When does the drawing, painting, photo of a nude woman go from being art to smut?
There are times I see photos, drawing, or paintings of naked women but I am not offended but others are highly offended, even of those that the worse you can see is a nipple or two. No pubic hair, no naughty bits, no tools or toys stuck in any orifice, and no pink showing. For you when does the image of a naked lady go from art to awful, or classy to trashy? A naked woman depicted __________ would be offensive to you?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
13 Answers
When the eyes of the beholder ogles said painting/picture.
Or, your smut is my art, and vice versa.
When an uptight prude observes it. They usually wear control top panty hose or Sans a Belt pants or both!
To quote a famous S.C. Justice, “I know it when I see it.”
Legally speaking, “For something to be “obscene” it must be shown that the average person, applying contemporary community standards and viewing the material as a whole, would find (1) that the work appeals predominantly to “prurient” interest; (2) that it depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and (3) that it lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”
there is no such thing, there are only prudes that think it is shameful to rejoice in seeing Gods creation.
When the model is licking her/his lips suggestively and cupping herself/himself, instead of posing demurely.
When the subject is being demeaned in some way, although there could be art that depicts sadism.
@BarnacleBill I can think of a lot of non-sexual thngs that would qualify for that.
@Poser Legally speaking, “For something to be “obscene” it must be shown that the average person, applying contemporary community standards and viewing the material as a whole, would find (1) that the work appeals predominantly to “prurient” interest; (2) that it depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and (3) that it lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.” Only if there is sexual overtures can it be obscene? If I cobbled together footage from the news, private persons, etc, about people getting murdered, or killed or corpses of those killed in war, violent crime, etc I can call it an documentary even though there would be no point to showing all the death and it not be obscene?
I’m certain artist nudes were just culturally approved porn back in the day.
Don’t tell me the dude that commissioned this didn’t jerk off to it.
@Hypocrisy_Central: I didn’t say that. The definition I quoted came from a SC case specifially dealing with that type of “obscenity,” as this question was also. Certainly graphic, unneccesary violence is (or can be) obscene.
Well, doesn’t it depend on what the picture communicates? I know people have different opinions, but if a picture communicates something that isn’t super obvious (if the model perhaps looked scared), then some probably would call it art.
– In short I think that something is art if it talks to your feelings and not your instincts…
Or maybe not “only” your instincts. ^
@KathytheDane Well, doesn’t it depend on what the picture communicates? If the painting was this or that it would be more able to be seen as smut than this one here? The last one to many can be seen as more sexy or erogenous because it makes you think more, you don’t see everything, there is no pubis showing and the breast are veiled. Even a painting as the woman reclining on the beach might portray an idea to some that was not the intent. If a woman was photographed or painted fully clothes but the intent or the pose suggested sex, even if it passes the penal code definition of smut, can it still be smut?
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
