield the youngsters as long as possible. And about the vector stuff, I personally would prefer my little brother stumblign on hentai before real nude people.
If thirteen year olds are going to be hanging here, we need to avoid explicit depictions of sex for sure, it has no place here, but getting worked up over an illustration of bared breasts is a wee bit puritanical. Junior can flip on HBO and see those in the middle of the afternoon.
For everyone supporting the notion of somehow filtering this content, I ask you this: Do you tell your significant other, to keep their clothes on, so you don't become offended? Better yet, do you have censorship bars on all of the mirrors in your house, in case someone is using one, when nude?
Can we go a single day without right-wing "shield the children" comments? You are a human...you are born nude, you bathe nude, you might even be nude when changing clothes. Do you tell your children to hide their eyes when the animals are nude on TV? Upper primates have a rather similar physiology to humans...wouldn't want little Billy seeing a Gorilla breast.
I really can't agree with the people who say nudity is not offensive. I must say, posting pictures or paintings of yourself nude on the internet, to me is ridicuolous! There is no purpose. The only thing I really know is that in the begining of humanity, (adam and eve) They were naked. Until the devil came out and made us wear clothes. I have no choice but to think that the devil did the right thing. Lol!
That is, of course, subjective. I both understand AND respect your opinion, but your belief system is unique to you and/or people who also follow it. Not all of us have that same belief system and as such, are not bound by the mental conditioning that is required for faith to blossom.
The human body, like all things of this Universe, have a unique beauty. Learn about some of the different cultures on our planet and you will see, not every culture is so close-minded about the subject.
Don't want your 13 year old seeing nudity? Stop babysitting them with the Internet. The kids these days are NOT as close-minded as the previous generations. They are also quite crafty. I am sure, that if you knew about some of the things that your "innocent little Johnny" was doing on the internet, like looking at actual "Pornography" versus nude art.
I appreciate the human form, I have art in my house that has some "nudity" if you will. You folks are just bringing back an argument that has been classic long before our time. When Michaelangelo sculpted the statue "David", for example.
I don't want to see any Religion content, but I have no options to block out that content. You folks are just looking for yet another thing to complain about I believe.
I totally second annex1's opinion, it's not that exposing youngsters to nude material that they will become a sexual deliquent (hasn't been proven either). I really see no valid reason to shield them for anything like that, au contraire.. If you shield them for nudity they will definitely be more tempted to break the rules. Therefor i'm completely pro of a non-tabboo, progressive education. It's not good to ignore the problem by shielding in my opinion.
I get the same feeling here as i sometimes have when it comes to Africa and birthcontrol, or when it comes to gay weddings. Live and let live! But it does makes me happy when i see people can at least discuss it in an open way without being offended, good vibes!
I think the naked body is a beautiful thing, and if people are warned that what they are about to view containts nudity there should be no problem, because then they make the choice of what they see... I'd rather not see nudity on custo, buts thats me, I haven't had any problems with custo so far on the issue, its not as excessive as such as on deviantart.
I suspect that many a persons affinity for pornographic material is due to a lack of expression. I think that since nudity is a natural and good thing, the mind still has some 'requirement' for nudity, albeit not pornographic per se. I think that because nudity is so heavily shunned in today's society, it seems only natural that a liking for pornography would occur with many.
In the end though, I believe that nudity is purely natural, showing everything if necessary, however pornographic material need not apply. I might say it's similar to eating an entire feast because you want a single apple and can't find it. In other words, overindulgence. However, I believe someday our culture may advance to a point where even the most graphic of 'sexual content' can be made art...not because every likes it sexually, but because of HOW it is received. I think that's the key. What makes something pornographic or not is the intent and emotion behind it, combined with the culture's views on nudity.
