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
