Posted by on Mar 22, 2013 in Blog | 3 comments

There is an unwrit­ten rule that the depic­tion of sex­u­al organs in the pho­tographs is pornog­ra­phy. Where is that fine line between art nude and pornog­ra­phy? If the gen­i­tals are shown in the pho­to­graph in the whole or if any part is shown is that pornog­ra­phy? What if sex­u­al organs are shown in fine art pho­tog­ra­phy, but it is done with style?

There are many high­ly rec­og­nized pho­tog­ra­phers who have danced on this thin edge. As the famous Sal­ly Mann who took pic­tures of her naked chil­dren and whose pho­tographs often explic­it­ly shows sex­u­al organs. Even though the con­tro­ver­sy about her work was intense, includ­ing accu­sa­tions of child pornog­ra­phy, her pho­tos were reach­ing huge prices.

Some of her work is shown here: Sal­ly Mann

My per­son­al opin­ion as a pho­tog­ra­ph­er is that if sex­u­al organs are dis­played in nude pho­tog­ra­phy but if it is done with style that for me is not porn. I per­son­al­ly don’t mind see­ing gen­i­tals on pho­tos if the pho­to is done with a touch of art. This pho­to below is one of my pho­tos that I per­son­al­ly quite like but there was con­tro­ver­sy around it.

What is your opin­ion?

 perls-post

Com­ments

com­ments