When is nudity not considered art?

Question

Where is the line drawn between what is considered Art and p**n? And as a man hater, I just have to ask, why is ONLY the female body objectified?

Answer 1

idk i had this fairy book once "art" and my school considered it p**n  it really made me mad becuase it was a hundered dollar art book that they never gave back

Answer 2

bs...you ever look at michael angelo's work...reference david, and the sisteenth chapel. tons of male nudity. in fact tons of art from that era feature male nudity. also, do see robert maplethorpe, i was in the guggneheim looking at a black uncircumcised c**k the other year.

where is that line? i guess that's personal, my grandma would freak out at the site of a nude, but as far as i'm concerned i love art and p**n. i look at it all the time. may not be what you want to hear, but it's the truth.

Answer 3

It depends on the intended audience and the purpose of the work. If it's meant to convey beauty, or nature, or something along those lines, then it's probably art. If it's meant to get people horny, then obviously, it'd be p**n.

Answer 4

[Of course, I can only answer this from a man's point of view, but that shouldn't stop me from trying.]

I think that a woman's body is simply more interesting to look at, apart from any consideration of sexual attraction. I defy any heterosexual woman to say that the legs of an average, healthy male are more aesthetically pleasing to view than those of an average, healthy female. Of course, there is a small percentage of the male population that has, through long and disciplined effort, sculpted the body to near perfection. I find those bodies interesting to look at, and in a completely non-sexual way. But as far as women are concerned, almost all look good to me. I think this attitude is typical for men.

      Another dimension to this topic is that physical attractiveness is much more important to men than it is to women (lucky for us!). Women are relatively more attracted to a man's social stature, economic standing, and emotional availability. I don't recall too many men saying that it's important that she be able to make them laugh.

As far as the difference between art and p**n, that's a distinction harder to make than it might seem. Pornography is that which is designed to be sexually exciting. Well, to me it seems that all women are designed to be sexually exciting. (I think it helps with the survival of the species or something.)  But I guess it depends on what they are doing at the time.

Answer 5

in my opinion, it depends on the person...  some people don't get as affected as others when they see a nude girl (or guy too, because i disagree with the fact that Only the female body is objectified, not true)  you could see something as truly unapropriate while another view it as the true beauty of art.

Answer 6

I'm happy to respond, and your feminism pleases me.

There is no firm line between art and p**n.  A lot depends on the consumer.  Watch the film "A Clockwork Orange" sometime; young Alex listens to Beethoven (which most would agree is art) and imagines p**n; need we find any more clear explanation that there is no line drawn?

Now, generally, I'd say that p**n is that cheap stuff that displays the human form sexually without any attempt at interpretation.  The Playboy centerfold is posed to show off the b*****s and buttocks and, in the coarser years, v****a.  The nudes of Picasso or Titian are posed to suggest some deeper meaning than gratuitous s*x.  Yet, that's not an absolute defining line, is it?

When you ask "why is only the female objectified" I might refer you to Gemaine Greer's old essay about erotic imagery, and how men are aroused by a static image of a female while females are aroused by action.  The man might be aroused by a photo of a nude Pamela Anderson, but the female wants a full-motion image of a sweaty Mick Jagger (if Pam or Mick are not to your own taste, rest assured they're not to mine either--sub your own images.  I'd say Myra Sorvino and Ian Anderson, in my own perspective).

Frankly, I recognize the nudity in the masterpieces of Ingres as soft-p**n, and the nudity of Harvey Keitel in "The Piano" as art.  But dont' press me for proof :-)