Fine Art Nudes, Fine Art Porn, or just Fine Art ?
Question: Is what we do classified as fine art, fine art nude, nudes, pornography or just plain Tits ‘n’ Ass ?
Answer: This is a purely subjective judgement by the viewer.
There has been an increasing trend by photographers who shoot “our style” of photography to classify their work as porn. “Our style” is generally classified as “fine art-nude” – we are a small but loyal and protective bunch. The art nude community tends to stick together.
The amazingly talented Marcus J Ranum often classifies his work on Photosig as “Fine Art Porn”. Melvin Moten has made a very interesting post about his work and Pornography on his Story Beneath the Skin blog. These are but two examples. There are many more blogs discussing this very point, and numerous threads on MM to this effect. Other photographers vehemently object to this sort of classification, while others simply choose to make no comment, and let the viewer make up their mind, believing the pictures speak for themselves.
The general public often seem to classify black and white nudes as “fine art”, and colour images as erotic nudes/porn. This is very simplistic, but unfortunately it’s often true.
The whole idea of classifying what these fine gentlemen do as “porn” strikes me as way too defensive, although the cynic will say that it may certainly increase their viewing figures. The fact is that photographers are coming under increasing pressure and criticisms that they “shoot porn”, as if this is something derogatory, offensive and degrading. Is this is a sociological malfunction by society, or maybe just a label. Under current political climates (US and UK) the move is towards religion and censorship and away from anything remotely “risqué” (as my father-in-law puts it). The current government in the US apparently will not use public funding to sponsor nude art in any form. As I understand it, Robert Mapplethorpe’s photographs of black penises did not go down so well. This is political. The world is in the middle of a political and spiritual crisis. Under this current climate, the move is towards censorship, particularly attempts to censor the internet. Hell, our government would censor your thoughts if it could..
Photographers are forced on the defensive. They have to justify what they do as art, rather than porn. Much of our blog is arguing this very thing, and about how we cope with the reactions and prejudices of friends and family.
So the argument goes that if the photographer defines what he does as “porn” or “fine art porn” up front, then this gives him more leeway to be free to shoot whatever he wants, free of criticism. So this takes away the need to be defensive, and takes away the power of the viewer to criticise his work as “pervy” or “porn. Viewers of this nature are making an exact moral judgement on the personality of the photographer (as if it is any of their business anyway)
“If I say “I shoot pornography”, then so what ?”
Hey, I get this. I understand why photographers say this. Like us, they are sick of having to defend their work, and cope with other folks’ hang-ups. But how does this translate to the real world ?
Picture Richard and myself at our son’s parents evening at his posh private school. The headmaster saunters up for a chat “So what do you do Mr Bang?”
“I’m a photographer”
“Gosh, how interesting. What type of photography do you do ?”
“Oh, mainly porn. How else do you think we can afford your extortionate school fees ?”
Hmm. Anyway, all I can say is that if what we do is classified by the general public as porn rather than art, then we are clearly doing something wrong, because it sure doesn’t pay very well (No alas we don’t fund the school fees from the photography proceeds. The day job pays for that)
Personally I’d rather stick with the “fine art nude” label, thanks, or maybe at a push “erotic art”. Sounds better when you tell people what you do, and it doesn’t put off every potential model from shooting with you. But it is the reaction of the viewer that defines the label. The images reflect more about the personality of the viewer than the photographer.
So, art or porn ?
Whatever you want it to be!
Answer: This is a purely subjective judgement by the viewer.
There has been an increasing trend by photographers who shoot “our style” of photography to classify their work as porn. “Our style” is generally classified as “fine art-nude” – we are a small but loyal and protective bunch. The art nude community tends to stick together.
The amazingly talented Marcus J Ranum often classifies his work on Photosig as “Fine Art Porn”. Melvin Moten has made a very interesting post about his work and Pornography on his Story Beneath the Skin blog. These are but two examples. There are many more blogs discussing this very point, and numerous threads on MM to this effect. Other photographers vehemently object to this sort of classification, while others simply choose to make no comment, and let the viewer make up their mind, believing the pictures speak for themselves.
The general public often seem to classify black and white nudes as “fine art”, and colour images as erotic nudes/porn. This is very simplistic, but unfortunately it’s often true.
The whole idea of classifying what these fine gentlemen do as “porn” strikes me as way too defensive, although the cynic will say that it may certainly increase their viewing figures. The fact is that photographers are coming under increasing pressure and criticisms that they “shoot porn”, as if this is something derogatory, offensive and degrading. Is this is a sociological malfunction by society, or maybe just a label. Under current political climates (US and UK) the move is towards religion and censorship and away from anything remotely “risqué” (as my father-in-law puts it). The current government in the US apparently will not use public funding to sponsor nude art in any form. As I understand it, Robert Mapplethorpe’s photographs of black penises did not go down so well. This is political. The world is in the middle of a political and spiritual crisis. Under this current climate, the move is towards censorship, particularly attempts to censor the internet. Hell, our government would censor your thoughts if it could..
Photographers are forced on the defensive. They have to justify what they do as art, rather than porn. Much of our blog is arguing this very thing, and about how we cope with the reactions and prejudices of friends and family.
So the argument goes that if the photographer defines what he does as “porn” or “fine art porn” up front, then this gives him more leeway to be free to shoot whatever he wants, free of criticism. So this takes away the need to be defensive, and takes away the power of the viewer to criticise his work as “pervy” or “porn. Viewers of this nature are making an exact moral judgement on the personality of the photographer (as if it is any of their business anyway)
“If I say “I shoot pornography”, then so what ?”
Hey, I get this. I understand why photographers say this. Like us, they are sick of having to defend their work, and cope with other folks’ hang-ups. But how does this translate to the real world ?
Picture Richard and myself at our son’s parents evening at his posh private school. The headmaster saunters up for a chat “So what do you do Mr Bang?”
“I’m a photographer”
“Gosh, how interesting. What type of photography do you do ?”
“Oh, mainly porn. How else do you think we can afford your extortionate school fees ?”
Hmm. Anyway, all I can say is that if what we do is classified by the general public as porn rather than art, then we are clearly doing something wrong, because it sure doesn’t pay very well (No alas we don’t fund the school fees from the photography proceeds. The day job pays for that)
Personally I’d rather stick with the “fine art nude” label, thanks, or maybe at a push “erotic art”. Sounds better when you tell people what you do, and it doesn’t put off every potential model from shooting with you. But it is the reaction of the viewer that defines the label. The images reflect more about the personality of the viewer than the photographer.
So, art or porn ?
Whatever you want it to be!
posted by Lin at 3:36 PM
1 Comments:
The best definition of "porn" I've come across was along the lines of "material designed to appeal exclusively to one human drive"...generally sex, but this definition also covers other things that we winking-and-nudgingly refer to "[fill-in-the-blank] porn," intuiting what we mean: car mags as "auto porn," food mags as "food porn," etc.; basically, anything which hyper-stimulates one specific urge while ignoring the rest of the human condition.
Good porn makes me physically aroused, while art photography (including yours) does not. It may even be "erotic," in the sense that the biggest sex organ is the brain, but it's not the inclusion of nipples or genitalia that makes an image "pornographic," but rather that its intention is to help the viewer get off by focusing exclusively on stimulating that circuit. A good art photo (even an "erotic" one) gets the viewer aesthetically and, at its best, emotionally aroused; the engorgement is in the aesthetic and emotional parts of the mind, not...elsewhere. It doesn't lead to climax followed by torpor (and the diminishment of the viewer that excessive obsession with one or another sort of "porn" tends to lead to), but enlarges the viewer a little bit more by making them experience something outside their previous experience.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home