Is this porn or art?
Or is this nude depiction smut too?
And what about this painting? Are they all pure filth?
This is a nice comparison of the nude in painting and photography that I owe to Forgetful Muse: http://forgetfulmuse.tumblr.com/post/41725838152. As a fellow blogger, and we have a long standing acquaintance in this realm, she is one of my allies in the struggle to make eroticism more acceptable within the world of spirituality, religion and in particular, Catholicism. Although this nude photo might get you fired from your work , or denounced by Bible thumping fanatics, or condemned by the more extreme and fundamentalist elements of the American Taliban, i.e., The Republican Party, these impressionist paintings would probably earn you millions if sold at an art auction (I am not sure who the artists are, so any information would be most helpful!). In short, all three are wonderful and beautiful depictions of the female nude.
So what is it? Are all naked photos of women porn? And if so, then why don’t we simply eliminate from the face of the earth every single nude depiction of a human being ever to be produced. Does not purity demand it?
Yes, much if not most of porn is trash and downright ugly and totally irredeemable. But that is not to say that all erotic imagery is ugly or worthless, including explicit imagery. Rather, much of good erotic imagery is art, and should be considered so. The contrast between these impressionist paintings and the nude photograph is a bit of proof of that. And I believe that all good art, including erotic art, is something that God gave us as a great gift of expression in our fallen world.
The Chase 
CL said:
the American Taliban, i.e., The Republican Party
This always makes me chuckle.
I am pretty sure those are Renoir. Don’t know why I didn’t credit them as such.
Southern Man said:
This Christian fundamentalist Republican (well, Tea Partier) says “art, and post more of it!”
Southern Man said:
Also, getting caught viewing these at work would indeed get me fired, as universities are strongholds of uber-liberal political correctness.
Racer X said:
CL,
Haha…glad you like that. And thanks for the Renoir reference!
Southern Man,
Yes, your true libertarian streaks often come out! We have a common interest and cause there. Just don’t get caught at work looking at my art, I know well how Orwellian universities can be. Freedom, my friend, freedom!
Jacob Ian Stalk said:
They’re both porn and art. What makes them artistic is the transmittance of perspective. What makes them pornographic is the ironic arousal that follows.
Racer X said:
Jacob,
Thanks for the comment. I am not sure I quite agree with you. First, I am unsure what you mean by “transmittance of perspective” as being a quality for good art. Second, I am also unsure of what you mean by “ironic arousal”. If by arousal you mean sexual arousal, that is not necessary the case when viewing a nude. I may find it aesthetically pleasing, and delight in the pleasure of what I am seeing, but that does not mean that I walk away from such images with a raging hard on, which is what “arousal” would do to a man. If by arousal you mean in experiencing pleasure in the image, such as I would in any other image or piece of writing or music or even a natural setting, then yes, arousal does occur. If you mean serious sexual arousal, then no, they are not arousing in that sense.
At least that is true for me. Others may react differently to these. But if in this day of ubiquitous internet porn anyone finds a nude painting by Renoir sexually arousing, I suggest that person needs to get out more.
CL said:
But if in this day of ubiquitous internet porn anyone finds a nude painting by Renoir sexually arousing, I suggest that person needs to get out more.
LOL Not only that, but advertising, pictures plastered on the outside of shops like Victoria’s Secret, and so forth. The intent matters. Although the VS model is not naked, she has a look that is designed to incite lust, whereas the photograph in this post is just a simple naked woman. I would say the latter, although naked, is more modest than the former, although all the ‘naughty bits’ are covered.
Jacob Ian Stalk said:
@David DM
By “transmittance of perspective”, I mean that the viewer is aware that the image they are viewing is not unique to their own existence. Note I am not saying that what the viewer ‘sees’ is independent of their own experience (which would be impossible) or that another viewer might ‘see’ the image through their own unique perspective, or that they are good or bad art. I’m just saying that the images are ‘art’ because they represent and transmit another’s perspective, which to me defines the term.
By “ironic arousal”, I mean sexual arousal without copulation. Anything that can be used to induce sexual arousal in this way is pornographic by definition. However, since even milk and cookies can be pornographic if used in a certain way, it comes down to context.
Another point that needs to be made is that it doesn’t depend on only your perspective. Since you’ve posted these images where others can see them, it also depends on how others are affected by them. If the images induce ironic arousal in even one of your readers, they are pornographic whether or not you yourself believe them to be so.
Butterfly Flower said:
LOL Not only that, but advertising, pictures plastered on the outside of shops like Victoria’s Secret, and so forth. The intent matters. Although the VS model is not naked, she has a look that is designed to incite lust, whereas the photograph in this post is just a simple naked woman. I would say the latter, although naked, is more modest than the former, although all the ‘naughty bits’ are covered.
I find the Victoria’s Secret models tend to be rather masculine looking; with a few exceptions [Orlando Bloom’s wife, Miranda Kerr].
I get a kick out of their advertisements for gym wear. They show models with sequin-detailed lace lingerie sticking out of their tank-tops. That looks painfully impracticable. Imagine the rash they’d get from running on the treadmill!
CL said:
@BF
They look masculine because there is no softness, in the attitude portrayed particularly.
Racer X said:
Jacob,
Thanks for sharing your perspective, which is clearly very well thought out. I still don’t quite agree with your views on what is and what is not “pornographic” and the idea of “ironic arousal”. Rather, anyone who becomes sexually aroused by a nude painting by Renoir and thereby thinks it pornographic should probably seek some psychological help.