Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

where does art end and porno begin? is there any line at all? i've been doing some on-line "research" lately, and it seems that some of the photos presented as "fine art" photographic studies of the human form are more erotic and sometimes even more exploitative than the stuff presented as objects of sexual desire, explicitly (soft core) pornographic. then of course there is that middle zone where it is erotic celebration of human form without trying to be artsy but remaining "tasteful, " but in actuality probably as exploitative.

(adults only) compare, e.g.,

http://www.fineartnude.com/ (allegedly art)

http://www.domai.com/photos.html (alegedly tasteful)

http://www.playboy.com (soft-core porn)

as far as i can see, the difference between art and porn is that in "artistic" nude photos, the models rarely smile and the pics are usually black-and-white and the body is either twisted into some strange shape or only the torso is shown, etc.

as for me
I like to see pusses spread open and lots of cum,
if done right, its great art!
theres one on getunderground,com called 'cum on her face'.....
great stuff!
simple and beautiful,
I also really like the stuff, videos and all with the guy in the wheel chair, (trippy) its thru one of the links... but the the site is down at the momet. However I'm really into a wide verity of views.
Like rumi says, my house has many windows.
but that’s just me
to each their own,
I think there should be as many different kinds of
people in the world as there are stars in the sky.

The difference between porn and art is simple.The sole purpose of porn is for sexual arousal. Nothing wrong with sexual arousal. If a person gets sexually aroused from artwork, fine, but that's not its sole purpose.

The purpose of nudes as art is to admire the artwork that the human body is through the eyes of another.

The images below are by some Studio Eight artists.

Nudes by Kurt Rostek aka Artguy

http://studioeight.tv/artists/kurtrostek/artkurt.html







Nude by Pam Coulter Blehert

http://studioeight.tv/artists/pambleher ... ehert.html



Portrait by Caroline Danforth - this is sexy!

http://studioeight.tv/artists/carolined ... oline.html



Nudes by Norman Mallory

http://www.studioeight.tv/artists/norma ... llory.html

Though Ms. Peri's perspective is understandable, I do not think it is completely correct. Many great artists have taken a somewhat pornographic approach to art. (Who said substantiate that?)

(R rated)

http://www.counterorder.com/delvaux.jpg

http://www.bonzailtd.com/OArt/S.ClayW/images/p001.jpg

http://www.edizioniartcore.com/immagini/moebius.jpg



(G. Crepax)

sick fuck!
I was just looking for that same delvaux pic
on line and couldn't find...

peresozo-

I don't find any of the links or the image you posted pornographic, whatsoever.

Not in the least.

There is eroticism in the artwork but it is not pornographic.

Why?

Because of exactly what I stated before. This artwork is not intended solely for the purpose of causing sexual arousal, which is what pornography is, by definition.

I have a large coffee table volume called "Erotic Art of the Masters". It's a great book! If I can find a link to it, I will. Sure, artists throughout the ages have created erotica through their artwork, but it isn't pornography. Although the images *may* arouse the viewer sexually, that is not their sole purpose.

Cool, but the Crepax drawing is a very tame one (from a book of his drawings based on De Sade) and there is much more hardcore porn drawn by Crepax, but nonetheless Paysan Guido had a beautiful line even when drawing sex, S n M, violence etc . Crepax's "art" reminds me of what R.Crumb once said : "if you can't be a cartoonist, you can always be an artist."

how about this one.....

http://www.arterotismo.com/Balthus/10


and this one is tame compared to some of his other stuff.

painted by ME!

no not really, yes its Balthus

I love R. Crumb! Great quote!

By the way, the "Erotic Art of the Masters" book I own is a treasure of mine. I recommend it highly to anyone interested in erotic art.

But, even though there are some images of S&M and extremely descriptive images of many sexual acts... close-ups of a penis being pinched and squeezed... close-ups of intercourse... women's legs spread wide .... it's all art, it's not porn at all.

Again... why? Because its sole purpose is not for arousal.

Henri Miller wrote the preface and it's STILL not porn! LOL!

The difference between these images and images in porn magazines or porn websites is obvious to me. It's simple. Pornography's purpose is arousal. Period. It's not art.

But that doesn't mean art can't depict the sexual act.

I'm repeating myself.

Geesh... Sorry.

A bit ham-fisted technique, not bad I guess.

bluefire-

The link you posted is DEFINITELY art. Not porn. Nowhere near porn. What a great painting!

Who did that? Balthus? (just guessing from the URL)

peresozo...

another excellent image!

Thanks, but please... all of you... could you PLEASE give credit to the artist?

It's really important.

Not only do people who are viewing want to know the artist's name, but also, the artist deserves credit!

Some sites won't allow these types of posts for fear of copyright infringement issues. I'm not worried about that at all but we DO need to credit the author, or something like that MAY become an issue and I'm not interested in dealing with such issues.

I think posting images to a message board is fine as long as you credit the author and this falls within Fair Use for copyright.

But you really have to credit the artist, ok? Please?

Thank you.

I was editing (and including name) but you posted sooo quickly, Mizz Peri. The last one I posted was
by Klimt. Not my fave but not such a bad artist--a bit too stylized.

Thanks, Mizzter Pere.

BUFFY the vampire slayer


by perezoso