#Art or Porn

be52e44dbd8e69f2795e74c1b42271c650beb7d4_m.jpg
 

Jürgen Teller: "Late night and naked in the Louvre" if I'm not mistaken.
:D

After I exhibited this picture, a lot of journalists and critics kept asking me: what is the motivation and reason to shoot Raquel Zimmermann and Charlotte Rampling naked in the Louvre? They were referring to other artists and photographers. I thought: bloody hell, they all miss the point. Having the Louvre to yourself, with Charlotte naked in front of the Mona Lisa – that’s enough for me
 
Nude is not porn, you only need to look at so many of the works that came out of the renaissance period to know that.

Let's not play semantics. Pornography is the exhibition of sex, sexual activity, sexuality, sexual arousal, or sexual stimuli.


Being nude is a sexual stimuli. I don't know anyone who sees something nude- especially posing with a sex toy like the first photo (as pretty as it may be)-and doesn't get horny, or who doesn't have to convince themselves to think about something other than sex. Therefore, it is porn.

The first photo is a, dare I say, "classier" version of porn because it's not some screaming woman squirting everywhere; so it would be known as erotica-art that focuses on the beauty behind sex and nudity, not the graphic, raw sexual nature of pics on like some dude's Tumblr of "hot chicks."

I think people who truly can appreciate nudity as art -meaning, not sexually, but just as basic beauty- are like...nonexistent.
 
a4b3e62efc8e3c9689102bdece6d3d9744115cc0_m.jpg


Now this isn't pornographic. She's not being sexually explicit. She might be scantily clad in a ballerina leotard anyway, but she's a ballerina. So I guess it works. But if her upright foot was on a naked man's shoulders, hmmm...or if her snatch was out, hmmm...
 
But this is classic art:

imagegen.ashx


Leda and the swan.

It is even about religion!
 
Let's not play semantics. Pornography is the exhibition of sex, sexual activity, sexuality, sexual arousal, or sexual stimuli.


Being nude is a sexual stimuli. I don't know anyone who sees something nude- especially posing with a sex toy like the first photo (as pretty as it may be)-and doesn't get horny, or who doesn't have to convince themselves to think about something other than sex. Therefore, it is porn.

The first photo is a, dare I say, "classier" version of porn because it's not some screaming woman squirting everywhere; so it would be known as erotica-art that focuses on the beauty behind sex and nudity, not the graphic, raw sexual nature of pics on like some dude's Tumblr of "hot chicks."

I think people who truly can appreciate nudity as art -meaning, not sexually, but just as basic beauty- are like...nonexistent.
Nudity can absolutely be sexually stimulating, but I have looked upon plenty of nude forms without the slightest sense of sexual arousal. A nude beach filled with happy people splashing about, a breastfeeding mother tending to her child, a series of photographs of dancers twisting and bending into amazing poses. The human body is capable of so much; I adore looking at it. And even though I truly dig sex, with a smorgasbord of lovers, I can separate the form from sexual thought.
 
The chick on the right has the shortest attention span ever. She got halfway through taking off her pants, then switched to her shirt? And she's not getting those pants off while those clunky boots are still on her feet.
 
Back
Top