Where is the line between artistic nudity and pornography?
On thinking about this issue It has struck me that even full sexual depiction need not be pornography. If you show bodies in a sexual, but artistic way it need not mean it's pornographic.
Yet, because art is subjective, it means that those who make the rules about what is or isn't pornography use very limited ways of judging it. If it shows things that are sexual then it doesn't seem to matter how artistic the image actually is, it is censored.
For instance you cant show an erect or semi erect penis. You cannot show insertions and you certainly can't show graphic sexual intercourse. These thing are defined as pornography. No matter what the context or artistry.
But some galleries and sites, are so worried, that they refuse to show any nudity.
If artists are restricted by strict unthinking censorship we will only ever see these kind of images in there lowest form. In doing so reinforcing the idea that nudity can be nothing more than sexual stimulation. It harms society to make sex only a hidden and a lowbrow shameful experience. If artists cannot show us the emotions, feelings and full range of expression of human interaction we are the poorer for it.
It should be possible, with great care to create pictures, paintings and sculpture of full erotic lovemaking without them being pornographic. But it's hard to make that kind of art as professional artist, because of our social preconceptions, almost no where will display them and few people will be brave enough to buy them.
Can this change? I doubt it in the short term. To change peoples impression of sex would take generations, and would need to be done little at a time.
I do my best to allow artistic nudity on this site, but I certainly cannot make a huge stand for anything considered extreme because this site has to follow rules set down by my advertisers, and internet hosts. that said, if you could see it in a public gallery, you can see it on this site.
