# Isolated [Warning nude]



## enjoiBMX (Apr 27, 2008)

Moved


----------



## spiffybeth (Apr 27, 2008)

welcome to the forum, a great first post!!!! 


i think the fact that he's wearing a jacket is strange...

edit: you cut off the tip (lol)


----------



## JimmyO (Apr 27, 2008)

A little strange but good composition

You ride bmx?


----------



## enjoiBMX (Apr 27, 2008)

haha yea actaully i used to but i got back into skateboarding over the summer


----------



## Dikkie (Apr 28, 2008)

Selfportrait? 

This should be a sticky one. :thumbup:


----------



## enjoiBMX (Apr 28, 2008)

new pic


----------



## emptypockets (Apr 28, 2008)

All of the shots are interesting. I'm not sure if the whole semi-arousal thing works or not. And the hoodie is also distracting. Overall, some nice work here.


----------



## eravedesigns (Apr 28, 2008)

I find this pretty damn odd and to me it seems like your just trying to show of your junk. In the first one you have like half of an erection...which you don't see much in a artistic nude photos and in the second one it looks like your just starring at your dick. I don't know I tried to be open but I find these more like something that isn't a artistic nude shot. Maybe its because in the last two there is such a big focus on your genitalia where in a lot of artistic nude photos I have seen it isn't about their parts but their overall body.


----------



## MyaLover (Apr 28, 2008)

Interesting choice with the water running in the last one.  Any reason behind that?  Also the reflection is good too in the second one, but maybe a little more in the reflection.  The first one, and I know you were going for a nude, but would be better in my opinion if it was cropped closer.  The towel ring and the extra space on the left side is too much.  Are these self ports?  If you want some hints on self ports, PM me, im not the best a them, but i have some knowledge to share


----------



## Roger (Apr 29, 2008)

arousal and semi arousal is pornography not art photography in my opinion and the first two for me fall into that category. Art photography is about mind stimulation not bodily...I am imagining these are about what a young man's mind turns to when alone. The quote about 'idle hands' comes to mind then viewing these lol. Photographically the whole set seems quite odd to me, the light is not bad but the compositions don't work for me either and the hoodie...except for maybe a symbolic attachment.


----------



## niforpix (Apr 29, 2008)

eravedesigns said:


> I find this pretty damn odd and to me it seems like your just trying to show of your junk. In the first one you have like half of an erection...which you don't see much in a artistic nude photos and in the second one it looks like your just starring at your dick. I don't know I tried to be open but I find these more like something that isn't a artistic nude shot. Maybe its because in the last two there is such a big focus on your genitalia where in a lot of artistic nude photos I have seen it isn't about their parts but their overall body.


 
I totally agree with this comment. I didn't like those shots at all.


----------



## robitussin217 (Apr 30, 2008)

Roger said:


> arousal and semi arousal is pornography not art photography in my opinion and the first two for me fall into that category. Art photography is about mind stimulation not bodily...I am imagining these are about what a young man's mind turns to when alone. The quote about 'idle hands' comes to mind then viewing these lol. Photographically the whole set seems quite odd to me, the light is not bad but the compositions don't work for me either and the hoodie...except for maybe a symbolic attachment.



For the sake of argument:

It seems like you are saying that if a picture features bodily arousal it is automatically pornography and can't be art. That doesn't seem true. It seems like these photos (that used to be there) are conceded as technically pretty good. Probably shouldn't take shots where the purpose is to show off your stuff. People resent it. And, this is the net. Gotta make sure you're ready for the pics to be around forever. At any rate, this thread is interesting.


----------



## kundalini (Apr 30, 2008)

robitussin217 said:


> For the sake of argument:
> 
> It seems like you are saying that if a picture features bodily arousal it is automatically pornography and can't be art. That doesn't seem true.


Had the statue of David been sculpted with him in a turgid state, would that still be considered a classic after all these hundreds of years?  

Nudes are a study of the human form in its natural state.






Mind you, I was eighteen once...


----------



## robitussin217 (Apr 30, 2008)

kundalini said:


> Had the statue of David been sculpted with him in a turgid state, would that still be considered a classic after all these hundreds of years?
> 
> Nudes are a study of the human form in its natural state.



I have no idea. It doesn't do much to speculate on something that hasn't and can't be tested. But, if it was sculpted that way, and no one destroyed it, I'd say "yeah probably" on the basis that it'd be so controversial. 

The question isn't if it'd be a classic, but if it would be art.


----------



## spiffybeth (Apr 30, 2008)

kundalini said:


> Nudes are a study of the human form in its natural state.


there is nothing unnatural about arousal.


----------



## Roger (Apr 30, 2008)

robitussin217 said:


> For the sake of argument:
> 
> It seems like you are saying that if a picture features bodily arousal it is automatically pornography and can't be art. That doesn't seem true. It seems like these photos (that used to be there) are conceded as technically pretty good. Probably shouldn't take shots where the purpose is to show off your stuff. People resent it. And, this is the net. Gotta make sure you're ready for the pics to be around forever. At any rate, this thread is interesting.



I think if you looked up some fine art sites you would find erect and semi-erect genitalia are not considered appropriate....I have also seen some artistic pornography, very good quality but still classified as porn. I didn't resent the pics at all, just expressed my opinion on the content and the technical aspects. A shame the OP didn't engage in some discussion.


----------



## robitussin217 (Apr 30, 2008)

Hmm, it seems like that is a change from the history of ancient greece and Indian sex art. For instance, there is the Herma fertility statue. And, would you consider kama sutra to be art? It seems silly to label anything that depicts a state of arousal pornography and not art. I think it would be kind of a shame that an artist wouldn't be free to depict an erection or sexual situation. 

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.theoi.com/image/K11.12Herma.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.theoi.com/Gallery/K11.12.html&h=326&w=185&sz=13&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=4Ix7Ifl8TvMtIM:&tbnh=118&tbnw=67&prev=/images%3Fq%3DHerma%2Bstatue%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-USfficial%26sa%3DN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mercury_god.jpg


----------



## The Losing Kind (Apr 30, 2008)

Roger said:


> I think if you looked up some fine art sites you would find erect and semi-erect genitalia are not considered appropriate....I have also seen some artistic pornography, very good quality but still classified as porn. I didn't resent the pics at all, just expressed my opinion on the content and the technical aspects. A shame the OP didn't engage in some discussion.


 
Things change. The whole point of art is that, yes, there are some rules, but you can break them because it is art and your creation. Plus, as Robitussin217 said, many many cultures have been creating images containing aroused figures forever; it just so happens that Western/European cultures frowned upon that sort of thing and thus kind of ignored it in their art. But again, things are changing these days because people no longer "fear" nudity and the human body. Art is not rigid.

I do understand where you're coming from- I didn't consider this particular set to be artistic (just didn't seem to have a point), but in the same breath, I do think that a state of arousal does not necessarily automatically slap something into the "pornographic" arena. I respect your opinion, and there's mine


----------



## robitussin217 (Apr 30, 2008)

^^^ Hahaha! What!? Why do you want to know that? Sounds like question derived from gossip. But, no I don't think it was called "wang." It's funny how introducing the term "wang" into a discussion on art history and evolution changes the intellectual air of the conversation. "Well european yada, ancient greece, yada, high art!...wang!" 

back on topic

I'm kind of fascinated by this thread. Even though I didn't really respect the kind of art that these shots were, at least they promoted discussion. And, it's interesting to see the spectrum of reactions that they got.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Apr 30, 2008)

Is it just possible that the classis nude paintings and sculptures in museums around the would today was the soft porn of their times.


----------

