Art or Sultry..?

[Baby_Blue_Eyes]

well this is a fought about issue an me an my friends have been discussing it I need your alls opinion on this as well.. girls that pose for playboy would you consider them to be slu**y or just a work of art..? personally I think one that is in porn movies should be considered a slu* because I mean come on she sleeps with people.. now playboy is no different then the old 24 century art. Right oh well what do u all think?

[Kurodashi]

Theres a very fine line there. Honestly, I believe something with an advertising purpose can never be proclaimed to be art. For example, anything created towards a target audience to create revenue.

 

Artwork with nudes is an accepted form of art, however Playboy is a business interested in gaining revenue from horny males. The purpose of the photoshoots can sometimes be classy, but this in no one shows them as works of art.

 

I believe art can not be forced, and by having an alterior motive, such as money, behind your shots - you are stripping art of its true and organic form.

[Shadows Light]

Theres a very fine line there. Honestly, I believe something with an advertising purpose can never be proclaimed to be art. For example, anything created towards a target audience to create revenue.

 

Artwork with nudes is an accepted form of art, however Playboy is a business interested in gaining revenue from horny males. The purpose of the photoshoots can sometimes be classy, but this in no one shows them as works of art.

 

I believe art can not be forced, and by having an alterior motive, such as money, behind your shots - you are stripping art of its true and organic form.

 

I can see your point of view.. but the centerfolds in PLAYBOY CAN be displayed as works of ART. There is some artistic value in the style of the poses in playboy. I can make a distinction between Soft Classy Playboy vs. Hardcore Hustler and down the line. (want to add an annotation: NOTHING against these publications just a commentary and used as an example... ) Playboy uses a softer more artsy tact in photography. But I can see exactly where you are coming from and agree to a point.

 

ART has always been in the eyes of the beholder. The sistine chapel for instance had many nude angels. And Nudes surrounding the alter. These works of art for its times were considered risque and inappropriate. They were hence covered and clothes painted on. I believe Adam and Eve also were covered by the Fig Leaves we equate with the story today.

 

LOL.. nooooooooo I'm not going to say MichaelAngelo is on the same level as the photography in Playboy.. but for his "times" he was considered quite the radical and misfit. As was DeVinci. Sooooo... what we see today as questionable ART.. maybe viewed in future generations as something else. BTW.. old old copies of Playboy are quite Classy. The women were shown in more of a light that revered the FEMALE form...than it did to just reveal it. But thats just my opnion.

[kskm]

I probably shouldn't be posting on this one... I have done a lot of modeling. It's been my career since I was 14, so going on 8 years now. I have done a lot of print work (bathing suits, makeup, jewelry that kind of stuff), and a lot of art work (art magazines- totally nude) and last year I did Playboy.

 

Every person defines being "sl^tty" or being a "sl^t" in different ways. I consider a sl^t to be someone, male or female, that sleeps around with many different people not really caring about them, or even knowing their names. Just having sex to have sex...... just because a girl is in Playboy doesn't mean that they've "slept around" so I don't consider it sl^tty.

 

Others may think that girls like me are sl^ts because they believe that your body is for you and your significant other ONLY to see. That is their opinion, and they have every right to think that.

 

But if I cared about what every single person thought of me in this world I wouldn't have time to do anything else. As long as you are happy with you and where you are and what you are doing in life.. that's all that matters.

[Cynder]

I think a lot of it depends on the pictures themselves. I have seen some very classy Playboy photos.

 

As an artist I am open to several different kinds of artisitic expression. I have photographed nudes (both male and female) in a very artisitic way in the passed. I have also been photographed in the buff.

 

I think a lot of the girls that pose in Playboy do it for recognition, and Playboy seems to have pretty high standards about who they put in their publication. Shadows mentioned Hustler. I have never looked at hustler, but from what I have heard they will show just about anyone in a trashy pose with low quality photography. I don't consider that art at all.

 

I also don't consider porn movies art either.