Printable View
One of the picture threads had the following pic and subsequent comment.
Courtesy of fancy: A BDSMLIB picture contributor
...which seemed fully appropriate to me. When looked at with an eye to composition rather than my usual licentcious attitude, I realized this picture is more than just a risque photo.Quote:
Originally Posted by VixeyandPhoenix
What does it for you? When is it art rather than a lewd nude. Composition? Content? Context?
in my humble opinion, Sir, it is art when it speaks to a person's soul and evokes a passionate response, in whatever form or feeling.
personally, i LOVE this picture as it instantly arouses me and my senses. the positioning of the photo is wonderful and the details are easily spotted but not overwhelming. and the subject of the photo is, of course, something is dear to my heart - performing for your Master - which certainly helps!!
respectfully,
orchid
Many people feel passionately from things other than art. Sports, family and loved ones, certain causes, even politics. So is that a sufficient definition?
I agree with what you're saying about this particular picture. It evokes an emotional response for me as well, though from a different perspective. But what makes it art versus just a picture?
It is not art in my view as the photo is merely functional in its aims and that is to arouse. Technique and skill do not add up to art. Art of quality has a myriad aims and functions such as to alter and expand our perceptions as well as enlighten and educate, amongst many other things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozme52
One can enter an endless debate about what is art or not, some say everything is art, to which one can pose the alternative, that nothing is art. I suppose it comes down to ones own opinion and in mine this doesn't constitute art.
I feel the photograph. It tackles several dimensions. This photo falls under the erotic photograpy category for me.
Art is personal and subjective, isn't it?
i agree fully nikita,
art is subjective, therefore what one person constitutes as art, another may abhor. that is the beauty of people as individuals...
You are right in pointing out that passion alone does not make an item art Oz. for me, that is one of the most important factors though in considering what i would call art versus just a photo or whatever. that's not to say that i would argue against some pieces being called art that do not result in a passionate awakening of feelings within me, it's just to say that for me to fully appreciate something as an artform, i prefer to have a strong feeling attached to it.
LOL now that i look back at what i've written here, i don't even know if i am explaining in a way that makes sense! LOL. but hey, i tried!
I liked it- i like the composition, the way the woman has her head back, the way the mirror reflects her (or someone else?) beside her, and the contrasting colours. "What is art?" is, i agree bunkerchief, a deep philosophical question- and really comes down to opinion. But in one of my classes recently we were discussing art and how everyday objects from our lives become art when they are placed in museums and seen from within a different context- like the toilet which was put into the Guggenheim (i think). Im afraid i can't remember the name of the artist, sorry, but it makes you think - if a toilet seat can be art, what stops anything else? And does it have to be seen within a certain formalized framework to make it art?
But yeh, i agree with you guys - nikita and orchid- it speaks to me also as erotic and passionate..
But then i guess if it had been more open and bald in it's positioning of the woman, more toys etc, i may have not thought that way (i am a newbie after all!;)
Hm, i dunno!
who determines what art is? how do you define art?Quote:
Originally Posted by bunkerchief
To me it's art, why? because I think someone took the time to create the dispaly we see, they felt strongly enough about it to share it, they also added visual pieces to add to the picture such as a face in one corner of the picture to add elements of artistic composition.
To me, it's art.
V/R
IDCrewDawg
So you're implying it's the intent that makes it art. Interesting. I can see how intent can be important, but when it comes to photography, you sometimes don't realize what you've captured until after you've viewed the picture(s).Quote:
Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg
So, for me, at the end of the day, it's not about the intent, it's about the content.
The intent in art is paramount. Whether the author did it accidentally or not is not too relevant. The very act and manner of presenting it can define it as an artwork. Or not.
This photo is very skilled, sensitive erotic presentation. Is it art? Honestly I don’t give a damn. I just enjoyed it.
Just a question about these two sentences... Aren't they contradictory?Quote:
Originally Posted by pejanon
ahh, my bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozme52
The intent as to how and why to present art is paramount. Whether the author of the photographs in question took them accidentally or not in the first place is not too relevant. What he did with them is relavant. The very act and manner of presenting it can define it as an artwork. Or not.
Makes sense now?
Who creates art, and finds it to be artistic without having the intent to find the artistic quality in something. Take for instance pictures of the ocean during sunset. People of all types find this setting artistic, with the mixtures of colors and motion being captured in an image. Then there is nude statues. The nude person themself is not art, but capturing their likeness is. What about bondage art, the person being bound (depending on how it was done) isnt always art, but in how it is displayed is.
So yes, I say the intent of the display makes it art. Since the photo we saw had multipule photos pasted/blended into it. I believe the intent of the person doing that, was to make it art. For the skill required to do such a thing requires an eye for contrast and color to blend things to complement the main portion of the photo.
Again, to me, its art. Though art is like many things, one persons garbage is another persons treasure, and what one finds beautiful, another might find to be repulsive.
Theres a fine line between 'art', and a lot of other things. Too often I see people labeling everything art - this blob of random colors is art, this trianglular statue is art, etc.
To me, its just a lewd picture, not art.
However, from your comments I'm guessing you're driving at a discussion of what exactly is art, and how this picture either does or does not qualify as art.
My answer is this: does it matter what label you assign it? Call it art, call it trash; it doesn't change the picture in any way. If you find it beautiful; go ahead and call it art. No one's stopping you. In my mind, calling something 'art' is either complimenting a creative work, or (and sadly, more often), just a cheap attempt at attracting attention too, or adding significance to something.
I'm not criticizing the author of that picture, or anyone who calls it art; I just feel that it is not deserving of the title.
To continue this thread some, and know what is art, and what is porn. There is a story on Reuters News that relates a story about a movie out that is asking sociaty what role porn on the internet has in today's youth. So, is the movie as the article describes art, or porn? Since the movie it's self shows nudity, not in an erotic manner, is it porn, or art?
The age old argument of what constitutes art has reared it's lovely head. Sometimes people do state opinions like facts, sorry, but I can be guilty of that often. The quality of the original photo is not great, but who is to say that greatness cannot be acheived through the use of a subpar medium. The model in the center looks a little grainy as a result of CCD noise or something to that effect. What I was commenting on was the emotion that it evoked! I could not say it any better than IDCrewDawg and others have said it, but I will say it anyway. Art is anything that evokes great emotion, that is a definition that I will stick with until my dying day. A child's drawing may look like a blob of colors to anyone except for a parent looking at it and being filled with pride. The subject in this pic is surrounded by examples of her inner emotion, this took great work and is not just a trashy porn pic. Each time I look at this photo I say to myself, this is how I want people to feel when they look at pictures of Vixey and I. Now, maybe someday my skills will improve to where I can make that less of a desire and more of a reality.
Interesting. So by that definition, for those who despise it, pornography is in fact, art, because it evokes an emotional response in them... even if it is only that they despise and/or hate it.
I'm afraid that, though the evocation of an emotional response may, in part, constitute an aspect of "art" that cannot be the whole of it.
I went to an art gallery in a small Aussie town where 'road kill' was displayed on boards & tables as art.
As for the picture that started this debate, it doesn't do a thing for me, but I can see it's undeniably art.
Not all art appeals to everyone, don't forget. There's probably someone who could see pleasing imagery in a dead bird stuck on a board.
Now katie smiling at me on the webcam- that's art. :)
Tojo
Cheeseburger, I could not have said it better myself. :ty
Art is always such a controversial thing, isn't it? Often, it has me thinking back to one of my favourite childhood stories, Hans Christian Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes". Someone who's supposedly knows about art, says it's 'art', so then it's art.
I think too, much of it has to do with how much publicity an artist is able to generate for their work.
It's like last September when British artist, Marc Quinn's winning plinth sculpture of his friend, eight months pregnant Alison Lapper - who was born without arms and with shortened legs was unveiled in Trafalgar Square. Well, Quinn, who came to prominence in 1991 with a cast of his head made with nine pints of his own blood, sure hit the jackpot with this one. People were talking about him and his 'art' for months later. It seemed like everyone in the media and art world was raving about it. It was like no freaking idiot would dare to critise him or it for fear of offending Alison Lapper, or disabled people generally. That damned hunk of marble had people everyone bending and falling over themselves in an effort to seen as being politically correct.
Personally, I think Marc Quinn is simply brilliant, however, as an artist, he's much like many.
And, Ozme52, getting back to your original post, I'm wonder if you, as an hetrosexual male, would still class that picture as "more than just a risque photo" if it featured a naked man instead of a naked woman? ;)
Ouch!Quote:
And, Ozme52, getting back to your original post, I'm wonder if you, as an hetrosexual male, would still class that picture as "more than just a risque photo" if it featured a naked man instead of a naked woman?
Tojo
Actually, I probably would if it had been brought to my attention as had the original picture. I'd probably be more inclined to think so however if it were an illustration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Bragi
LOL, Your pain moves me Tojo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tojo
art1 n.
1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
2.
1. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
2. The study of these activities.
3. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
4. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
5. A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.
6.
1. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
2. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.
7.
1. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
2. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice” (Joyce Carol Oates).
Just had to add to my previous description. I was wrong, many things evoke great emotion, but that does not make them art. I would not feel comfortable calling most pornography art. Bondage on the otherhand most of it is an artform. I have to also point out that if a man were presented in this manner I would most definately say that it is art, especially considering men are not typically portrayed with the depth and beauty that is present in this photo. What does the photographer and subject think of this conversation?
in craft you have a pre coceved idea of the finished work in art it 'avoves'
Bart
evolves conceved