I think it was Justice Brennan (of the US Supreme Court) who said something to the effect that: "I don't know how to describe porn, but I know it when I see it." (Maybe I got the wrong justice, so please correct me!)

Mike Dixon had asked a few weeks ago, when he posted a set of pictures of a pretty model sitting at a window, whether it was art or something else (if I remember correctly). And now people have made some strong statements on the Lichtenwalter site about the content of some of the nudes. (I've only seen a few, accidently, since I'm at work and don't know who's watching!)

I found Mike's portraits to be extremely tasteful and pleasant. Maybe I'm from a different era, but I could not have any of the Lichtenwalter nudes on my living room walls. Not that they are pornographic, but my guests might be offended, not to menton my wife.

This gets me to my question. I think if some of the Lichtenwalter pictures were in Color, they might be considered porn by more people than if they were B&W. (I know that Mike has stated that the women were comfortable with posing for such shots, and that is good to know.)

Or for another way of thinking, a lot of people think that if they photograph drivel in Black and White, that somehow it magically becomes art.

For what it's worth, I found Mike's shots to be spectacular in Black and White, and I haven't seen them in color, but I think I would prefer not to. I'm not too experienced in the nuances of photography, so I can't articulate exactly what B&W does to images versus Color, but I know what I like.

I have thought about the B&W vs. Color issue many times since reading this site, and I wonder what others think about it.

Thanks,

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), March 13, 2002

Answers

That's so subjective that there is no real answer. One thing you might think about doing is leafing through some old Penthouse magazines where Jeff Dunas started his career. Look at the photos he took back then... in color; then go to his website and study his fine- art series (also some nudes) in color and see how his aesthetic has evolved since the days of corporate pressure for the maximum "oogle" factor.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), March 13, 2002.

Wasn't it Faye Dunaway that said something like this to Jack Nicholson in the movie "Chinatown" about porn: "...just look at the photos and tell me what you see. If they're in focus it's porn and if they're out of focus it's art..."

:-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 13, 2002.

<< If they're in focus it's porn and if they're out of focus it's art..." >>

And if they're tack sharp it's a Leica 90mm APO!

:)

-- VS (VSingh493@aol.com), March 13, 2002.

That's the problem with any kind of art isn't it? One persons cup of tea is anothers poison. The field is pretty evenly split, for example when someone like Mapplethorp is discussed, or the teenage nudes of David Hamilton. It's funny - Hamiltons work, color, softly sensual teenage nudes is often considered soft porn - yet the tack sharp 8X10 B&W image of Jock Sturgess are considered art by most (other than the FBI). I personally have a hard time critisizing others photography (except like the obvious like poor exposure or print finishing) because just because I don't see anything spectacular doesn't mean someone else does. An example is Annie Liebovitz. I just don't like it - too contrived and set up for my tastes - but her income obviously says a whole heck of a lot of people don't agree with me. Too me - as long as the models are of age and no one is being forced - it's art if the photographer says it is.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), March 13, 2002.

An example is Annie Liebovitz. I just don't like it - too contrived and set up for my tastes - but her income obviously says a whole heck of a lot of people don't agree with me. Too me - as long as the models are of age and no one is being forced - it's art if the photographer says it is.

You want contrived... just look at some of Cindy Sherman's self portraits. Still, for contrived and set-up they speak volumes to a whole generation of women who are conscious of their self-image in society. So as long as it serves a higher purpose... I would consider it art... along them same lines... I guess it would really depend on how the photographer depicted the vulva for me to subjectively label it art or smut.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), March 13, 2002.

maybe faye's blurry/sharp distinction is not so different than the b&w/color dichotomy suggested by the original poster. for me, good art should embody lots of possibilities: different interpretations of the artist's intent, different personal resonances for the viewer, different graphic interpretations. the more a photo is totally realistic (i.e. sharp, in color, familiar object in a familiar setting) the more difficult it is for me to see these different possibilities. the work seems narrow, constrained and, ultimately, trivial. that is why porncan be so boring -- it is intentionally and unequivocally about one thing and one thing only. the world is in color and in sharp focus. take away the color and the focus and you can start using your imagination a little, focusing more on graphic elements, allusions, etc.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), March 13, 2002.

This debate gets really infantile and stupid when politicians try to decide what is art and what is ? The whole controversy over "Piss Christ" (Serrano) and the Mapplethorp brouhaha being two prominent cases in point in the US.

My view is: float it out there. Some people will like it, some won't. You're not here to please everyone, otherwise your "art" will end up looking like PG Disney garbage.

Is photography (or other art) meant to do something besides titillate the viewer? If it just titillates, then it is just today's newspaper picture, or smut or junk. Or it could be a record of the times, such as family snapshots. If it evokes emotions and deeper thoughts, then it has achieved something more than just being a physical record. Forget bokeh shokeh mokeh. Most of the evocative pictures in history lack any bokeh. Once again, purely subjective.

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), March 13, 2002.

Mike Dixon had asked a few weeks ago, when he posted a set of pictures of a pretty model sitting at a window, whether it was art or something else (if I remember correctly).

Perhaps you're conflating my photos with someone else's question--I never ask the "Is it art?" question about my photos ("Is it good?" is risky enough, and I can only count on reliable answers to "Do you like it?").

Regarding color vs. b&w/art vs. porn, I don't have an answer. One reason I don't have an answer is that it's unclear to what degree the psychology of color or of b&w is affecting our perceptions of the work, and to what degree social/historical associations are affecting them. The overwhelming majority of "standard porn" is in color, and much of "art photography" is b&w (until a few decades ago, the overwhelming majority was b&w).

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 13, 2002.

We used to have the same debate back in the days we were doing those cave paintings in France, Vikram. We could never agree about whether adding ochre pigments made the paintings porn, and no one has come up with a good answer since, either. But, it's still fun to debate the question.

My take is that it is more difficult to convey art (as opposed to glamour or porn) in color because of the realism added by the color film. The in-focus/fuzzy concept doesn't work for me at all - at least something is in sharp focus in all my work, even the nudes.

Ultimately, I'm of the opinion that the porn vs. art question is resolved by the effort to portray beauty with respect. Art does, porn doesn't - whether in color or B&W.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), March 13, 2002.

If it turns me on, it's porn.....and if not, it's art!

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), March 13, 2002.

<< Perhaps you're conflating my photos with someone else's question-- I never ask the "Is it art?" question about my photos -- Mike Dixon >>

Sorry, my memory is failing me. I think you had asked whether it was porn or not. (Or some other word for porn.) This was the three photo set of a woman wearing glasses (and some strategic cloting) sitting on a windowsill.

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), March 13, 2002.

Is "art" what you'll hang on your wall, and if you won't, it's not? I like the art, but I wouldn't hang it in my house, along with a lot of other art. That doesn't mean that it's not good, though.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), March 13, 2002.

Vikram, your memory is fine--mine's a bit rusty. I do remember asking that as a purely rhetorical question to raise the issue of individual perspectives.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 13, 2002.

If you took the photo with a Leica, it's art. If you used a Nikon or Mamiya RB67, it's porn.

-- Steve Brantley (sbrantley@nccommerce.com), March 13, 2002.

Black and White is more abstract than color. Reality becomes abstracted in some degree, in the black and white photo. Form and tonality then become more prominent. Ralph said that color is more realistic. We're pretty much saying the same thing. That might be another reason why B & W nudes are perceived as more artful, in addition to what Mike said.

When I read the title, I immediately though of David Hamilton, just as Bob Todrick thought to mention him. I think of Hamilton's work as artfully erotic. I don't think it's porn.

Degas (and others) have done nudes in color. I don't think they are porn, either.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 13, 2002.

The only way I--or anyone else--could answer this question properly is by posting some of my/our own examples. And since they would be instantly deleted, why are we even discussing this?

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), March 13, 2002.

Loving Steve's answer!

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), March 13, 2002.

Well, I don't! Steve seems to overlook the fact that many a good porno shot has been taken with a Canon.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), March 14, 2002.

You can even shoot art nudes with a Nikon, if you use a fisheye lens.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 14, 2002.

those realy turn me on, but I belive they are beautiful pics of naked women with open legs, I mean framing, printing, and a quality that can be follow through all the site pictures, those turn me on even more that dirty porno, but I would hang one of those anywhere, of course I know what my wife would say...

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), March 14, 2002.

To amend my first comment, if you take a nude's photo with a Leica and use B&W film, and include some out-of-focus elements, the it's art. (Which is why I don't understand why we all spend two grand for an aspheric Leica lens, like we're trying to get as close to large format quality as possible, and then turn around and pursue fine art photography that looks like it came out of a pinhole camera). If you use any other camera, especially a Canon, and render an ultra sharp color photo, then maybe it's porn. But in the latter case Bob, I'd use a macro lens, not a fisheye.

-- Steve Brantley (sbrantley@nccommerce.com), March 14, 2002.