Why is a nude photo considered vile/pornographic when the same pose would be artistic if painted?

Are people just art snobs?

Consider this artwork for instance: upload.wikimedia.org/.../Origin-of-the-World.jpg

A photograph of such a pose would doubtlessly be seen as pornographic.


Most Helpful Guy

  • Well, painting takes a lot of time and skill for one. But I agree with the intent part like the guy before me said. I don't typically find normal nude photos to be art, but if it is taken to a new light (like blending the body into a landscape) I would call it art.

    • What about a photo of this pose?


    • Show All
    • Don't get me wrong, beautiful figure and cloth. Very well painted, but it doesn't seem inspired at all

    • Must something be 'inspired' to be considered art? Can't something just be appreciated for looking good?

Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 2

  • Because people need a reason to hate.

    • This is considered artistic (which I think it is too) upload.wikimedia.org/.../Origin-of-the-World.jpg

      Yet there's no way a photo of a such a pose wouldn't labelled porn.

    • Show All
    • Sure but even a photo obscuring the vulva would likely be called porn.

    • That's because people get offended when a female goes nude because they are "supposed" to be modest, in many peoples eyes.

  • What are people actually doing in those photos?

    • It would be a woman lying down for instance, with her breast if full view and legs apart to an extent, or perhaps she's facing the other way and you're looking at her ass/legs and back.

      No one would be doing anything as such.

    • Show All
    • Even if a woman (or man) had been in full on porn I don't think that should affect their teaching career, it shouldn't be seen as relevant.

    • Again, it looks poorly on the school district for hiring someone like that to teach children. Also, how many kids are going to respect a teacher that they've seen bend over and take it from 5 guys online?

What Guys Said 1