T O P I C R E V I E W
Member # 97685
posted 10-10-2012 10:44 PM
hey there, i was wondering if anyone is familiar with the photographer David Hamilton and his work? what do you think of it? it shows naked or barely dressed girls..some of my friends have been looking at the photos ( and theres even movies like that) and i was wondering if it would be considered porn or not..and if its ok to look at it. i mean theres sex and naked girls...but its not the usual stuff u think of when u think of porn...its more artistic and antique looking, i guess? so would it be considered porn still or is it art? thanks! sorry if its a stupid question or this is the wrong place to ask it lol
Member # 3
posted 10-11-2012 10:17 AM
It really depends on how you define pornography, and if you think the person who defines what porn is or not is the person who is making it, or anyone who is watching/looking at it. Really, it's a similar question about what is and isn't art.
I don't know that photographer, and this is personal opinion, but I think when we're talking about porn, our best bet is probably to let whoever makes whatever material we're talking about do the defining. And if they have created material which they intended to evoke sexual arousal or excitement, then they'll probably say they intended to make pornography (or erotica, if they choose that word instead), since, in the most basic way, that's what porn is. From a viewer/observer end, really, ANYTHING can be porn. In other words, a person can be looking at anything from a Hollywood movie, an apple, a photo of their Aunt Mabel, a piece of classical art, or a mainstream porn movie and feel aroused or excited, or be looking at those things to evoke those feelings. So, if we leave it to the viewer/observer to define, and we asked everyone what did that for them, everyone in the world, chances are there's be nothing at least someone didn't say was porn. Even when you say something looks more artistic (than what?) and antique, twenty bucks says you'd say that all pornography -- that the people who made it intended to be pornography -- from 100 years ago or more didn't "look like porn" by that token, you know?
Member # 93241
posted 10-17-2012 10:12 AM
I'm honestly wondering why it can't be porn AND art. Some of the literary porn I've read is novel-quality writing, and some of the pornographic webcomics I've read have looked absolutely stunning. So yeah, I don't get why it has to be one or the other.
Member # 97759
posted 11-25-2012 12:27 AM
hey Derpy Hooves, do u mind sharing the webcomics (the ones u say have looked absolutely stunning)? very curious to see them now
Member # 93241
posted 11-27-2012 05:07 PM
Haha, don't know if it's appropriate for me to tell you that on a public forum. Generally, though, I'd look up the works of Jess Fink. You'll probably be able to find links to other webcomics on her site, too.