Artistic Nudes VS Pornography


Registered Member
Where do YOU draw the line? Reading some other threads made me want to ask this. The line has always been pale and blurred, but what do you think is crossing that pale line? Any sort of photographs with nudity? Shirtless woman? Men without pants? Or is it more about what is being depicted in the image then the amount of clothing they have on? I'll post my answer if anyone else posts... want this to just be the question starter post :)
I think it depends on the level of vulgarity being displayed. There are some beautifully done nudes, both photos and paintings. These capture the model in a pose that can be construed as showing how beautiful the human body is without overly exposing the attributes.
Last edited:


Registered Member
I think it depends on the level of vulgarity being displayed. There are some beatifully done nudes, both photos and paintings. These capture the model in a pose that can be construed as showing how beautiful the human body is without overly exposing the attributes.
I agree, perfectly said.


e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
I think its enough to say the line is blurry. We could regard some things as both, or of being either depending on the context in which they're presented. If we should say the line can be drawn at the manner in which something is depicted, we should have to disregard works intended as art as art, when they fall outside those lines; and it seems to me we shouldn't do that. Furthermore, we should likely have to disregard some works intended as pornography as pornography, if they fall within the lines of what we would like to say constitutes art. If we should draw the line at intent, we run into the difficulty of works with no clear intent behind them either way. If its a matter of aesthetics or the beauty of a work, we run into the problem of people having different aesthetic preferences.

So I'd say there is no line. More of a gradient, really, with works becoming more or less pornographic depending on how they jibe with the various signs we take to indicate that something is one or the other.
Last edited:


Certified Shitlord
I think EI has the best answer so far.

A blurry line is the best you can call it. To me, every angle of the female form is attractive. I'm sure someone could do a picture of a woman exposing all of her private areas and make it artistic while some people think that's too vulgar. Art is not art because everyone will appreciate it. Art is art because it speaks to the people who speak like you.


Son of Liberty
I've had this debate in the staffroom quite a few times. All of which I lose because GF relies on a flat out "no nudity no matter what" policy :hah:.

Regardless.....To me its entirely the intent of the photograph. And 9 times out of 10 a good photographer can without a doubt get across very clearly the message he/she is looking to send with their work.

Same with the Model themselves, the intent in which the photographs are taken are always easily spotted. I've seen both Artistic and Porn images that could have been construed either way. A great example would be these Teen Stars from hollywood that take pictures for whatever movie it is they're playing in next.... they're just dripping with sexuality and enticement that most of their pictures IMO aren't even that good anymore. Its almost as if their intent to be sexy and seductive has crossed a line from selling themselves as People to selling themselves as sex symbols.

And on the flip side, there is a porn site I used to frequent back in the day called "Twistys". The Photographers on this website were flat out brilliant in their ability to capture more than just T&A. They would in fact focus more on the Models assets rather than their "money makers". Alot of emphasis was placed on facial expression, not so much the "Bang me in the Ass" glare but instead a more positively neutral mature expression. Dont get me wrong... alot of the members on that site hated those picture sets and usually placed comments like "fail, not enough pink" :hah: but! Thing is anyone with an eye for photography can tell you that those Photographers did fantastic jobs making something extravagant out of something otherwise simple.


Registered Member
I am currently taking an art class dealing with this kind of subject - a pose that a model can take can be sensual or sexual - sensual being art based of course.
It's taken in a formal manner - to show how each and every being on earths body is different.
That's why its so fascinating to draw or photograph, because it's always different and not one is the same.
The human body is the worlds greatest pieces of art.

I think if it's for show in a sexual manner - it just seems vulgar to me.
But if it's sensual - etc, it just seems to be different. You look at it differently.


Registered Member
I'd agree with most of your responses, and heavily on Icegoats in particular.... which I think transcends ANOTHER boundary into something I'd probably call Artistic Porn(which isnt the same as Erotica imo), which is EXTREMELY rare, but when well done as what you've described can be beautifully attractive to an artistic eye AND do what its meant to as a sexual helper. But what divides these three indefinitely in my opinion is: Quality of the Photograph, The Depiction of certain actions in the image would immediately rule it out of Artistic Nudes, IE masturbatory or sex with another person would change that to porn or the artistic porn, Artistic Nudes can have action, touching self, touching other, but not in.. i cant really describe it in any other way but meant to be viewed by someone looking to just get off to it.
If any of that makes any sense, im not sure it does to be honest.


Registered Member
It is so subjective.

John Ashcroft had the statues of justice that had bared breasts covered because to him, they were obscene; ergo pornographic.

I might find an image utterly beautiful and artistic where you might instantly be offended by the pornographic content.

For example, take the Sports Illustrated swim suit issue. People will claim this is soft porn while completely ignoring that every other ad has similar photos being used to sell products. One is porn, the other isn't.

I think you can easily make pornographic material without exposing any private parts at all.

On the other hand, completely nude can be wonderful art.

It is up to us.


rainbow 11!
I think it's more what's going on in the art than what is being displayed. A woman who is nude and lying on the beach is not porn, in my opinion. But art. As opposed to a woman who is doing other things while lying on the beach with no clothes on can be construed as pornography.

But yes, there is a very blurry line.