Is it all a matter of taste? Many fashion photographs are just about a model with no clothes on, completely nude, but that's clearly not pornography. But if the nude model in the photo do something really sexually suggestive, then the line to me is very blurred, Playboy magazine for many years toyed with this line.
I've written a reply....i can't see it now, so i'm going to re write it...
anyway...
I was reading this book of essays from Jerrold Levinson titled "Contemplating Art : Essays in Aesthetics" and there was an essay on Erotic Art and Pornography. I was researching into the work of R. Mapplethorpe, so it seemed appropriate.
Anyway...he poses the thesis that pornography and (erotic) art, cannot be identified as the same thing in any case because their intentions are contradictory. He contemplates that pornography aims at the sexual gratification of the viewer and usually negates, or even discourages the artistic interest of the viewer, whereas erotic art demands the viewers artistic interest, in relation to the form, expression and context of the picture.
He continues by saying that just as a painting can be photographic (style-wise) - and yet not a photograph, the same can be applied to erotic art. It can be pornographic, and sometimes even more explicit than pornography (e.g Mapplethorpe) but still be considered art, since it engages the viewer into considering the picture in relation to broader issues.
What i've found to be helpful in his essay is also the distinction he makes between Erotica, Erotic Art and Pornography. Erotica refers to the imagery which in context is similar to pornography (doesn't demand artistic attention - but isn't necessarily sexually explicit) . He gives as an example the "Victoria's Secret" imagery.
Anyway, it seems as if i'm summarizing the essay now... !
it's a good book...helped me for my dissertation :)
The boundaries do seem to be very grey indeed..I suppose it also heavily depends on the context of a piece. Something that is considered purely pornographic could easily be turned into an 'art' piece in the right circumstances, such as a gallery.
Tangentially, how would a porn magazine specifically for an artist/designer look? Would it need to be aesthetically pleasing and well designed so that the asthete reader is not 'put off' or 'distracted' by the horrendous type and/or horrible gimmicky layouts? Or would this now mean it is considered 'art'...
yeah, something pornographic though, is not necessarily pornography. I suppose that, when a piece of work (regardless of how pornographic/erotic it is) acquires a contextual body, it is considered art (GOOD art in my opinion). This doesn't not necessarily mean that the "gallery" space always offers this contextual site...as you've said, you could apply it to a magazine or something...
Nevertheless, in my opinion, pornography isn't defined by bad lighting, gimmicky layouts etc etc...Maybe it all comes down to the intention of an idea...or the application of an idea? I dunno...
Dubious subject indeed....like, if i take a porn magazine and study the pictures as a piece of art...does that make it art? Even if the creator did not intent for it to be art? And even if it is art (because i see it as such), how long will that last for? What if i achieve sexual gratification :) at some point later on from the same set of images? Does that make it pornography again....
Anyway...maybe i'm getting a bit burdensome...
here's a quote from the essay again ... maybe it helps a bit :
"...the more erotic a picture is, while not becoming effectively pornographic- that is, such to induce full-blown sexual arousal - the better as art, provided the picture's erotic dimension is interestingly and intimately related to the other dimensions of the picture's content, something that it may take sensitive interpretation to establish"
i went to an opening the other night at camera press of some "errotic"pictures by a photographer called circle,or was it circe?i think it was circe.
it was interesting imagery all the usual voyeuristic and preditory male gaze..but instead coming from a woman..its like in the p.c.world then thats ok..if a man had taken these pictures it would have been written off as naff amateur photography pseudo techno-sex fiend stuff...but a woman took them so thats ok..and shes a posh pony..whos favoured by the errotic review and rogan peling....
good luck to her!
As quoted by Sophia Loren, "A woman's dress should be like a barbed wire fence; serving its purpose without obstructing the view."
Likewise fashion photography leaves room for imagination where sex is concerned, it doesn't provide gratification without the viewer's mind. Like the romantic period's preludes, it ends without a conclusion.
I've had a class discussing this topic. According to the class the difference was something about hot and cold images and the difference between those was made by the haptic values of those images. If I'm not mistaking Marshall McLuhan wrote a whole deal about this. This is his website http://www.marshallmcluhan.com/ You could also check for Haptic on wikipedia.
If someone is really interested in all of this I can go check my books of last year again. Just send me a mail or something.
