H
Helo
Guest
Is there anything wrong with artwork that features nudity or a nude person? Is it still art?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
- Status
P
Praying4Peace
Guest
My husband and I have actually discussed what makes art "art" and what make pornography "porn". I think it depends on what the artwork depicts and the intention of the artist. I think most of us can agree what is art and what is porn. It might be hard to come up with a dividing line, but most can decifer between the two.
Upvote
0
H
Helo
Guest
But what about the work of say Luis Royo. I LOVE his work, some might consider it a little raunchy. But he does an absolutely beautiful job of rendering the human body in its raw form.
Upvote
0
Abbadon
Self Bias Resistor - goin' commando in a cassock!
- Jan 26, 2005
- 6,022
- 335
- 39
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Abbadon said:
Actually, that would mean more women are artists then men, I guess, and historically that hasn't been the case, so I guess I could be wrong.
No, if it's intended to turn you on, and get you off, it's probably porn.
I guess it's intentions of the artist?
Upvote
0
charityagape
Blue Chicken Gives You Horns
- May 6, 2005
- 7,146
- 516
- 52
- Faith
- Word of Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Your right, it is the intention of the "artist".
art** the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects
pornography** the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
art** the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects
pornography** the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
Upvote
0
H
Helo
Guest
Well I think most models tend to be women because the female body (For the most part) are easier on the eyes. Thier bodies are smoother, gentile curves and the like. Men are hard muscle and body hair.
Upvote
0
loriersea
Well-Known Member
- Oct 11, 2005
- 2,216
- 231
- 48
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Praying4Peace said:
I agree with that. I think intention is a huge factor. If the intention of a picture is to sexually stimulate people, then it's not art, it's porn. If the intention is to emotionally or intellectually stimulate them, then it's art. I do think that most of us can tell the difference pretty easily.
Upvote
0
H
Helo
Guest
Oh? So works by the Great Masters should be classified as porn if they depict nudity?AtheistPerson said:
Upvote
0
Eudaimonist
I believe in life before death!
- Jan 1, 2003
- 27,482
- 2,738
- 59
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Helo said:
Sometimes yes, very much so. The nude human body is well-suited to expressing some very deep and profound messages about life.
Sometimes no, it's just shallow eroticism. (Caveat: I think that it is possible, though rare, for eroticism to rise to the level of art.) But I don't think that even shallow eroticism is intrinsically wrong -- what is right or wrong is the viewer's response to this erotic nudity. If it is taken in a mature way, it may be harmless.
But none of this is completely dependent on whether or not there is nudity. It depends on what that nudity is used to express.
Upvote
0
Tangnefedd
A Liberal Christian
If you believe that God created us, the old fellow didn't create us fully dressed, did he?
If you think a thing is art, it is art!
If you think a thing is art, it is art!
Upvote
0
M
MortonGneiss
Guest
Well, my favorite artisit is H.R. Giger if that's any indication of my opinion. Art can be erotic, and still be art.
Upvote
0
Abbadon
Self Bias Resistor - goin' commando in a cassock!
- Jan 26, 2005
- 6,022
- 335
- 39
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
MortonGneiss said:
That almost didn't look right. The words "H.R. Giger" and "erotic" in the same writting without a "not" inbetween almost doesn't make sense.
Upvote
0
H
Helo
Guest
Geiger's work is very similar to Luis Royo's, some of it is erotic in nature, some of it not.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
