# Do you consider this...art? NSFW Link.



## erizz (Mar 26, 2015)

Hey everyone,

I recently came across this: NSFW  Erica Simone s Flash Photography Nobo Feed

Do you really think this can be classified and considered as art? The photographer considers herself an artist, but to me it just feels...cheap. It's like a gimmick...the main point she makes in her photos feels like "look at me, I'm attractive and naked". Without that, there's nothing to the photos.

Curious to hear what you all think about this.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 26, 2015)

What if she was seen as fat and ugly?  Would you consider it art then?


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 26, 2015)

it seems like moderately decent posed street photography without being naked.  Also, I don't think being a gimmick makes it not art.  It expresses an idea. The unexpected juxtaposition, and how it seems normal in the way people are reacting.  To me that's art.  But I hope this doesn't lead to like a 20 page fruitless argument where 29384 posters give 29384 different definitions of art.

Much of what Dali did was ultimately a gimmick designed to further his own legend.  I still think it's art, and brilliant art at that.  Something can be both a gimmick and art at the same time.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 26, 2015)

Yeah why not. The concept is present in the photos. It's unpretentious. It's somewhat humorous, and the photographer understands that. Her message is clear.

I like it.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 26, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> I hope this doesn't lead to like a 20 page fruitless argument where 29384 posters give 29384 different definitions of art.


Good luck with that.  I anticipate that I'll be popping back in around page 9 to rubber-neck the wreckage.


----------



## Forkie (Mar 26, 2015)

erizz said:


> Hey everyone,
> 
> I recently came across this: Erica Simone s Flash Photography Nobo Feed
> 
> ...



I've never understood the phrase "It's too gimmicky".  

When does something new or different become a "gimmick"?  And when does one gimmick deserve less credit or respect than another?

Is HDR a gimmick?  Is tilt-shift a gimmick?  What about selective colouring, black and white in a world of colour, a model wearing an outrageous outfit, fine art nudity, boudoir, composites?   Which ones are the good gommicks and which ones are the bad ones?

Art, I would argue, is not only about the final result, but also about the process; the _why _someone did something, the _how_, and the_ effect _it has on other people.


----------



## qleak (Mar 26, 2015)

I found the whole premise of the movie boyhood a gimmick without substance. 

Someone's naked in these photos,  it must be art! 

I had the first reaction as Buckster though,  Naked pretty girls are so 1900's i wanna see runnah in my art


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 26, 2015)

I think if you poll a large enough group you could get a substantial amount of people to call pretty much anything "art".
But I suspect you could probably do the same thing with any idea. 
Art is subjective, unless you are trying to sell it, then it is at least _*somewhat *_objective  in respect to your target audience. 
I think there is a trend in recent years  (well, maybe not so recent) of "shock value" art. Maybe the same could be said for the Tele and radio too.  I really don't know if its art or not. 
But here's the real question...who cares?
I mean, why are we obsessed with deciding whether or not something is "art"? or someone is an "artist"?
can we enjoy looking at something that isn't art? Or does something being aesthetically pleasing automatically make it art? Does something being labeled "art" increase its value, or is there diminished value in something _*not*_ considered art?
more importantly, did I just ask the exact same question twice? 

Honestly, I dont really think about whether something is art or not very often, even in my own work.  I think about all the things I need to take a good picture and make the client happy...equipment, lighting, posing, processing, clients needs, etc etc...maybe some artistic reasoning is mixed in there somewhere on a subconscious level and im just in denial, but in truth my thinking is really as simple as "this looks good this way, and not as good this other way, so i will go with what I think is the better result".


----------



## bribrius (Mar 26, 2015)

she must be a really chitty photographer to stoop to these levels. I am just going to throw this out there, but most of the porn industry can come up with better chit than this and they don't claim to be artists.


----------



## Designer (Mar 26, 2015)

This is open to differing opinions. 

On one hand, there are folks who will say this series is indeed art.

Then there are the realists who try to fathom this and cannot see anything artistic about it.

FWIW; I fall into the second category. 

For me, there is good art and failure.  This has failed to convey any sense of artistic messaging, therefore it is a failure.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 26, 2015)

Designer said:


> This is open to differing opinions.
> 
> On one hand, there are folks who will say this series is indeed art.
> 
> ...


lol. My first thought was she missed her "calling" (see my above post)


----------



## Forkie (Mar 26, 2015)

bribrius said:


> she must be a really chitty photographer to stoop to these levels. I am just going to throw this out there, but most of the porn industry can come up with better chit than this and they don't claim to be artists.



Stoop to what levels?  

There are thousands of photographers who do fine art nude photography.  How is this any different?


----------



## bribrius (Mar 26, 2015)

Forkie said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > she must be a really chitty photographer to stoop to these levels. I am just going to throw this out there, but most of the porn industry can come up with better chit than this and they don't claim to be artists.
> ...


what is fine about it?


----------



## photoguy99 (Mar 26, 2015)

She has some pretty good photos, and some less good ones (the taxi one is very nice indeed, for instance) but she doesn't seem to have any concept at all. The "naked people in ordinary situations" is a vein that's been mined out pretty thoroughly by more thoughtful people than her.


----------



## runnah (Mar 26, 2015)

The photos have to be B&W for it to be art.


----------



## Forkie (Mar 26, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



The term "fine art" refers to an art form practised mainly for its aesthetic value and its beauty ("art for art's sake") rather than its functional value. Fine art is rooted in drawing and design-based works such as painting and sculpture. It is often contrasted with "applied art" and "crafts" which are both traditionally seen as utilitarian activities.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 26, 2015)

She has nice art!


----------



## Gary A. (Mar 26, 2015)

Sure, a type of performance art. What she does hasn't any utilitarian purpose ... is it good art or bad art ... that is subjective.


----------



## limr (Mar 26, 2015)

I agree with a couple of points:
-Don't really care if others consider this art or not
-This has been done before. It's not original.
-No real discernible message other than "OMG, look at me, I'm nekkid!"

The message (which was clear only because she declared this to be the message) of the contrast between private and public is a very interesting one, but I think there are other ways to do this that would be more aesthetically interesting and more thought-provoking.

Honestly, I think this would be a more interesting project if she were not fit and attractive - it would be more controversial and provoke a lot more discussion. It might make for more interesting pictures as well as we see the range of reactions from people on the street as she's taking her pictures.


----------



## KenC (Mar 26, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> But here's the real question...who cares?
> I mean, why are we obsessed with deciding whether or not something is "art"? or someone is an "artist"?
> can we enjoy looking at something that isn't art? Or does something being aesthetically pleasing automatically make it art?



That's it right there ^^^.  Where does it get us to define and categorize art/not-art?


----------



## photoguy99 (Mar 26, 2015)

Whether it reads as "art" or not completely changes the social connotations of owning her book, of looking at her pictures. That's why it matters.


----------



## KenC (Mar 26, 2015)

Then I suppose it matters to some people, although I can't imagine why.


----------



## ronlane (Mar 26, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> She has some pretty good photos, and some less good ones (the taxi one is very nice indeed, for instance) but she doesn't seem to have any concept at all. The "naked people in ordinary situations" is a vein that's been mined out pretty thoroughly by more thoughtful people than her.



But these are "Selfies".


----------



## limr (Mar 26, 2015)

Changes the connotations for whom?


----------



## unpopular (Mar 26, 2015)

Not only is it art, but it's also tacky!


----------



## Gary A. (Mar 26, 2015)

limr said:


> ...
> Honestly, I think this would be a more interesting project if she were not fit and attractive - ...


Not for me ...


----------



## unpopular (Mar 26, 2015)

Forkie said:


> The term "fine art" refers to an art form practised mainly for its aesthetic value and its beauty ("art for art's sake") rather than its functional value.



Look who's stuck in the mid-20th century.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 26, 2015)

KenC said:


> Then I suppose it matters to some people, although I can't imagine why.


it is the o.p's question in the title. And i imagine she is trying to sell this book off as art so she begs the question herself. To each their own, i just don't see art here. Doesn't mean it isn't. I just don't personally see it.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 26, 2015)

Is it art?  It is if she says it is, because she's created it.  Whether anyone else likes it, or agrees with her is really irrelevant.  That said, I don't find these even vaguely interesting.  IMO, while the concept is a potentially good one, the failing point of the series is that they all appear to have had virtually no effort put into them, and the whole concept relies on the fact that she's an attractive, fit, young lady.  I suspect if I were to produce exactly the same series of images with my fat, saggy old ass in them, there would considerably fewer hits on that page.


----------



## unpopular (Mar 26, 2015)

I think a more interesting question is if it is photography. To me this seems more like performance.


----------



## limr (Mar 26, 2015)

tirediron said:


> Is it art?  It is if she says it is, because she's created it.  Whether anyone else likes it, or agrees with her is really irrelevant.  That said, I don't find these even vaguely interesting.  IMO, while the concept is a potentially good one, the failing point of the series is that they all appear to have had virtually no effort put into them, and the whole concept relies on the fact that she's an attractive, fit, young lady.  *I suspect if I were to produce exactly the same series of images with my fat, saggy old ass in them, there would considerably fewer hits on that page.*



Yes, you're probably right - and that is not a commentary on your saggy old ass, but rather on the society that is viewing your saggy old ass. Plus, I just like typing saggy old ass 

But ultimately, it would make for a more interesting social commentary. For me, these pictures are not about shock or social commentary, but about titillation.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 26, 2015)

limr said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Is it art?  It is if she says it is, because she's created it.  Whether anyone else likes it, or agrees with her is really irrelevant.  That said, I don't find these even vaguely interesting.  IMO, while the concept is a potentially good one, the failing point of the series is that they all appear to have had virtually no effort put into them, and the whole concept relies on the fact that she's an attractive, fit, young lady.  *I suspect if I were to produce exactly the same series of images with my fat, saggy old ass in them, there would considerably fewer hits on that page.*
> ...



heh heh heh heh

you said "tit"


----------



## tirediron (Mar 26, 2015)

limr said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Is it art?  It is if she says it is, because she's created it.  Whether anyone else likes it, or agrees with her is really irrelevant.  That said, I don't find these even vaguely interesting.  IMO, while the concept is a potentially good one, the failing point of the series is that they all appear to have had virtually no effort put into them, and the whole concept relies on the fact that she's an attractive, fit, young lady.  *I suspect if I were to produce exactly the same series of images with my fat, saggy old ass in them, there would considerably fewer hits on that page.*
> ...


   Lenny said ' titillation'  *giggle*

So what would the more interesting social commentary be if it were me?


----------



## JacaRanda (Mar 26, 2015)

I must be a simpleton. 

It does not take very long to read through a couple of Art vs Not Art posts to know that I give meaning to the thing I am looking at, words I read or hear, music I hear... No matter what the intent of the sender is.  Nice when I receive and understand what they intended as they intended, but it does not always happen like that.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 26, 2015)

The real question is. Would you date her? Let us be honest. She is a nice looking woman. But the embarrassment and annoyance  of being with someone in public that randomly strips and takes selfies may not be worth the headache.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 26, 2015)

bribrius said:


> The real question is. Would you date her? Let us be honest. She is a nice looking woman. But the embarrassment and annoyance  of being with someone in public that randomly strips and takes selfies may not be worth the headache.



Hells yes!
free spirited, uninhibited women have always been my bread and butter. 
thats why I married one.


----------



## limr (Mar 26, 2015)

tirediron said:


> Lenny said ' titillation'  *giggle*
> 
> So what would the more interesting social commentary be if it were me?



The reaction to an attractive young woman who is nude in public is so predictable it's practically a cliche. The reaction to an older man doing the same thing might provoke a wider range of reactions and it could inspire an interesting dialogue on, for example: how accepting we are or aren't of nudity; how accepting (or not) have we become of bodies outside the norm of 'beauty;' how our reactions change when it's a man and not a woman (or an older person rather than a younger person) and if these reactions are rooted in deep-seated stereotypes and prejudices; how many people are willing to go along and be seen along with the nude subject.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 26, 2015)

Fair enough.


----------



## JacaRanda (Mar 26, 2015)

There seems to be a consensus that she is attractive.  How in the world does that happen in this world / forum of disagreements?


----------



## bribrius (Mar 26, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> There seems to be a consensus that she is attractive.  How in the world does that happen in this world / forum of disagreements?


As photographers it is our job to be able to recognize beauty and study each attribute of our subjects from a professional and artistic standpoint. Some of us probably would like to study this subject further.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 26, 2015)

bribrius said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > There seems to be a consensus that she is attractive.  How in the world does that happen in this world / forum of disagreements?
> ...



therein lies the problem with modern society.
"experts" sitting atop their perch, looking down upon the  masses and deciding what is "beautiful" and what is not.
It has permeated magazines, television..pretty much everything. You only have to look at a magazine rack or tv commercial to see.  Then we wonder why our children have self esteem issues when they don't look like the Photoshopped models that they are told are the "standard" of beauty.
Heck, even what society considers the "standard" in beauty has changed over the years.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 26, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > JacaRanda said:
> ...


boy didn't you just jump up to the high road. LOL!!


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 26, 2015)

bribrius said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



I figured you needed the company.  =)


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 26, 2015)

This has always baffled me about popular photography. If you go to Fstoppers.com, and look at the list of popular photos, 90% are of half-naked, thin, often light-skinned women. These photos also get rave comments about their artistry. 

Now there's nothing wrong with enjoying a photo of a beautiful women, but at the same time, I don't understand why people are enamored with it...

"This photo is amazing! 10/10"

You mean her breasts are amazing. Everything else about the photo is generic or cliche.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 26, 2015)

I dont mean to imply that there are problems with being beautiful, even by modern standards, but....
when you have to take an 11 year old girl to the hospital because she cut herself so deep it cut her tendons because she thought she was "too fat" to ever be liked by anyone....it really changes your perspective. 
an 11 year old...clinically depressed and suicidal. ELEVEN. that girl shouldn't have had a care in the  world. instead, she wants to die because she cant look like the women in magazines or television. 
like it or not, the bar  has been raised, and its far too high for a game of limbo.


----------



## JoeW (Mar 26, 2015)

Yes, it's art.  It's best evaluated as a series rather than individual photos.  Some particularly good art is to have something atypical or out-of-place in a setting.  Dali took it to extreme (where everything didn't fit).  But she takes a cliche (a store employee dressing a dummy in the store window and twists it by making the employee nude (and the dummy clothed).  Or has someone matter-of-factly on the subway nude.  Or hanging out on the street corner with the rest of the gang (but she's the only one nude).  If you've ever taken a picture that focused on a color or pattern that stood out jarringly from the surroundings, you've done something similar.  And yes, it's more popular b/c she's young and attractive.  But it could just as easily be done with older or obese individuals...imagine an obese woman doing the NY runway during fashion week.  Or an old geezer with a cane dressed as a chippendale.  Is this really NEW stuff?  No--it's a variation on what some others have done.  Is it brilliantly posed?  No--I don't think there's the attention to detail it calls for, she's just taking a concept and shooting it rather than using settings and props that would further the concept (for instance, the subway shot...she's nude...imagine if in the same shot you had two guys starting at the chest of a clothed but attractive woman on the other side of the isle.  Or her pose with the rest of the gang on the street...they could have all been whistling, harassing, and making gestures at an attractive woman walking by who is trying to ignore them.  The homeless shot would have been far more effective if you have 3-4 guys in suits walking by as if she doesn't exist...making the point of here's an incredibly attractive nude woman but the homeless are invisible to people so they don't notice her).  But yeah, it's art, just not brilliant art or technically impressive art or ground-breaking art.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 26, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> I dont mean to imply that there are problems with being beautiful, even by modern standards, but....
> when you have to take an 11 year old girl to the hospital because she cut herself so deep it cut her tendons because she thought she was "too fat" to ever be liked by anyone....it really changes your perspective.
> an 11 year old...clinically depressed and suicidal. ELEVEN. that girl shouldn't have had a care in the  world. instead, she wants to die because she cant look like the women in magazines or television.
> like it or not, the bar  has been raised, and its far too high for a game of limbo.


sounds like you have a lot on your mind. Troublesome. People are naturally attracted to beautiful people.  It long since spread to the commercialization of beauty for advertising and consumer sales. And on a immediate level, most of us shooting photos non pro look for pleasing things to look at and photography. We choose the prettiest flower, the prettiest butterfly, the prettiest person. As having something more pleasing to the eye is natural inclination. I don't have the answers. But it does seem you have a lot on your mind. Sorry.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 26, 2015)

JoeW said:


> ...The homeless shot would have been far more effective *if you have 3-4 guys in suits walking by as if she doesn't exist..*.making the point of here's an incredibly attractive nude woman but the homeless are invisible to people so they don't notice her).  But yeah, it's art, just not brilliant art or technically impressive art or ground-breaking art.


That's the bit....  I couldn't figure it out for myself, but Joe nailed; this is the (IMO) critical, missing element that would have made these 'real' art!


----------



## bribrius (Mar 26, 2015)

JoeW said:


> Yes, it's art.  It's best evaluated as a series rather than individual photos.  Some particularly good art is to have something atypical or out-of-place in a setting.  Dali took it to extreme (where everything didn't fit).  But she takes a cliche (a store employee dressing a dummy in the store window and twists it by making the employee nude (and the dummy clothed).  Or has someone matter-of-factly on the subway nude.  Or hanging out on the street corner with the rest of the gang (but she's the only one nude).  If you've ever taken a picture that focused on a color or pattern that stood out jarringly from the surroundings, you've done something similar.  And yes, it's more popular b/c she's young and attractive.  But it could just as easily be done with older or obese individuals...imagine an obese woman doing the NY runway during fashion week.  Or an old geezer with a cane dressed as a chippendale.  Is this really NEW stuff?  No--it's a variation on what some others have done.  Is it brilliantly posed?  No--I don't think there's the attention to detail it calls for, she's just taking a concept and shooting it rather than using settings and props that would further the concept (for instance, the subway shot...she's nude...imagine if in the same shot you had two guys starting at the chest of a clothed but attractive woman on the other side of the isle.  Or her pose with the rest of the gang on the street...they could have all been whistling, harassing, and making gestures at an attractive woman walking by who is trying to ignore them.  The homeless shot would have been far more effective if you have 3-4 guys in suits walking by as if she doesn't exist...making the point of here's an incredibly attractive nude woman but the homeless are invisible to people so they don't notice her).  But yeah, it's art, just not brilliant art or technically impressive art or ground-breaking art.


excellent points and very insighful. She could have done much more with this than what she did. So it falls short imo.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 26, 2015)




----------



## bribrius (Mar 26, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> View attachment 97722


well it is a tough topic. we were raised very religious but very secular and liberal. In dealing with cases of vanity such as a serious infraction of a dress being to short on sunday we dragged them out into the woods and burned them for a witch, stoned them to death or gathered large stones for the piling ceremony. It did seem to curb the appeal of vanity but such things almost never happened and were rare occurrences. As i said we were fairly liberal. Those days are gone now with societal changes, but also quite frankly such activities as gathering wood were a lot of work and stones aren't always light so it hardly ever seemed a worthy endeavor.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 26, 2015)

There is an implication that there is a consensus on what is beautiful. While certain aspects have been shown to contribute to human attraction (symmetry being one), culturally, it's so broad that the assertion is almost pointless. 

The Greeks thought roundness and "curviness" were the pinnacles of female attractiveness. It was a sign of fertility, status, wealth, and health. 

That's why I sometimes have to ask myself, when evaluating a photo: "Am I judging this photo on the quality of the aesthetics and conceptual execution? Or am I putting too much weight on who or what the subject is..."


----------



## bribrius (Mar 26, 2015)

rexbobcat said:


> There is an implication that there is a consensus on what is beautiful. While certain aspects have been shown to contribute to human attraction (symmetry being one), culturally, it's so broad that the assertion is almost pointless.
> 
> The Greeks thought roundness and "curviness" were the pinnacles of female attractiveness. It was a sign of fertility, status, wealth, and health.
> 
> That's why I sometimes have to ask myself, when evaluating a photo: "Am I judging this photo on the quality of the aesthetics and conceptual execution? Or am I putting too much weight on who or what the subject is..."


That is a good question to ask. part of my own basis for such things was looking through earlier works (of nudes as well) photos and paintings. The subjects seemed less apparently sexual in most of those imo, as we see them portrayed now. Also the bodies, as you mentioned, much different in most cases. however the works themselves seem to stand on their own. Which says a lot. Course part of that was also for "shock" it is just as that it is much harder to "shock" now.


----------



## weepete (Mar 26, 2015)

The only one that I think has any merit at all is the "Need $$ for new wardrobe". I think you could qualify that one as worthy of consideration as art. I have my doubts about how intentional the messages are that I get from it though. The rest are just gimick with no substance.


----------



## qleak (Mar 26, 2015)

rexbobcat said:


> There is an implication that there is a consensus on what is beautiful. While certain aspects have been shown to contribute to human attraction (symmetry being one), culturally, it's so broad that the assertion is almost pointless.
> 
> The Greeks thought roundness and "curviness" were the pinnacles of female attractiveness. It was a sign of fertility, status, wealth, and health.
> 
> That's why I sometimes have to ask myself, when evaluating a photo: "Am I judging this photo on the quality of the aesthetics and conceptual execution? Or am I putting too much weight on who or what the subject is..."



Why does art have to do with beauty? Sometimes an emotional response to discord and ugliness is just as valid of a statement.


----------



## JacaRanda (Mar 26, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > JacaRanda said:
> ...


 
Man, I really (dig) on most things about the 60's but they missed on the body type.  I may have to toss out my last dashikis and afro pick with the peace sign.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 26, 2015)

I watched the video and thought whoever chose the model for the "goldern Era of Hollywood" idealized body type was utterly full of crap....no WAY the actresses were anywhere near that chunky and pudgy...somebody seriously needed to have done some actual research on the Hollywood actresses of the Golden Era...their body weights were 25 to 30 pounds below that woman, who's at about 170 pounds and very doughy...
seriously....not even close at all.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 26, 2015)

I think the issue with the video is that it's most likely produced by a bunch of 25-year-olds.

So it's basically looking at the past through rose-colored glasses while subtly taking a stab at contemporary ideals, because, well, you have to have something simple to rail against.

We live in the age of sexy, sexy hyperbole.


----------



## deeky (Mar 26, 2015)

Anyone notice that this off-site link is the first and only post by the OP?

I think the best work of art here was when the OP cut off a slice of SPAM and cooked it up so pretty that none of us has been able to stay away.


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 26, 2015)

weepete said:


> The only one that I think has any merit at all is the "Need $$ for new wardrobe". I think you could qualify that one as worthy of consideration as art. I have my doubts about how intentional the messages are that I get from it though. The rest are just gimick with no substance.


I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar shot in a David LaChapelle photo book.


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 26, 2015)

deeky said:


> Anyone notice that this off-site link is the first and only post by the OP?
> 
> I think the best work of art here was when the OP cut off a slice of SPAM and cooked it up so pretty that none of us has been able to stay away.


Who cares? It still makes for a good discussion. Just because it's their first post does not automatically mean they're spamming the forum either.


----------



## pgriz (Mar 27, 2015)

Frankly, if I could get a 5-page (and counting) response to a single post on a forum, I'd say "score!".

Nobody gets tired of looking at attractive people.  That's just the way we're wired.  Is it art?  That's the perpetual debate, and there's no resolution.  However, the button labelled "naked" is pretty large in our society, and all kinds of bells and noisemakers go off when that button is pressed.  Which was the intent behind these, I think.


----------



## deeky (Mar 27, 2015)

DanOstergren said:


> Who cares? It still makes for a good discussion.



Actually, I agree.  There has been some very civil, thoughtful conversation on the topic.  I think PGriz got my sentiment.  There are a lot of posts here that get barely a response and this one is on page 5.  I'll wait to see if the OP comes back for more discussion or more links....


----------



## swat9uk (Apr 1, 2015)

funny, but wonder what the camera specs are,  im always amazed these days by what they call art, it get stranger every day


----------



## pgriz (Apr 1, 2015)

swat9uk said:


> funny, but wonder what the camera specs are,  im always amazed these days by what they call art, it get stranger every day



Don't know what the camera specs have to do with this discussion.  As for "art", it's the nature of it that artists are encouraged and expected to produce something "new" and "original" and "fresh" so all kinds of stuff gets tried.  Much of that experimentation doesn't catch on with either the arts crowd or the general public.  Some does, and becomes the new wave.  Those who work and produce art in the same manner as what has been done before will be called "imitative", "uninspired", "tired", "cliché", etc.  

Even on this forum, we get a fair amount of discussion about stuff that either is similar to existing forms and expressions, and stuff that veers into unfamiliar territory.  How many times have we seen someone's beautiful sunset landscape be labelled "just another sunset".  And then, we have people like Cris Crossley (@binga63 ) who produces amazing work by combining photography with digital manipulation.

Returning to the OP, the presentation of nudity in unexpected settings CAN be considered "art" in that it challenges our ideas of what is acceptable, but because the subject is an attractive woman, it's hard not to get the other bunch of buttons pressed, which have less to do with art and more with voyeurism.  If the subject was a person (either sex) of average build, the question of nudity in public places would still be there, but with less of the leering aspect.  And because of that, it would have been less interesting to the general public.


----------

