What's the line?
I love, love, love this shot but a couple people i've shown it to have proclaimed it to be porn. I think it's erotic art.
There's a difference right?
Copyright 2007 Jay Foley - Creativist Photography
What's the line?
I love, love, love this shot but a couple people i've shown it to have proclaimed it to be porn. I think it's erotic art.
There's a difference right?
Copyright 2007 Jay Foley - Creativist Photography
I think the difference between porn and art is one of the viewer's perception.
If someone is turned on by it and considers it porn, then to him it's porn. If you appreciate its artistic elements, then it's art to you. Either way it's a nice shot.
I think a lot of people differentiate erotic art and porn by the presence of vagina/ass, consciously or not. Think playboy, which is "classy", and usually has no "split beaver" shots. Think Hustler, which is "dirty" and has lots of graphic pussy shots, penetration, etc. I think that might be where these people are coming from in calling your picture pornographic.
I don't personally agree with this viewpoint, but it seems to be common.





I always thought that porn was penetration/oral/etc.... not just A Picture Of Cooter.
Number of times Rickrolled on stage: 6
*******************************
Marasmus ... "Ladies don't fart. They butt-laugh."
Marasmus says, "Oh no, that wasn't gas, it was merely a rectal chuckle."
Marek says, "A friend of mine got punched in the face by a dominatrix stripper about two weeks ago and I thought of you."
I think it's viewer's perception.
There was a beautiful picture I fund posted in here somewhere, a black and white, the woman was sitting on the mans shoulders, they both were nude. Standing against a wall. Her head was thrown back, and it almost appeared that she was recieving oral sex.
But the picture to me was in no way porn, I thought it was a beautiful picture, and actually had it as a screen saver for a long time.
My comp crashed, and I lost the pic....I'll hunt for it in PP and see if I can come up with it...but to me, it was art...a few people saw it as my screensaver and thought it to be porn.
Yes.
![]()
Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.
William F. Buckley, Jr.





i personally think the 'money shot' is generally porn. doesn't mean it's not beautiful but i think to be 'art' it would need to have some more artsy things... like moody lighting so you step back wondering... is it or isn't it.
i'm pretty sure that is!... :wink:
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]





Even the US Supreme Court has declined to define the differene between free speech and obscenity, and they're some pretty smart people. I believe one justice put it as: "I don't know...but I know when I see it!" It really is in the eye of the beholder.
For me, if it's really arousing, then it's porn. If it's more interesting to look at and intellectually stimulating than physically arousing, then it's art.
That shot just plain turned me on, so I'd say it's porn.





Personally, if a picture would end up in a porn mag, it's porn. And this would end up in a mag. Maybe if it ended up in Black/White photography artistic nude... but frankly I feel a close-up of your naughty bits that would make Playboy blush is probably a bit porn. Perhaps if it were in sepia... (I keed)
Look like a woman
Think like a man
Act like a lady
Work like a dog
- My Great Grandmother Bessie's Recipe for Success
I'd call it porn if there was a weiner in the shot...but that's art.
Feature costumes for sale!
Pretty much what she said...what if you took out the background? I think what makes some ppl think maybe it's artistic erotica instead is maybe the leaves, the outdoors, the hiking boots (lol) but yea bottom line it's a money shot, wouldn't look out of place in a mag.
Trust me I'm all about the erotic art and love it when it's good...just my opinion.
I don't know really but it looks like porn, I'm sorry![]()
Forgot to say it's quiet beautiful.
there's a website called hippiegoddess.com which is nothing but pictures of au naturel nekkid chicks in the wilderness... It's hard to classify it strictly black and white. I say it's hybrid porn-art![]()
Lestat can throw something at me for being too clinical, but ....
A glamour/softcore/porn shot of this would be the woman looking back over her shoulder at the camera, to look fetching, or fondling herself, or whatever.
In this case, the focus, really, is on the bilateral symmetry of the picture. The erotic part of the exposed labia are used to accentuate that effect, rather than draw gratuitous attention to the genitals.
So, to me, it's art. My fundamentalist in-laws would not agree.





Porn or not it's HOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."
The background DOES count though...like Jay said, it's about symmetry and such, and the background adds to it. What if you took it out of that background and put it in some weird Dali-esque scene? Art. Put it in a bedroom scene with a guy standing there with a hard on? Porn. As is? Art. IMO!
Feature costumes for sale!





imho the difference between porn and art is the intent of creation.
Hypothetically, if you took this picture to send to your man for possible masturbatory purposes, then it's porn.
But if you took this picture just for the sake of art, or to memorialize your beauty, or just for the fuck of it then it's art.
I believe that the court ruling is that it is not porn if it has "redeeming social value." This is a great pic--the contrast between the smooth skin and the rough boards is enough to give it redeeming social value.
Most porn puts me to sleep, but this pic I find to be interesting, so I declare it to be art.
Now, all you great porn stars, I said MOST porn, so don't get all over me.
^^^ No, that's obscenity. Porn and obscenity are not the same thing.





who cares is the correct answer![]()
True...Porn isnt really a legal term..it is referred to as obscene or indecent and current standards by law are:
"the Court has clarified and explained aspects of the Miller standard:
Jurors are to apply the standards of the area "from which he comes for making the required " decision as the "community standards" for obscenity; [5]
"[A]ppeals to the prurient interest" means that which appeals to "shameful or morbid interests" in sex, but not that which incites normal lust and includes materials designed for and primarily disseminated to a deviant sexual group (for example, sadists) which appeals to the prurient interests of that group;
"[A]verage person " includes both sensitive and insensitive adult persons, but does not include children
Serious artistic, political, or scientific value, using a national standard, is required for a finding that something is not obscene and a finding of some artistic, political or scientific value does not preclude a finding that a work is obscene."
So basically..it is in the eye of the viewer. Some will see this as art, some will thnk it obscene.
Either way..it is a beautiful shot and IMO it is art. It does not incite lust in me...it fills me with awe at its beauty.
To me it's art. Yes you're nude and shit but with the wooden bridge and the woods...
ok it's VERY erotic art, as are ALL the pics Ive seen of ya





All I can think is that your vagina really wants to go hiking, and has the boots to do so. I say we coin a new term : PRART.
waffles are just pancakes with little squares on them.
Bookmarks