How is it different from pornography?
>>7998232For starters there's a regard for composition, it tries to capture the beauty of the female form, choosing the right furniture and other little elements to set up the scene. You're not just seeing a lady covered in baby oil getting sprayed by a bunch of ugly men while she's holding a beer glass to collect their cum.
>>7998232No explicit penetration, no pornography.
>>7998232It probably WAS intended to be porn, to some degree, especially the work made in more sexually repressed times, like back when just seeing a bare naked ankle would send you collapsing and convulsing from waves of ejaculation. However, it was also likely hearkening back to greek and roman traditions of sculpting the figure nude, since basically all of Europe's artistic cultural flashpoint is the Greeks & Romans.There's also likely other ways to interpret the nudity other than just tradition or eroticism, like when you live in a stuffy and repressed society, there's probably something engrossing about seeing someone bare everything to like a nude figure in a painting. Such impact is lost now that people are so open about everything, and we can see a woman not only nude, but getting plowed by dozen of men in a row, in just mere seconds thanks to the internet.>>7998290So a girl just flicking her bean on video, but not explicitly penetrating herself, isn't pornography?Have you not heard of softcore porn before?
>>7998232Why does this matter to you? Why did you make this thread? Call it what you want. Who fucking cares. What's your thought process here?
>>7998232>artist draws a variety of subject matter>artist draws backgroundspornfags could never do these things
>>7998291>So a girl just flicking her beanThe key is the legal ambiguity of a clever use of description. If you describe the "product" as "a female scratching an itching in the crotch area", is that "pornography"? " or "A female massaging a male patient's hurting crotch area".. Now, a guy drilling his erected dick in some bitch's gaping ass, now that's Game Over. Same if she's inserting a dragon dildo inside her ass, the key element is the "penetration" action.
>>7998232Ngl, I could masturbate to this if she showed her pussy.
nuditiy isnt pornography, cumbrain. a naked cat running around isnt bestiality
>>7998232it is a posh softcore porn
>>7998452>a naked cat running around isnt bestialitya cat isn't a woman. a cat is fine too?>>7998456its not even porn. its softcore nudity.
>>7998537but a womb man has a pusi and therefore is spiritually a cat
>>7998232beautiful specimen, would court and claim her bodyim indian funnily enough
>>7998232genitals aren't the focus, relaxed pose focusing on the curves (as opposed to something like a POV), composition hints at a photo session rather than a sex scene, etc
>>7998232Porn is better
>>7998232it's not for goyium
>>7998232It’s about intent The artist is intending to show the beauty of the female form, pornography is well…porn.
>>7998232it is pornography, and it's based because of it. the only reason why this stuff wasn't considered pornography because at the time there were obscenity laws that the christian conservative culture at the time would enforce to put people in jail for drawing titties. these laws are still technically in place, but no one enforces them now that modern society worships homosexuality. artists are free to label their craft what it is now.
For some reason pornography = "sexually explicit AND bad". If the work is "good" in some vague sense then it isn't porn.None of this should matter, since it isn't relevant to why we care if something is or isn't porn. If we staged a photo of a nude pornstar in the same pose, with porno lighting and other such superficial aspects, what would change? Would it be more harmful for children to view? Would it no longer be appropriate for public display? A work having or lacking aesthetic merit has no bearing on the things that make "porn" a category worth carving out.Normies have decided that porn is bad. Therefore, if you say this painting is porn, then you are saying that it is bad, and they think it is good, and they will be very angry.
>>7998232those honkers are absolute perfection
>>7998232the reason why artists draw their models naked is because painting clothes and drapery are pain in the ass
>>7998232There's a gay vase in the foreground so faggots have something to look at
>>7998686The definition of pornography is "eroticism but it's bad."Eros is the love of the human body. Porneia is it's schizoid christian sinful counterpart. The symbol exists purely to imbue eroticism with sin.Because there isn't a point along the spectrum from to to, at which eroticism definitely turns into pornography, the christians found the opportunity to replace eros with porneia as the primary thing for human sexuality. Nobody knows that eroticism exists and is in fact a virtue. Sexuality is dealt with entirely through a sinful model, and that model is purposefully maliciously ambiguous.
>>7998232Earlier generations would have likely called this vulgar and pornographic. Compared to what's out there now this seems tame and artistic. Context and time frame matters.
>>7998232you can explore the beauty of the human body without it necessarily being sexual. if this were a guy no one here would blink twice about it
>>7998875This.
>>7999363It's strange when some anons act like any non-pornographic nudity (either full nudity or partial) is the same as watching some girl stick two bad dragon dildos up her butt. How they don't seem to see that they're acting just like all those SJWs and r*dditors who literally claim that a depiction of a girl in a bikini is also pornography is bizarre.
>>7998875How early are we talking here? The vast majority of nude figure art is from earlier generations.
>>7998875early like ancient greeks or early like post suffrage feminism? or todays bipolar society where youre either obersexualizing women or slutshaming? br specific.
>>7998232Why not just google it instead of wasting bandwith?
>>7998232There's no sex? RetardHistorically, society was at its most stable during times when men had static pictures of bare tits hanging around their living spaces, in the XXth century this used to be titty calendarsFilmed intercourse seemed like such a non-distinction but it actually threw the male libido completely out of wack and now we're stuck with a whole generation of cuck fetishists thanks to it
>>7999727Earlier generations painted nude figure in a very deliberate way where tits and ass were never in focus. In OP's painting she's pushing her chest out and the tits are lit with the same contrast as the face.>>7999748OP's painting is from 1929. Imagine how people from 1700-1800 would react to it.
>>8001401oh lálá zexy woumanne or something along those lines
It depends a lot on definitions and perspective. For example, if you say that a lot of skill is involved in making it therefore it's not pornography I would say that there is drawn pornography out there on the internet that takes a lot of technical skill and effort to make and that many "artists" on this board would not be able to imitate. So then is it pornography if people find it sexually arousing and masturbate to it? Well there's plenty of people out there who masturbate to videos of fat women just eating food fully clothed. Is that pornographic?I think what it comes down to more than anything is intention. For example, if you film two people fucking and put it online with the purpose of it being for people to wack off to then you could safely say that is pornography. Whereas if you take the sex scene in Tarkovsky's The Sacrifice which is certainly not being made for the purpose of giving people wank material but rather is an emotional and pivotal moment in a narrative laden with symbolic meaning then that isn't pornography even though the mechanism (filming two people fucking) is the same.In regards to these kind of paintings from the early modern period, the answer is not straightforward. Yes a lot of these paintings were made with great effort, technical skill and laden with symbolism (not OPs pic specifically) but alongside that the reality is that a lot of the nobles/aristocrats that commissioned these paintings would most definitely have been using them as wanking material and the artists probably knew that when they were making them.So like most things in life, it's complicated>>7998291>>7998686>>7998742There's truth in all these as well
>>8001768The intention can't matter for a piece of fiction if the intention isn't a quality of the fiction, which it isn't, because it's a quality of the author. All you have is a bullshit concept that you're desperately trying to manifest with philosophical alchemy. Like most things in life, this shit is dead fucking simple, unless you're listening to the jews.
>>8001789What must it be like to be this retarded? To see the world in monochrome and have a child-level understanding of good and evil. It must be very good for your mental health
>>7998310post tits
>>8001768I like how the image hides the porn
>>8001401>OP's painting is from 1929so during the height of depravity and tail end of the weimarian period? i remember them being famous for being repressed
>>7998291>It probably WAS intended to be pornPorn is porn. it was meant to portray the beauty of men and women, fucking retarded revisionist NIGGER
>naked woman is pornyou dumb niggers can't even breathe and walk at the same time
>>8001794Where do good and evil come into this?All I see are people claiming that it's definitely here somewhere, but nobody can point at a definite thing.No, really. Do images have intentions in your worldview? Are they moral actors?
>>8001948>Porn is porn.Good argument, low IQ-kun. Do you think that pornography doesn't elicit any feelings of appreciation for the female's figure?>But pornography has sex!Look, low IQ-kun, even in the post you're quoting, they bring up softcore porn. Do you know what softcore porn is?And speaking of that post you're quoting, they don't even say it was porn, that said it was porn... to SOME degree, but you probably can't tell the difference between the two, because of your low IQ, low IQ-kun.
>>8001768its like that one senator said "i know it when i see it" so i guess it really is about the intended feeling that is meant to provoke
>>7998232pornography is made with the intent of the average viewer of it whipping out their dick and jizzing over it.
>>8002387So if I grab a porn image, and paste it on a public wall, it's no longer porn because nobody can whip their dick out and jizz over it in that public context?
>>7998232Pornography is ultimately subjective and depends on the culture and you can clearly see with the wide variety of views in this thread. Like in our 21st century world, nudity is obviously very sexualized and anything related to it would be porn. But in a place like Ancient Greece nudity, especially male nudity, was not taboo in certain circumstances such as in art or athletic training. But if someone in the 21st century world were to make a nude sculpture or train nude now, it would be seen as deeply sexual.I should also mention that what body parts are considered sexual is also kind of subjective. Going back to Ancient Greece, tits weren't seen as sexual and in some public spaces women could be bare-chested and be considered modestly dressed. But you can say Ancient Greeks loved ass, since the butt was seen as a very sexual area of the body. They loved ass so much they even had a word for it Kallipygos, haha.
>>8002665you're being purposefully disingenuous and deliberate in your choice to not understand. you don't actually care about the discourse, you just want to be contradictory.
>>8003143Why don't you come up with a definition that isn't trivially fallible? If something is placed in public, no matter what it is, nobody expects it to generate masturbation in its vicinity.
>>8003129Yeah, and if you leave the judeosphere you'll find out that the category of pornography being distinct from eroticism literally doesn't exist in most times and places. It's not universal that some expressions would be considered immoral simply because they're sexual. Ideas about what's appropriate for a given context are everywhere, but the idea that some images are inherently immoral without any theological or philosophical justification exists literally only in angloid judeo-christianity and soviet communism.
>>8003147my definition is fineif i film "backdoor sluts 2: electric boogaloo, double anal double vaginal hardcore penetration". i'm making porn, i'm making content for the purpose of other guys to get their rocks off. no you playing it in a public auditorium where it's illegal to be publically indecent doesn't change that.this isn't college, you're not being tasked with some bullshit paper about how a random line is art in the eye of the beholder because you were given some vague writing assignment about what is art where anything really goes to get a passing grade as long as you reach the word count.
>>8003195i just want to reinterateporn is made with the intent of the average viewer to it jizzing to it>SO THAT MEANS IF I TAKE THIS IMAGE OF MY WAIFU GETTING CREAMPIED OFF JIZZMASTER'S PIXIV AND PASTE IT ON A RANDOM WALL IT'S NOT PORN?!no, you disingenuous faggot, you know you construed an atypical situation to get it in front of the atypical viewer just to make some smartass edgecase contradiction that even you don't believe in.
>>7998232It's because it inspires me to stroke my chin while observing it, rather than my penis.
>>7998232Less violent, less fake and less jewish.
>>8003205>"The definition of this is X">"But what if Y happens? Does that still count?">"NO U DISINGENUOUS FAGGOT, MY DEFINITION IS PERFECT"You're such a raging dumbass. If such a simple question can totally ruin your definition, it's not a good definition. The thing that really blows my mind is that you're acknowledging that the porn on the wall is still porn, and therefore blows your definition apart, but rather than admit that, you're just crying-babying about someone bringing up an 'edgecase',You're such an anti-intellectual.
>>8003848yeah, if you put an image intended for masturbation on the wall, it's still an image intended for masturbation. regardless of if the location allows for masturbation.i've yet to meet an artist who doesn't know the actual audience their aiming for when they approach nudity in their art. whether it a guy drawing the typical anime pinup girl for patreon or some girl who thinks preformance art means queefing eggs onto a canvas, they have a pretty clear idea of whether they're aiming for the gooner audience or not when they approach their art.
>>8003129>nudity, especially male nudity, was not taboo in certain circumstances such as in art or athletic training.That's still the case in most first world countries. Maturity o algo.
Porn has prettier girls. That's an old ugly hag.
>>8004047>Porn has prettier girlslol
>>7998232blue balling (obscuring genitalia, clothing, seductive poses, barbie genitalia aka pudendal cleft erasure) makes it artsy fartsy and yeah it's fucking retarded
>>7998232Just fucking google the definition of pornography.Then think if your bait post makes any sense.
>>7998232Porn adjacent>>8001768Porn>>8003129Not porn
>>7998232Intent.
>>8008319So if I film two people fucking, but I do so with the intent of showing the 'beauty of intimacy' or some shit, it's not porn?
>>8008868didn't mattress girl do something like that?
>>7998232its ecchi
>>8008868In principle yes, but in practice this will always just be sheepishly disguised porn.
Is this (then) porn?
>>8008872I believe she filmed to show the 'horror' of her supposed sexual assault.There's also actual movies, usually romance, where the love scenes are actual sex between the actors, though I haven't watched any of them myself -- if I want to wank, I don't need that much buildup, haha.
>>8015130You pervert!
>>8018184and now?
Art becomes pornography when the sexual elements usurp every other element. This sorta means that what is and is not porn depends on the observer, but only to a point. If you look at a piece of art and your first thought is “wow she’s squeezing her boobs together, that’s hot” then that’s porn. If, like in the OP, your first thought is “wow, I wonder how the artist made this” then it’s probably not pornography. But at the end of the day it’s like that one guy said, you know it when you see it.
