Art or Porn You decide.

[Leto729]

Is this painting Art or Porn?



So mcjagger and all You decide if it is Art or Porn. This needs to be discussed I believe. Look at this painting carefully and thoughtfully to before You decide. Now I know I did post a picture that could have been Porn I have replaced it with a new painting in its place. But mcjagger deleted this painting because He saw it as porn. For whatever reason but his own. I say it not Porn but is Art instead. This painting is a classical pose nude. The model does not show much as in most painting with a classical pose like this. You do not see between her legs or her doing any elude sex act at all. That is My case and defense as this painting in a classical pose is Art.

[duncvis]

It is art, in a way that photographs are not. there is no genitalia on display, no penetration, and importantly is an artists impression. This, the TOS would not cover. Do you see my point? To reiterate: nudie pics = breach TOS, art (unless it is seriously explicit) = does not breach TOS. This is the reason for the no nudie pics rule kevv. Because it is more important to keep us out of trouble over something as frivolous as the right to post porn than to be able to indulge ourselves here with nudie pics, when there are thousands of other places we can go to do that.

As regards porn = right or wrong, there is a discussion about that already. I don't have a personal problem with porn, I enjoy a little one-handed surfing myself, but we need to be responsible in terms of not getting our hosting account terminated over it. drop the subject kevv.

[Postperson]

I think it's classed as cheesecake isn't it?

[Nomaken]

Well, i see all things as art, but the porn that we should be worried about putting up is the kind where there is a lot of juice, and people look like theyre having a good time.

[Beowulf]

She looks like Rita Hayworth.
I know Marilyn Monroe did nude modelling, but maybe this picture is a "fake nude celeb" from the days before photoshop editing.
Or maybe the picture isn't based on Rita Hayworth at all.
Sure looks like her though ...

[El]

It is art, in a way that photographs are not. there is no genitalia on display, no penetration, and importantly is an artists impression. This, the TOS would not cover. Do you see my point? To reiterate: nudie pics = breach TOS, art (unless it is seriously explicit) = does not breach TOS. This is the reason for the no nudie pics rule kevv. Because it is more important to keep us out of trouble over something as frivolous as the right to post porn than to be able to indulge ourselves here with nudie pics, when there are thousands of other places we can go to do that.

As regards porn = right or wrong, there is a discussion about that already. I don't have a personal problem with porn, I enjoy a little one-handed surfing myself, but we need to be responsible in terms of not getting our hosting account terminated over it. drop the subject kevv.

You draw a line and people will cross it.? Even on intensity where there are so few lines.? You should have said no phtoos at all so people would just rebell by posting innocuous pictures.

[shima]

It is a mixture of both art and porn.

But the rule here is "no nudity."  So it does violate that rule.

Kevv729 defends the female body!  I love it .

[Pyraxis]

Oh please, if I see any more of this debate I'm going to be sick. If the sole purpose of forbidding porn is to not get in trouble with the hosting company, then it makes absolutely no difference what people's definition of porn is. The only definition that matters is the one that would be made by a couple of bored executives sitting in an office somewhere, and their lawyer.

To save people time, here are the first viewpoints you hear when this debate gets started between art school hippies with no lives:

- Everything is art.
- It's art if the creator intended it to be art.
- It's art if the viewer treats it as art.
- It's art if there was skill involved in creating it.
- It's art if I think it's pretty.
- It's art if it challenges social conventions.

If you really want to argue about what art is, go to a postmodern gallery opening, and count how many seconds it takes you to get tired of the bullshit. Because that's what it all is.

[El]

Pyraxis, thank you, a thousand times for your contempt of this topic.  While I do think there may be some validity to debating what makes porn porn, if the web host's definition of it is depicting nudity, that's what we're stuck with and everything else is moot as far as bitching about the mods incorrectly defining porn.

[Leto729]

It is art, in a way that photographs are not. there is no genitalia on display, no penetration, and importantly is an artists impression. This, the TOS would not cover. Do you see my point? To reiterate: nudie pics = breach TOS, art (unless it is seriously explicit) = does not breach TOS. This is the reason for the no nudie pics rule kevv. Because it is more important to keep us out of trouble over something as frivolous as the right to post porn than to be able to indulge ourselves here with nudie pics, when there are thousands of other places we can go to do that.

As regards porn = right or wrong, there is a discussion about that already. I don't have a personal problem with porn, I enjoy a little one-handed surfing myself, but we need to be responsible in terms of not getting our hosting account terminated over it. drop the subject kevv.

What if it is offence no nudity at all just blood and gore then what do We do then? Someone here or there might post something on such a subject here. These might need to be spelled out in the end. You see it not just about nudity or graphic whatever. It about standing up and willing to stand-up for it in the end. Something We all need to think about I beleive here.

[Beowulf]

Is it art or is it porn?
Let's have a mass debate.

(Aheh! You see what I did there?)

[duncvis]

Agreed, kevv. Lets just say that images of extreme gore and violence may also be likely to cause us legal issues, and not post them either. A possible amendment to the statement I think.

As for being willing to stand up for it, please see Pyraxis's reply. Freedom of speech, yes. Freedom to post offensive, explicit or pornographic images, we don't have unfortunately. Reality bites, I know. 

[El]

Oh FFS this has spilled over onto the Neurolands now.

[Merry Widow]

besides, kevv, you know that if it was down to mcjagger, duncvis, eamonn and myself that there would be images of vaginas and cocks all over the place. ? unfortunately, jman's face is the closest we're allowed to get to displaying pictures of twats.

[purposefulinsanity]

What if it is offence no nudity at all just blood and gore then what do We do then? Someone here or there might post something on such a subject here. These might need to be spelled out in the end. You see it not just about nudity or graphic whatever. It about standing up and willing to stand-up for it in the end. Something We all need to think about I beleive here.

  I'm all for taking a stand but I'm also about picking the right arena for the purpose and considering the bigger picture.   Is it worth jeopardising the whole goal of the site over an issue we (both admin and members) have no control over??  Perhaps it would be better to discuss why so many hosting companies prohibit any naked pictures rather than attacking the site admins who have no choice about sticking to the TOS??