Anonymous asked: If the intent is art, it is art, regardless of what others have to say about it. North American culture uses insinuations of sex while vilifying naked bodies or actual sex, so North Americans are going to tend to find the nude body pornographic.
If an artist from North America creates a work of art using a nude, under the pretense of said society, it could be a backlash against that thinking. Is that not what art is about?
softcorejukebox asked: It's all the in eye of the beholder and context-and of course then there's the whole 'pornography' vs 'erotica' debate. As a queer fellow I find nudes of women more artistic or aesthetically pleasing, but that might be some reverse sexism going on 'n very un-feminist of me. And maybe this is stating the obvious, but I think the focus/presentation of genitals in a photo of a nude figure is pretty defining (aka, if it's a male nude & there's a hard on-then it's a very thin line)...
stefanoblack asked: http://art-or-porn.tumblr.com
roarlivia asked: I believe that the art genre the "nude" was invented as a front for elite collectors of traditional oil paintings to somehow classify their porn stash as high brow. Play Boy in the 60s-70s was very similar, it was referred to as a "Gentleman's" magazine after all. In a way we all fell into the precedent set by the "nude", but in present times I think we're burring the lines of sexual satisfaction and art. I guess it comes down to shame, in the times of the traditional oil painting they hid it, now we're trying to get rid of it altogether.
xoxolivia
