Nudity in art: What is acceptable and what is pornographic?

Honestly, I’m not sure where the line should be.

There’s a popular hotel in my city that displays modern art throughout the lobby, and there was a 10 foot photograph that featured 5 men, with full frontal nudity, in almost high definition quality. It was funny to see parents freak out and shield their children’s eyes from seeing it. But surprisingly, it didn’t cause much controversy.

The picture itself wasn’t that artistic though, looked like something anyone could do with a smart phone.

However, another photo in the hotel featured an erection, and that got taken down after complaints.

@rockfan – It’s interesting how people react.
I wonder what they hang over the bed? XD

IMO anything portraying a sex act could be deemed pornographic, but just showing off the human body in an elegant way would be deemed art.

Also, there was a lot of controversy around the drama film “Blue is the Warmest Color”. It garnered massive critical acclaim, and even played in local theaters, but by definition, it fits the criteria for pornography, in my opinion:

Warning, very explicit
https://videocelebs.net/lea-seydoux-nude-adele-exarchopoulos-nude-blue-is-the-warmest-color-2013.html

@rockfan -I confess to having spent more time trying to pronounce Exarchopoulos. XD

Boobs & Bush…acceptable.
Flaps & hard on…porno.

I read somewhere that mainstream telly shows & movies have a “penis degree angle” policy.
If it passes a certain point then that shlong is an erection & absolutely not allowed…lol

@ucme -Do they use a protractor?

@lucillelucillelucille No, this

@ucme -OH!

My mother was an artist and she did a small oil painting of a nude. True to life, it showed flab and fat and the realities of the less than perfect human body. Only problem was, apparently it looked like me in the face (but I didn’t have an ounce of fat on me,) and I had several friends ask if I had posed for it. That completely grossed me out and humiliated me. I complained to Mom, but she didn’t care.

I would say that any piece of “art” that focuses on the erogenous zones of the human body, rather than the body as a whole, would be considered pornographic.

I draw no lines at what is acceptable and what is not.

@Darth_Algar :D

I don’t really think there needs to be a line, pornography can be art in its own right.

I guess erect penis vs flaccid, actual sexual acts, nude art that’s clearly intended to be seductive or sexual. I don’t think I’d say it’s not art, though.

A weird one also is the size of the genitals. I’ve recently been working on a series of male nudes from photo reference. The guys who sent images with more modest endowments feel more like “art” to me than the guys who sent images where there is a lot more there to draw. Even though all of the pics are tasteful, for me it seems more sexual when there’s a major visual focus on the genitals even without other reasons to call it pornography.

@ANef_is_Enuf I wonder if you’ll get requests for any modifications

So far I can’t bring myself to share any of them, it’s been an interesting experience, lol. Humbling.

@ANef_is_Enuf -I wouldn’t share them.
It has been awhile since I’ve done a nude.

There’s nothing wrong with pornography. It has its place. As Neffie stated, some of it is art.

@Hawaii_Jake You are totally right as long as it’s legal, has no under age participants and it’s done safely.

^correct

I think pornography could be art. And modest nudity could be gratuitous. I find the distinction in whether or not the choice to include nudity adds anything to the piece.